More stories

  • in

    Seed choice in ground beetles is driven by surface-derived hydrocarbons

    Bengtsson, J. Biological control as an ecosystem service: partitioning contributions of nature and human inputs to yield. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 45–44 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zalucki, M., Furlong, M. J., Schellhorn, N. A., Macfadyen, S. & Davies, A. P. Assessing the impact of natural enemies in agroecosystems: toward “real” IPM or in quest of Holy Grail? Insect. Sci. 22, 1–5 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Lenteren, J. C., Bolckmans, K., Kohl, J., Ravensberg, W. J. & Urabaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 63, 39–59 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Symondson, W. O. C., Sunderland, K. D. & Greenstone, M. H. Can generalist predators be effective biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47, 561–594 (2002).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H. & Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B. 273, 1715–1727 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Nouhuys, S., Niemikapee, S. & Hanski, I. Variation in a host-parasitoid interaction across independent populations. Insects 3, 1236–1256 (2012).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hedlund, K., Vet, L. E. M. & Dicke, M. Generalist and specialist parasitoid strategies of using odours of adult drosophilid flies when searching for larval hosts. Oikos 77, 390–398 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Evans, E. W., Stevenson, A. T. & Richards, D. R. Essential versus alternative foods of insect predators: benefits of a mixed diet. Oelcologia 121, 107–112 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lovei, G. L. & Sunderland, K. M. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 231–256 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kromp, B. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric. Ecosyt. Environ. 74, 187–228 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tuf, H., Dedek, P. & Vesley, M. Does the diurnal activity pattern of carabid beetles depend on season, ground temperature, or habitat? Arch. Biol. Sci. 64, 721–732 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Firlej, A., Doyon, J., Harwood, J. D. & Brodeur, J. A multi-approach study to delineate interaction between carabid beetles and soybean aphids. Environ. Entomol. 42, 89–96 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clark, M. S., Luna, J. M., Stone, N. D. & Youngman, R. R. Generalist predator consumption of armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and effect of predator removal and damage in no-till corn. Environ. Entomol. 23, 617–622 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Floate, K. D., Doane, J. F. & Gillot, C. Carabid predators of the wheat midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Saskatchewan. Environ. Entomol. 19, 1503–1511 (1990).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barsics, F., Haubruge, E. & Verheggen, F. J. Wireworms’ management: an overview of the existing methods, with particular regards to Agriotis spp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Insects 4, 117–152 (2013).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oberholzer, F., Escher, N. & Frank, T. The potential of carabid beetles (Coleoptera) to reduce slug damage to oilseed rape in the laboratory. Eur. J. Entomol. 100, 81–85 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Honek, A., Martinkova, Z. & Jarosik, V. Ground beetles Carabidae as seed predators. Eur. J. Entomol. 100, 531–544 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lundgren, J. G. Relationship of Natural Enemies and Non-prey Foods 1–460 (Springer, 2009).Carbonne, B. et al. The resilience of weed seedbank regulation by carabid beetles, at continental scales, to alternative prey. Sci. Rep. 10, 1935 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wilder, S. M., Norris, M., Lee, R. W., Raubenheimer, D. & Simpson, S. J. Arthropod food webs become increasingly lipid-limited at higher trophic levels. Ecol. Lett. 16, 895–902 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Denno, R. F. & Fagan, W. F. Might nitrogen limitation promote omnivory among carnivorous arthropods? Ecology 84, 2522–2531 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saska, P. & Jarosik, V. Laboratory study of larval food requirements in nine species of Amara (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Plant Prot. 37, 103–110 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    Saska, P., Van der Werf, W. & Westerman, P. Spatial and temporal patterns of carabid activity-density in cereals do not explain levels of weed seed predation. Bull. Entomological Res. 98, 169–181 (2008).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Talarico, F., Giglio, A., Pizzolotto, R. & Brandmayr, P. P. A synthesis of the feeding habits and reproductive rhythms in Italian seed feeding ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 113, 325–336 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fawki, S., Bak, S. S. & Toft, S. Food preference and food value for the carabid beetles Pterostichus melanarius, P. versicolor, and Carabus nemoralis. Eur. Carabidol. 114, 99–109 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Frei, B., Guenay, Y., Bohan, B. A., Traugett, M. & Wallinger, C. Molecular analysis indicates high levels of carabid weed seed consumption in cereal fields across central Europe. J. Plant Sci. 92, 935–942 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. Brassicaceous weed seed predation by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Weed. Sci. 64, 294–302 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saska, P., Honek, A., Foffova, H. & Martinkova, Z. Burial-induced changes in the seed preferences of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 116, 113–140 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Saska, P., Honek, A. & Martinkova, Z. Preference of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) for herbaceous seeds. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 65, 57–76 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sih, A. & Christensen, B. Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim. Behav. 61, 379–390 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barron, A. B., Gurney, K. N., Meah, L. F. S., Vasilaki, E. & Marshall, J. A. R. Decision-making and action selection in insects: inspiration from vertebrate-based theories. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9, 216 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. C. J. The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: a review. Weed. Sci. 63, 355–376 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. Seed detection and discrimination by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) are associated with olfactory cues. PLoS One 12, e0170593 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Law, J. J. & Gallagher, R. S. The role of imbibition on seed selection by Harpalus pensylvanicus. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 87, 118–124 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Davis, A. S., Schutte, B. J., Iannuzzi, J. & Renner, K. A. Chemical and physical defenses of weed seeds in relation to soil seedbank persistence. Weed Sci. 56, 676–684 (2008).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ali, K. A. & Willneborg., C. J. C. J. The biology of seed discrimination and its role in shaping the foraging ecology of carabids: a review. Ecol. Evol. 11, 13702–13722 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wheater, C. P. Prey detection by some predatory Coleoptera (Carabidae and Staphylinidae). J. Zool. 215, 171–185 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mundy, C. A., Aleen-Williams, L. J., Underwood, N. & Warrington, S. Prey selection and foraging behavior by Pterostichus cupreus L. (Col., Carabidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Appl. Entomol. 124, 349–358 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kielty, J. P., Allen-Williams, L. J., Underwood, N. & Eastwood, E. A. Behavioral responses of three species of ground beetles (Carabidae: Coloeptera) to olfactory cues associated with prey and habitat. J. Insect. Behav. 9, 237–249 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tréfás, H., Canning, H., McKinlay, R. G., Armstrong, G. & Bujaki, G. Preliminary experiments on the olfactory responses of Pterostichus melanarius Illiger (Coleoptera:Carabidae) to intact plants. Agric. Entomol. 3, 71–76 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McKemey, A. R., Symondson, W. O. C. & Glen, D. M. Predation and prey size choice by the carabid Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the dangers of extrapolating from laboratory to field. Bull. Entomol. Res. 93, 227–234 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, R. S., Glen, D. M. & Symondson, W. O. C. Prey detection through olfaction by the soil-dwelling larvae of the carabid predator Pterostichus melanarius. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 207–216 (2008).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Talarico, F. et al. Electrophysiological and behavioral analyses on prey selecting in the myrmecophagous carabid beetle Siagona europaea Dejean 1826 (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Etho. Ecol. Evol. 22, 375–384 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R. & Barrales, G. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 721–730 (1991).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oster, M., Smith, L., Beck, J. J., Howard, A. & Field, C. B. Orientational behavior of predaceous ground beetle species in response to volatile emissions identified from yellow starthistle damaged by an invasive slug. Arthropod-Plant. Inte. 8, 429–437 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Srinivasan, M. V., Poteser, M. & Karl, K. Motion detection in insect orientation and navigation. Vis. Res. 39, 2749–2766 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sato, K. & Touhara, K. Insect olfaction: receptors, signal transduction, and behavior. Cell 47, 121–138 (2009).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Leal, W. S. Odorant reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 58, 373–391 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schmidt, H. R. & Benton, R. Molecular mechanisms of olfactory detection in insects: beyond receptors. Open Biol. 10, 200252 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prokopy, R. J. & Owens, E. D. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 28, 337–364 (1983).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ploomi, A. et al. Antennal sensilla in ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Agron. Res. 1, 221–228 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Merivee, E. et al. Electrophysiological responses from neurons of antennal taste sensilla in the polyphagous predatory ground beetle Pterostichus oblongopunctatus (Fabricius 1787) to plant sugars and amin acids. J. Insect. Physiol. 54, 1213–1219 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Merivee, E., Ploomi, A., Luik, A., Rahi, M. & Smmelselg, V. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Platynus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763) (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Micros. Res. Tech. 55, 339–349 (2001).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Merivee, E. et al. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Bembidion properans Steph. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Micron 33, 429–440 (2002).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Giglio, A., Perotta, E., Talarico, F., Brandmayr, T. E. & Ferrera, E. A. Sensilla on the maxillary and labial palps in a helicophagous ground beetle larva (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Acta Zool. 200, 1463–6393 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    Van Naters, W. V. D. G. & Carlson, J. R. J. R. Receptors and neurons for fly odors in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 17, 606–612 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Amrein, H. & Throne, N. Gustatory perception and behavior in Dropsophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 15, R673–R684 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Su, C. Y., Menuz, K. & Carlson, J. R. Olfactory perception: receptors, cells, and circuits. Cell 139, 45–59 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krieger, J. & Breer, H. Olfactory receptors in invertebrates. Science 286, 720–723 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chapman, R. F. The Insects: Structure and Function 4th edn, 1–584 (Cambridge University Press, 1998).Bhandari, S. R., Jo, J. S. & Lee, J. G. Comparisons of glucosinolate profiles in different tissues of nine Brassica crops. Molecules 20, 15827–15841 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reifenrath, K., Riederer, M. & Muller, M. Leaf surface wax layers of Brassicaceae lack feeding stimulants for Phaedon cochleariae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 115, 41–50 (2005).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stadler, E. & Reifenrath, K. Glucosinolates on the leaf surface perceived by insect herbivores: review of ambiguous results and new investigations. Phytoch. Rev. 8, 207–225 (2009).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sharma, A., Sandhi, R. K. & Reddy, G. V. P. A review of interactions between insect biological control agents and semiochemicals. Insects 10, 439 (2019).PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Warwick, S. I., Francis, A. & Susko, D. J. The biology of Canadian weeds. 9. Thlaspi arvense L. (updated). Can. J. Plant. Sci. 82, 803–823 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moyna, P. & Garcia, M. Chemical composition of oat seed epicuticular lipids. J. Sci. Food Agric. 34, 209–211 (1983).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kunst, L. & Samuels, A. L. Biosynthesis and secretion of plant cuticular wax. Prog. Lipid Res. 42, 51–80 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eigenbrode, S. D. & Espelie, K. E. Effects of plants epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40, 171–194 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Finch, S. Volatile plant chemicals and their effect on host plant by the cabbage root fly (Delia brassicae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24, 350–359 (1978).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Udayagiri, S. & Mason, C. E. Epicuticular wax chemicals in Zea mays influence oviposition in Ostrinia nubilalis. J. Chem. Ecol. 23, 1675–1687 (1997).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Adati, T. & Matsuda, K. The effect of leaf surface wax on feeding of the strawberry leaf beetle, Galerucella vittaticollis, with reference to host plant preference. Tohoku. J. Agric. Res. 50, 57–61 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Damon, S. J., Groves, R. L. & Harvey, M. J. Variation for epicuticular waxes on onion foliage and impacts on numbers of onion thrips. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 139, 495–501 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Braccini, C. L., Vega, A. S., Chludil, H. D., Leicach, S. R. & Fernandez, P. C. Host selection, oviposition behavior and leaf traits in a specialist willow sawfly on species of Salix (Salicaceae). Ecol. Entomol. 38, 617–626 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wojcicka, A. Effects of epicuticular waxes from triticale on the feeding behaviour and mortality of the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Plant. Prot. Res. 56, 39–44 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Medina, E. et al. Taxonomic significance of the epicuticular wax composition in species of genus Clusia from Panama. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 34, 319–326 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schulz-Bohm, K., Martin-Sanchez, L. & Garbeva, P. Microbial volatiles: small molecules with an inter-kingdom interactions. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2484 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ali, K. A. Mechanisms of Seed Discrimination and Selective Seed Foraging in Carabid Weed Seed Predators. https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/13815/ALI-DISSERTATION-2022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (2022).Webster, B., Qvarfordt, E., Olsson, U. & Glinwood, R. Different roles for innate and learnt behavioral responses to odors in insect host location. Behav. Ecol. 24, 366–372 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Luff, M. L. Adult and larval feeding habits of Pterostichus madidus (F.) (Carabidae: Coleoptera). J. Nat. Hist. 8, 403–409 (1974).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Blubaugh, C. K. & Kaplan, I. Invertebrate seed predators reduce weed emergence following seed rain. Weed Sci. 64, 80–86 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Blubaugh, C. K., Hagler, J. R., Machtley, S. A. & Kaplan, I. Cover crops increase foraging activity of omnivorous predators in seed patches and facilitate weed biological control. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 231, 264–270 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Foffova, H. et al. Which seed properties determine the preferences of carabid beetles seed predators? Insects 11, 757 (2020).Petit, S., Boursault, A. & Bohan, D. A. Weed seed choice by carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): linking field measurements and laboratory diet assessments. Eur. J. Entomol. 111, 615–620 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carbonne, B. et al. Direct and indirect effects of landscape and field management intensity on carabids through trophic resources and weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 176–187 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Foffova, H., Bohan, D. A. & Saska, P. Do properties and species of weed seeds affect their consumption by carabid beetles? Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 66, 37–48 (2020b).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    De Heij, S. E. & Willenborg, C. J. Connected carabids: network interactions and their impact on biocontrol by carabid beetles. Bioscience 70, 90–500 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Honek, A., Martinkova, Z., Saska, P. & Pekar, S. Size and taxonomic constraints determine seed preference of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Basic Appl. Ecol. 8, 343–353 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Spence, J. R. & Niemela, J. K. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can. Entomol. 126, 881–884 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lindroth, C. H. The Ground Beetles (Carabidae, excluding Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Supplement 20, 24, 29, 33, 34, 35. Part I, pages I–XLVIII, 1969. Part II, pages 1–200, 1961. Part III, pages 201–408, 1963. Part IV, pages 409–648, 1966. Part V, pages 649–944, 1968. Part VI, pages 945–1192 (Opusca Entomology, 1961–1969).White, S. S., Renner, K. A., Menalled, F. D. & Landis, D. A. Feeding preferences of weed seed predators and effect on weed emergence. Weed. Sci. 55, 606–612 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Glinwood, R., Ahmed, E., Ovarfordt, E. & Ninkovic, V. Olfactory learning of plant genotypes by a polyphagous predator. Oecologia 166, 637–647 (2011).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sablon, L., Dickens, J. C., Haubruge, E. H. & Verhggen., F. J. Chemical ecology of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and potential for alternative control methods. Insects 4, 31–54 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, L., Li, H. & Zhang, L. Two olfactory pathways to detect aldehydes on locust mouthpart. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 13, 759–771 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pekar, S. & Hruskova, M. M. How granivorous Coreus marginatus (Hemiptera: Cereidae) recognizes its food. Acta Ethol. 9, 26–30 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ardenghi, N., Mulch, A., Pross, J. & Niedermeyer, E. M. Leaf wax n-alkane extraction: an optimized procedure. Org. Geochem. 113, 283–292 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Takahashi, S. & Gassa, A. Roles of cuticular hydrocarbons in intra- and interspecific recognition behavior of two Rhinotermitidae species. J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 1837–1845 (1995).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    Nobre, J. S. & Singer, J. D. M. Residual analysis for linear mixed models. Biom. J. 49, 863–875 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schielzeth, H. et al. Robustness of linear mixed-effects models to violations of distributional assumptions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1141–1152 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Mapping peat thickness and carbon stocks of the central Congo Basin using field data

    Field-data collectionFieldwork was conducted in DRC between January 2018 and March 2020. Ten transects (4–11 km long) were installed, identical to the approach in ref. 9, in locations that were highly likely to be peatland. These were selected to help test hypotheses about the role of vegetation, surface wetness, nutrient status and topography in peat accumulation (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1). A further eight transects (0.5–3 km long) were installed to assess our peat mapping capabilities (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1).Every 250 m along each transect, land cover was classified as one of six classes: water, savannah, terra firme forest, non-peat-forming seasonally inundated forest, hardwood-dominated peat swamp forest or palm-dominated peat swamp forest. Peat swamp forest was classified as palm dominated when >50% of the canopy, estimated by eye, was palms (commonly Raphia laurentii or Raphia sese). In addition, several ground-truth points were collected at locations in the vicinity of each transect from the clearly identifiable land-cover classes water, savannah and terra firme forest.Peat presence/absence was recorded every 250 m along all transects, and peat thickness (if present) was measured by inserting metal poles into the ground until the poles were prevented from going any further by the underlying mineral layer, identical to the pole method of ref. 9. In addition, a core of the full peat profile was extracted every kilometre along the ten hypothesis-testing transects, if peat was present, with a Russian-type corer (52 mm stainless steel Eijkelkamp model); these 63 cores were sealed in plastic for laboratory analysis.Peat-thickness laboratory measurementsPeat was defined as having an organic matter (OM) content of ≥65% and a thickness of ≥0.3 m (sensu ref. 9). Therefore, down-core OM content of all 63 cores was analysed to measure peat thickness. The organic matter content of each 0.1-m-thick peat sample was estimated via loss on ignition (LOI), whereby samples were heated at 550 °C for 4 h. The mass fraction lost after heating was used as an estimate of total OM content (% of mass). Peat thickness was defined as the deepest 0.1 m with OM ≥ 65%, after which there is a transition to mineral soil. Samples below this depth were excluded from further analysis. Rare mineral intrusions into the peat layer above this depth, where OM 4× the mean Cook’s distance were excluded as influential outliers. Mean pole-method offset was significantly higher along the DRC transects (0.94 m) than along those in ROC (0.48 m; P  More

  • in

    Farm size affects the use of agroecological practices on organic farms in the United States

    Wanger, T. C. et al. Integrating agroecological production in a robust post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1150–1152 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Amundson, R. et al. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 1261071 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Robertson, G. P. & Vitousek, P. M. Nitrogen in agriculture: balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 97–125 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Krebs, A. V. The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness (Essential Books, 1992).Mortensen, D. A. & Smith, R. G. Confronting barriers to cropping system diversification. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 564197 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2017 Census of Agriculture – 2019 Organic Survey (USDA NASS, 2020); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.phpFarms and Land in Farms 2019 Summary (USDA NASS, 2020); https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/5712m6524Reganold, J. P. & Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 15221 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Muller, A. et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8, 1290 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Lori, M., Symnaczik, S., Mäder, P., De Deyn, G. & Gattinger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity—a meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 12, e0180442 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Seufert, V. & Ramankutty, N. Many shades of gray—the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602638 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    USDA AMS. National Organic Program; Final Rule, 7 CFR Part 205. Fed. Regist. 65, 80547–80684 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tamburini, G. et al. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kleijn, D. et al. Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 154–166 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S. G. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 230–238 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kremen, C. & Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    Bowles, T. M. et al. Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wood, S. A. et al. Functional traits in agriculture: agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 531–539 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Faucon, M.-P., Houben, D. & Lambers, H. Plant functional traits: soil and ecosystem services. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 385–394 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    D’Hose, T. et al. The positive relationship between soil quality and crop production: a case study on the effect of farm compost application. Appl. Soil Ecol. 75, 189–198 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., Gunst, L. & Mäder, P. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 273–284 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Francioli, D. et al. Mineral vs. organic amendments: microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1446 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B. & Cambardella, C. A. Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: a US meta-analysis. Geoderma 369, 114335 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Blanco-Canqui, H. & Ruis, S. J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 326, 164–200 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Willekens, K., Vandecasteele, B., Buchan, D. & De Neve, S. Soil quality is positively affected by reduced tillage and compost in an intensive vegetable cropping system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 82, 61–71 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Albrecht, M. et al. The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1488–1498 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chaplin-Kramer, R., de Valpine, P., Mills, N. J. & Kremen, C. Detecting pest control services across spatial and temporal scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 181, 206–212 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Martin, E. A. et al. The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1083–1094 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Karp, D. S. et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E7863–E7870 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, X., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Dahlgren, R. A. & Eitzel, M. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 76–84 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eyhorn, F. et al. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2, 253–255 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Buck, D., Getz, C. & Guthman, J. From farm to table: the organic vegetable commodity chain of northern California. Sociol. Rural. 37, 3–20 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guthman, J. Raising organic: an agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California. Agric. Hum. Values 17, 257–266 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guthman, J. The trouble with ‘organic lite’ in California: a rejoinder to the ‘conventionalisation’ debate. Sociol. Rural. 44, 301–316 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R. & Zollitsch, W. Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 67–81 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Constance, D. H., Choi, J. Y. & Lyke-Ho-Gland, H. Conventionalization, bifurcation, and quality of life: certified and non-certified organic farmers in Texas. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 23, 208–234 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    2017 Census of Agriculture – United States Summary and State Data (USDA NASS, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php2017 Census of Agriculture: Characteristics of All Farms and Farms with Organic Sales (USDA NASS, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.phpPonisio, L. C. et al. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20141396 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 1–20 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D. & Paoletti, M. G. Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 95–124 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tittonell, P. et al. Agroecology in large scale farming—a research agenda. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 584605 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Haan, N. L., Zhang, Y. & Landis, D. A. Predicting landscape configuration effects on agricultural pest suppression. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 175–186 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Martin, E. A., Seo, B., Park, C.-R., Reineking, B. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Scale-dependent effects of landscape composition and configuration on natural enemy diversity, crop herbivory, and yields. Ecol. Appl. 26, 448–462 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 87, 661–685 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Olimpi, E. M. et al. Evolving food safety pressures in California’s central coast region. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 102 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Karp, D. S. et al. The unintended ecological and social impacts of food safety regulations in California’s central coast region. BioScience 65, 1173–1183 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bovay, J., Ferrier, P. & Zhen, C. Estimated Costs for Fruit and Vegetable Producers To Comply With the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Rule, EIB-195 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2018).Coombes, B. & Campbell, H. Dependent reproduction of alternative modes of agriculture: organic farming in New Zealand. Sociol. Rural. 38, 127–145 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J. & Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 94–110 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smith, E. & Marsden, T. Exploring the ‘limits to growth’ in UK organics: beyond the statistical image. J. Rural Stud. 20, 345–357 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Howard, P. H. Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat? (Bloomsbury, 2016).Arcuri, A. The transformation of organic regulation: the ambiguous effects of publicization. Regul. Gov. 9, 144–159 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Mayerhofer, T. What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy 68, 10–20 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guthman, J. in Alternative Food Politics: From the Margins to the Mainstream (eds. Phillipov, M. & Kirkwood, K.) 23–36 (Routledge, 2019).Jaffee, D. & Howard, P. H. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agric. Hum. Values 27, 387–399 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Campbell, H. & Rosin, C. After the ‘organic industrial complex’: an ontological expedition through commercial organic agriculture in New Zealand. J. Rural Stud. 27, 350–361 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lockie, S. & Halpin, D. The ‘conventionalisation’ thesis reconsidered: structural and ideological transformation of Australian organic agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 45, 284–307 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prokopy, L. S. et al. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 520–534 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pretty, J. et al. Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 441–446 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gliessman, S. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 187–189 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hill, S. B. Redesigning the food system for sustainability. Alternatives 12, 32–36 (1985).
    Google Scholar 
    Padel, S., Levidow, L. & Pearce, B. UK farmers’ transition pathways towards agroecological farm redesign: evaluating explanatory models. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44, 139–163 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Esquivel, K. E. et al. The ‘sweet spot’ in the middle: why do mid-scale farms adopt diversification practices at higher rates? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 734088 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brislen, L. Meeting in the middle: scaling-up and scaling-over in alternative food networks. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40, 105–113 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    De Master, K. New inquiries into the agri-cultures of the middle. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40, 130–135 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.7.4-1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2021).Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 70, 129–133 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krueger, J. I. & Heck, P. R. Putting the P-value in its place. Am. Stat. 73, 122–128 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L. & Lazar, N. A. Moving to a world beyond ‘p < 0.05’. Am. Stat. 73(Suppl. 1), 1–19 (2019).Article  Google Scholar  Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, 2013). More

  • in

    Wastewater is a robust proxy for monitoring circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants

    Our long-term surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria demonstrated that WBE alone yields a time-resolved map of the genetic dynamics during a pandemic. Yet one task of pathogenomic surveillance is to link genetic pathogen information with clinical manifestation and the immunological status of patients. WBE is limited in that regard since the available data are anonymized to start with. Nonetheless, WBE provides invaluable population-level guidance on epidemiological developments, which complements case-based surveillance and provides information for optimal resource allocation. This notion can also be transferred to a global perspective. WBE provides a tool to shed light on blind spots of pathogen surveillance in places and communities with poor healthcare accessibility. If carefully set up and used in respectful and coequal terms, WBE of infectious diseases could make an important contribution to global safety.To this end, several challenges must be overcome. Current WBE methods need to be expanded to other pathogens beyond SARS-CoV-2 and validated with case-based epidemiological data. Furthermore, current methods must be adapted and optimized to be applicable in locations without a centralized sewer infrastructure5. Finally, international sharing of wastewater-based pathogen sequencing data will be needed to unleash the full potential of WBE for global pathogen surveillance.We are confident that our study will support initiatives already working in these directions, as well as encouraging intensified efforts to exploit such population-level surveillance approaches in the global fight against infectious diseases.
    Fabian Amman
    1
    & Andreas Bergthaler
    2

    1
    CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

    2
    Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria More

  • in

    Social senescence in red deer

    Snyder-Mackler, N. et al. Science 368, eaax9553 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J. & Neyer, F. J. Psychol. Bull. 139, 53–80 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P. & Wardle, J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5797–5801 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Almeling, L., Hammerschmidt, K., Sennhenn-Reulen, H., Freund, A. M. & Fischer, J. Curr. Biol. 26, 1744–1749 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rosati, A. G. et al. Science 370, 473–476 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schino, G. & Pinzaglia, M. Am. J. Primatol. 80, e22746–e22747 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Machanda, Z. P. & Rosati, A. G. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190620 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kroeger, S. B., Blumstein, D. T. & Martin, J. G. A. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 376, 20190745 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Weiss, M. N. et al. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 288, 20210617 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Albery, G. F. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01817-9 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Siracusa, E. R., Higham, J. P., Snyder-Mackler, N. & Brent, L. J. N. Biol. Lett. 18, 20210643 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nussey, D. H., Coulson, T., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Gaillard, J. M. Funct. Ecol. 22, 393–406 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nussey, D. H., Froy, H., Lemaître, J.-F., Gaillard, J.-M. & Austad, S. N. Ageing Res. Rev. 12, 214–225 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Ageing red deer alter their spatial behaviour and become less social

    White, L. A., Forester, J. D. & Craft, M. E. Using contact networks to explore mechanisms of parasite transmission in wildlife. Biol. Rev. 92, 389–409 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silk, M. J. et al. Using social network measures in wildlife disease ecology, epidemiology, and management. Bioscience 67, 245–257 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Albery, G. F., Kirkpatrick, L., Firth, J. A. & Bansal, S. Unifying spatial and social network analysis in disease ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 1–17 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Evans, J. C., Silk, M. J., Boogert, N. J. & Hodgson, D. J. Infected or informed? Social structure and the simultaneous transmission of information and infectious disease. Oikos 129, 1271–1288 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aplin, L. M., Sheldon, B. C. & Morand-Ferron, J. Milk bottles revisited: social learning and individual variation in the blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus. Anim. Behav. 85, 1225–1232 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silk, J. B. The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 362, 539–559 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Snyder-Mackler, N. et al. Social determinants of health and survival in humans and other animals. Science 368, eaax9553 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Machanda, Z. P. & Rosati, A. G. Shifting sociality during primate ageing. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190620 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nussey, D. H., Coulson, T., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Gaillard, J. M. Measuring senescence in wild animal populations: towards a longitudinal approach. Funct. Ecol. 22, 393–406 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    van de Pol, M. & Verhulst, S. Age-dependent traits: a new statistical model to separate within- and between-individual effects. Am. Nat. 167, 766–773 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Froy, H. et al. Declining home range area predicts reduced late-life survival in two wild ungulate populations. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1001–1009 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rosati, A. G. et al. Social selectivity in aging wild chimpanzees. Science 370, 473–476 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kim, S.-Y., Torres, R., Rodriguez, C. & Drummond, H. Effects of breeding success, mate fidelity and senescence on breeding dispersal of male and female blue-footed boobies. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 471–479 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Webber, Q. M. R. & Vander Wal, E. An evolutionary framework outlining the integration of individual social and spatial ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 113–127 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Webber, Q. M. R. & Vander Wal, E. Trends and perspectives on the use of animal social network analysis in behavioural ecology: a bibliometric approach. Anim. Behav. 149, 77–87 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Siracusa, E. R., Higham, J. P., Snyder-mackler, N. & Brent, L. J. N. Social ageing: exploring the drivers of late-life changes in social behaviour in mammals. Biol. Lett. 18, 20210643 (2022).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Elliott, K. H. et al. Ageing gracefully: physiology but not behaviour declines with age in a diving seabird. Funct. Ecol. 29, 219–228 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aartsen, M. J., Van Tilburg, T., Smits, C. H. M. & Knipscheer, K. C. P. M. A longitudinal study of the impact of physical and cognitive decline on the personal network in old age. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 21, 249–266 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brent, L. J. N., Ruiz-Lambides, A. & Platt, M. L. Family network size and survival across the lifespan of female macaques. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170515 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Turner, J. W., Robitaille, A. L., Bills, P. S. & Holekamp, K. E. Early-life relationships matter: social position during early life predicts fitness among female spotted hyenas. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 183–196 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Almeling, L., Hammerschmidt, K., Sennhenn-Reulen, H., Freund, A. M. & Fischer, J. Motivational shifts in aging monkeys and the origins of social selectivity. Curr. Biol. 26, 1744–1749 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Albery, G. F. et al. Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate. Ecol. Lett. 24, 676–686 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sanchez, J. N. & Hudgens, B. R. Interactions between density, home range behaviors, and contact rates in the Channel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis). Ecol. Evol. 5, 2466–2477 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shizuka, D. & Johnson, A. E. How demographic processes shape animal social networks. Behav. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz083 (2019).Krause, J., James, R., Franks, D. W. & Croft, D. P. Animal Social Networks (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).Firth, J. A. et al. Wild birds respond to flockmate loss by increasing their social network associations to others. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170299 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Evans, J. C., Liechti, J. I., Boatman, B. & König, B. A natural catastrophic turnover event: individual sociality matters despite community resilience in wild house mice. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192880 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rathke, E. & Fischer, J. Social aging in male and female Barbary macaques. Am. J. Primatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23272 (2021).Kroeger, S. B., Blumstein, D. T. & Martin, J. G. A. A. How social behaviour and life-history traits change with age and in the year prior to death in female yellow-bellied marmots. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20190745 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brambilla, A., von Hardenberg, A., Sueur, C., Canedoli, C. & Stanley, C. Long term analysis of social structure: evidence of age-based consistent associations in Alpine ibex. bioRxiv 1–42 (2021).González, N. T. et al. Age-related change in adult chimpanzee social network integration. Evol. Med. Public Health 9, 448–459 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E. & Albon, S. D. Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. Vol. 15 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1982).Nussey, D. H., Kruuk, L. E. B., Donald, A., Fowlie, M. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. The rate of senescence in maternal performance increases with early-life fecundity in red deer. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1342–1350 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Croft, D. P., James, R. & Krause, J. Exploring Animal Social Networks (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).Tobler, W. R. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. 46, 234 (1970).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Firth, J. A. & Sheldon, B. C. Social carry-over effects underpin trans-seasonally linked structure in a wild bird population. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1324–1332 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Spiegel, O., Leu, S. T., Sih, A. & Bull, C. M. Socially interacting or indifferent neighbours? Randomization of movement paths to tease apart social preference and spatial constraints. Methods Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12553 (2016).Nussey, D. H. et al. The relationship between tooth wear, habitat quality and late-life reproduction in a wild red deer population. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 402–412 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Loe, L. E., Mysterud, A., Langvatn, R. & Stenseth, N. C. Decelerating and sex-dependent tooth wear in Norwegian red deer. Oecologia 135, 346–353 (2003).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Peignier, M. et al. Space use and social association in a gregarious ungulate: testing the conspecific attraction and resource dispersion hypotheses. Ecol. Evol. 9, 5133–5145 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Franks, D. W., Ruxton, G. D. & James, R. Sampling animal association networks with the gambit of the group. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 493–503 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Patterson, S. K., Strum, S. C. & Silk, J. B. Resource competition shapes female–female aggression in olive baboons, Papio anubis. Anim. Behav. 176, 23–41 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kays, R., Crofoot, M. C., Jetz, W. & Wikelski, M. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348, aaa2478 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gilbertson, M. L. J., White, L. A. & Craft, M. E. Trade‐offs with telemetry‐derived contact networks for infectious disease studies in wildlife. Methods Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13355 (2020).Froy, H. et al. Senescence in immunity against helminth parasites predicts adult mortality in a wild mammal. Science 365, 1296–1298 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Siracusa, E. R. et al. Familiar neighbors, but not relatives, enhance fitness in a territorial mammal. Curr. Biol. 31, 438–445.e3 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nussey, D. H., Kruuk, L. E. B., Morris, A. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Environmental conditions in early life influence ageing rates in a wild population of red deer. Curr. Biol. 17, 1000–1001 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Castles, M. et al. Social networks created with different techniques are not comparable. Anim. Behav. 96, 59–67 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Froy, H., Walling, C. A., Pemberton, J. M., Clutton-brock, T. H. & Kruuk, L. E. B. Relative costs of offspring sex and offspring survival in a polygynous mammal. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160417 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Fitness costs of gestation and lactation in wild mammals. Nature 337, 260–262 (1989).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cairns, S. J. & Schwager, S. J. A comparison of association indices. Anim. Behav. 35, 1454–1469 (1987).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brent, L. J. N. Friends of friends: are indirect connections in social networks important to animal behaviour? Anim. Behav. 103, 211–222 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Whitehead, H. Analyzing Animal Societies: Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis (Univ. Chicago Press, 2008).Calenge, C. Home range estimation in R: the adehabitatHR package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/adehabitatHR/index.html (2011).Lindgren, F. & Rue, H. Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. J. Stat. Softw. 63, 1–25 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rue, H. & Martino, S. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. Stat. Methodol. 71, 319–392 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bakka, H. et al. Spatial modelling with R-INLA: a review. WIREs Comput. Stat. 10, e1443 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lindgren, F., Rue, H. & Lindstrom, J. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 73, 423–498 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Glimmers of hope in large carnivore recoveries

    Possingham, H. P. et al. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 503–507 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Duarte, C. M. et al. Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580, 39–51 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Knowlton, N. Ocean optimism: Moving beyond the obituaries in marine conservation. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13, 13 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cinner, J. E. et al. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hammerschlag, N. et al. Ecosystem function and services of aquatic predators in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34(4), 369–383 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ritchie, E. G. et al. Ecosystem restoration with teeth: What role for predators?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 265–271 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Young, H. S., McCauley, D. J., Galetti, M. & Dirzo, R. Patterns, causes, and consequences of anthropocene defaunation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 333–358 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Marshall, K. N., Stier, A. C., Samhouri, J. F., Kelly, R. P. & Ward, E. J. Conservation challenges of predator recovery. Conserv. Lett. 9, 70–78 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gregr, E. J. et al. Cascading social-ecological costs and benefits triggered by a recovering keystone predator. Science 368, 1243–1247 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jones, K. R. et al. The location and protection status of earth’s diminishing marine wilderness. Curr. Biol. 28, 2506-2512.e3 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Nielsen, M. R., Meilby, H., Smith-Hall, C., Pouliot, M. & Treue, T. The importance of wild meat in the global south. Ecol. Econ. 146, 696–705 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ripple, W. J. et al. Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction?. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12627 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carrizo, S. F. et al. Freshwater megafauna: Flagships for freshwater biodiversity under threat. Bioscience 67, 919–927 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Luskin, M. S., Albert, W. R. & Tobler, M. W. Sumatran tiger survival threatened by deforestation despite increasing densities in parks. Nat. Commun. 8, 1783 (2017).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Desforges, J.-P. et al. Predicting global killer whale population collapse from PCB pollution. Science 361, 1373–1376 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alava, J. J., Cheung, W. W. L., Ross, P. S. & Sumaila, U. R. Climate change–contaminant interactions in marine food webs: Toward a conceptual framework. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3984–4001 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    House, P. H., Clark, B. L. & Allen, L. G. The return of the king of the kelp forest: Distribution, abundance, and biomass of Giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) off Santa Catalina Island, California, 2014–2015. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 115, 1–14 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Waterhouse, L. et al. Recovery of critically endangered Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in the Cayman Islands following targeted conservation actions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 1587–1595 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Balmford, A. & Knowlton, N. Why Earth Optimism? (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2017).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308 (2004).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Adams, W. M. & Sandbrook, C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, 329–335 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Faith, J. T. & Surovell, T. A. Synchronous extinction of North America’s Pleistocene mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 20641–20645 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P. & Caldeira, K. The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107409108 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Visconti, P. et al. Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conserv. Lett. 9, 5–13 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lotze, H. K., Coll, M., Magera, A. M., Ward-Paige, C. & Airoldi, L. Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 595–605 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1444-4 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pimiento, C. et al. Functional diversity of marine megafauna in the anthropocene. Sci. Adv. 6, 7650 (2020).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Estes, J. A., Heithaus, M., McCauley, D. J., Rasher, D. B. & Worm, B. Megafaunal impacts on structure and function of ocean ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 83–116 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tom Gelatt (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, A. F. S. C. & Sweeney, K. IUCN red list of threatened species: Eumetopias jubatus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en (2016).Taylor, M. F. J., Suckling, K. F. & Rachlinski, J. J. The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55, 360–367 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hejny, J. The Trump administration and environmental policy: Reagan redux?. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 8, 197–211 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sanderson, F. J. et al. Assessing the performance of EU nature legislation in protecting target bird species in an era of climate change. Conserv. Lett. 9, 172–180 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Donald, P. F. et al. International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science 317, 810–813 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cuthbert, R. J. et al. Continuing mortality of vultures in India associated with illegal veterinary use of diclofenac and a potential threat from nimesulide. Oryx 50, 104–112 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Margalida, A. & Oliva-Vidal, P. The shadow of diclofenac hangs over European vultures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1050 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Williams, D. R., Balmford, A. & Wilcove, D. S. The past and future role of conservation science in saving biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12720 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barnes, M. D. et al. Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sala, E. & Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1166–1168 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Juffe-Bignoli, D. et al. Protected Planet Report 2014: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas (Springer, 2014).
    Google Scholar 
    Turnbull, J. W., Johnston, E. L. & Clark, G. F. Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas. Conserv. Biol. 35, 921–932 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barnosky, A. D. et al. Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science 355, 1–10 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    White, T. D. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a large marine protected area for reef shark conservation. Biol. Conserv. 207, 64–71 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Daskin, J. H. & Pringle, R. M. Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 553, 328–332 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pringle, R. M. Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546, 91–99 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Redpath, S. M. et al. Don’t forget to look down: Collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biol. Rev. 92, 2157–2163 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hazzah, L. et al. Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conserv. Biol. 28, 851–860 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zarfl, C. et al. Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. 9, 18531 (2019).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arthington, A. H., Dulvy, N. K., Gladstone, W. & Winfield, I. J. Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: Status, threats and management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26, 838–857 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Castello, L. & Macedo, M. N. Large-scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 990–1007 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Safford, R. et al. Vulture conservation: The case for urgent action. Bird Conserv. Int. 29, 1–9 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ogada, D. et al. Another continental vulture crisis: Africa’s vultures collapsing toward extinction. Conserv. Lett. 9, 89–97 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Buechley, E. R. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. The avian scavenger crisis: Looming extinctions, trophic cascades, and loss of critical ecosystem functions. Biol. Conserv. 198, 220–228 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hammerschlag, N. & Gallagher, A. J. Extinction risk and conservation of the earth’s national animal symbols. Bioscience 67, 744–749 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N. & Smith, R. K. What Works in Conservation 2015 (Open Book Publishers, 2015).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Dulvy, N. K. et al. Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr. Biol. 27, R565–R572 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Finucci, B., Duffy, C. A. J., Francis, M. P., Gibson, C. & Kyne, P. M. The extinction risk of New Zealand chondrichthyans. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 783–797 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Creel, S. et al. Questionable policy for large carnivore hunting. Science 350, 1473–1475 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    González, L. M. et al. Causes and spatio-temporal variations of non-natural mortality in the Vulnerable Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti during a recovery period. Oryx 41, 495–502 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Morandini, V., de Benito, E., Newton, I. & Ferrer, M. Natural expansion versus translocation in a previously human-persecuted bird of prey. Ecol. Evol. 7, 3682–3688 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Goodrich, J. M. et al. Panthera tigris, Tiger. IUCN Red List Threat. Species (2015).Wikramanayake, E. et al. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conserv. Lett. 4, 219–227 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bhattarai, B. R., Wright, W., Morgan, D., Cook, S. & Baral, H. S. Managing human-tiger conflict: Lessons from Bardia and Chitwan National Parks, Nepal. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65, 34 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Courchamp, F. et al. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16, e2003997 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Nyhus, P. J. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 143–171 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carter, N. H. & Linnell, J. D. C. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guerra, A. S. Wolves of the sea: Managing human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean. Mar. Policy 99, 369–373 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Das, C. S. Pattern and characterisation of human casualties in Sundarban by tiger attacks, India. Sustain. For. 1, 1–10 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Packer, C. et al. Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and fence. Ecol. Lett. 16, 635–641 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dudley, S. F. J. A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Ocean Coast. Manag. 34, 1–27 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    O’Connell, C. P., Andreotti, S., Rutzen, M., Meӱer, M. & Matthee, C. A. Testing the exclusion capabilities and durability of the Sharksafe Barrier to determine its viability as an eco-friendly alternative to current shark culling methodologies. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 28, 252–258 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gailey, G. et al. Effects of sea ice on growth rates of an endangered population of gray whales. Sci. Rep. 10, 1553 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hazen, E. L. et al. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci. Adv. 4, 3001 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ingeman, K. E., Samhouri, J. F. & Stier, A. C. Ocean recoveries for tomorrow’s Earth: Hitting a moving target. Science 363, 6425 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sánchez-Hernández, J. & Amundsen, P.-A. Ecosystem type shapes trophic position and omnivory in fishes. Fish Fish. 19, 1003–1015 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gainsbury, A. M., Tallowin, O. J. S. & Meiri, S. An updated global data set for diet preferences in terrestrial mammals: testing the validity of extrapolation. Mammal Rev. 48, 160–167 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Faurby, S. et al. PHYLACINE 1.2: The phylogenetic atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626–2626 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Costello, M. J. et al. Marine biogeographic realms and species endemicity. Nat. Commun. 8, 1057 (2017).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rodrigues, A. S. L., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M. & Brooks, T. M. The value of the IUCN red list for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Bushmeat in Brazil

    Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
    Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More