Ecology

Pimm, S. L. et al. Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 685–696 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marvin, D. C. et al. Integrating technologies for scalable ecology and conservation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 7, 262–275 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wall, J., Wittemyer, G., Klinkenberg, B. & Douglas-Hamilton, I. Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research with real-time monitoring. Ecol. Appl. 24, 593–601 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snaddon, J., Petrokofsky, G., Jepson, P. & Willis, K. J. Biodiversity technologies: tools as change agents. Biol. Lett. 9, 20121029 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pettorelli, N., Safi, K., Turner, W. Satellite remote sensing, biodiversity research and conservation of the future. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369, 20130190 (2014).Ripperger, S. P. et al. Thinking small: Next-generation sensor networks close the size gap in vertebrate biologging. PLOS Biol. 18, e3000655 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, H., Wang, K., Vayanos, P. & Tambe, M. Strategic coordination of human patrollers and mobile sensors with signaling for security games. 8 (2018).Liu, Y. et al. AI for Earth: Rainforest conservation by acoustic surveillance. 2 (2019).Joppa, L. N. Technology for nature conservation: an industry perspective. Ambio 44, 522–526 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koh, L. P. & Wich, S. A. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5, 121–132 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hahn, N. et al. Unmanned aerial vehicles mitigate human–elephant conflict on the borders of Tanzanian Parks: a case study. Oryx 51, 513–516 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pomerantz, A. et al. Real-time DNA barcoding in a rainforest using nanopore sequencing: opportunities for rapid biodiversity assessments and local capacity building. GigaScience 7, (2018).Van Doren, B. M. & Horton, K. G. A continental system for forecasting bird migration. Science 361, 1115–1118 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Howson, P. Building trust and equity in marine conservation and fisheries supply chain management with blockchain. Mar. Policy 115, 103873 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Speaker, T. et al. A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology. Conserv. Biol. cobi. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13871 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearce, J. M. Building research equipment with free Open-Source Hardware. Science 337, 1303–1304 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibb, R., Browning, E., Glover-Kapfer, P. & Jones, K. E. Emerging opportunities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 169–185 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
current constraints and future priorities for development. Glover-Kapfer, P., Soto-Navarro, C. A. & Wearn, O. R. Camera-trapping version 3.0. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 5, 209–223 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Norouzzadeh, M. S. et al. Automatically identifying, counting, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, E5716–E5725 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berger-Tal, O. & Lahoz-Monfort, J. J. Conservation technology: the next generation. Conserv. Lett. 11, 1–6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, A. P. et al. AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1199–1211 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Kubizňák, P., Šindelář, J. & Hlaváč, V. Smart nest box: a tool and methodology for monitoring of cavity-dwelling animals. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 483–492 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalmár, G. et al. Animal-Borne Anti-Poaching System. in Proceedings of the 17th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services 91–102 (ACM, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3307334.3326080.Weise, F. J. et al. Lions at the gates: Trans-disciplinary design of an early warning system to improve human-lion coexistence. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 242 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beery, S., Van Horn, G. & Perona, P. Recognition in Terra Incognita. in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (eds. Ferrari, V., Hebert, M., Sminchisescu, C. & Weiss, Y.) 472–489 (Springer International Publishing, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01270-0_28.Crego, R. D., Masolele, M. M., Connette, G. & Stabach, J. A. Enhancing animal movement analyses: spatiotemporal matching of animal positions with remotely sensed data using google earth engine and R. Remote Sens. 13, 4154 (2021).ADS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Vulcan. EarthRanger. https://earthranger.com.Ahumada, J. A. et al. Wildlife insights: A platform to maximize the potential of camera trap and other passive sensor wildlife data for the planet. Environ. Conserv. 47, 1–6 (2020).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lahoz-Monfort, J. J. et al. A call for international leadership and coordination to realize the potential of conservation technology. Bioscience 69, 823–832 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Group Gets – AudioMoth. https://groupgets.com/manufacturers/open-acoustic-devices/products/audiomoth.Kulits, P., Wall, J., Bedetti, A., Henley, M. & Beery, S. ElephantBook: A semi-automated human-in-the-loop system for elephant re-identification. in ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS) 88–98 (ACM, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3460112.3471947.Pardo, L. E. et al. Snapshot Safari: A large-scale collaborative to monitor Africa’s remarkable biodiversity. South Afr. J. Sci. 117, (2021).Iacona, G. et al. Identifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 591–598 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cooper, R. G. What’s next?: After stage-gate. Res.-Technol. Manag. 57, 20–31 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cooper, R. G. The drivers of success in new-product development. Ind. Mark. Manag. 76, 36–47 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearce, J. M. The case for open source appropriate technology. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14, 425–431 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mair, J., Battilana, J. & Cardenas, J. Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. J. Bus. Ethics 111, 353–373 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meissner, D. Public-private partnership models for science, technology, and innovation cooperation. J. Knowl. Econ. 10, 1341–1361 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22, 1–55.Mayer, A. L. & Wellstead, A. M. Questionable survey methods generate a questionable list of recommended articles. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1336–1337 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Archie, K. M., Dilling, L., Milford, J. B. & Pampel, F. C. Climate Change and Western Public Lands: a Survey of U.S. Federal Land Managers on the Status of Adaptation Efforts. Ecol. Soc. 17 (2012).Jimenez, M. F. et al. Underrepresented faculty play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity and inclusion. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1030–1033 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, R. ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.12-10. (2019).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2020).Arnold, T. W. Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1175–1178 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
QSR International Pty Ltd. Nvivo 12 Pro. (2020).Glesne, C. Making words fly: Developing understanding through interviewing. Becom. Qual. Res. Introd. 3, (2006).Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (Sage publications 2017). More

Balami, S., Vašutová, M., Godbold, D., Kotas, P. & Cudlín, P. Soil fungal communities across land use types. Forest Biogeosci. For. 13, 548–558 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Deacon, J. Fungal Biology (Wiley, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Ruiz-Almenara, C., Gándara, E. & Gómez-Hernández, M. Comparison of diversity and composition of macrofungal species between intensive mushroom harvesting and non-harvesting areas in Oaxaca, Mexico. PeerJ 7, e8325 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moore, J. C. et al. Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 7, 584–600 (2004).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Egli, S. Mycorrhizal mushroom diversity and productivity—an indicator of forest health?. Ann. For. Sci. 68, 81–88 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Westover, K. M. & Bever, J. D. Mechanisms of plant species coexistence: Roles of rhizosphere bacteria and root fungal pathogens. Ecology 82, 3285–3294 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Deacon, J. Fungal Biology (Wiley, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Fernandez, C. W., Nguyen, N. H. U. H., Stefanski, A. & Han, Y. Ectomycorrhizal fungal response to warming is linked to poor host performance at the boreal-temperate ecotone. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 1598–1609 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heilmann-Clausen, J. et al. A fungal perspective on conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 29, 61–68 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shay, P.-E., Winder, R. S. & Trofymow, J. A. Nutrient-cycling microbes in coastal Douglas-fir forests: Regional-scale correlation between communities, in situ climate, and other factors. Front. Microbiol. 6, 5897 (2015).
Google Scholar 
van der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D. & van Straalen, N. M. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 296–310 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Richter, A., Schöning, I., Kahl, T., Bauhus, J. & Ruess, L. Regional environmental conditions shape microbial community structure stronger than local forest management intensity. For. Ecol. Manag. 409, 250–259 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Monkai, J., Hyde, K. D., Xu, J. & Mortimer, P. E. Diversity and ecology of soil fungal communities in rubber plantations. Fungal Biol. Rev. 31, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
White, F. Vegetation of Africa—a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa, Natural Resources Research Report XX. U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris (1983).Aynekulu, E. et al. Plant diversity and regeneration in a disturbed isolated dry Afromontane forest in northern Ethiopia. Folia Geobot. 51, 115–127 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wassie, A., Sterck, F. J. & Bongers, F. Species and structural diversity of church forests in a fragmented Ethiopian Highland landscape. J. Veg. Sci. 21, 938–948 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Alem, D., Dejene, T., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Survey of macrofungal diversity and analysis of edaphic factors influencing the fungal community of church forests in Dry Afromontane areas of Northern Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manag. 496, 119391 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Aerts, R. et al. Conservation of the Ethiopian church forests: Threats, opportunities and implications for their management. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552, 404–414 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wassie, A., Teketay, D. & Powell, N. Church forests in North Gonder administrative zone, Northern Ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 15, 349–373 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Wsaaie, A., Teketay, D. & Powell, N. Church forests in North Gondar Administative Zone, Northern Ethioopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 15, 349–373 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Lemenih, M. & Bongers, F. Dry forests of Ethiopia and their silviculture. In Silviculture in the Tropics, Tropical Forestry 8 (ed. S. G€unter et al.) 261–272 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19986-8_17.Fernández, A., Sánchez, S., García, P. & Sánchez, J. Macrofungal diversity in an isolated and fragmented Mediterranean Forest ecosystem. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 154, 139–148 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Peay, K. G. & Bruns, T. D. Spore dispersal of basidiomycete fungi at the landscape scale is driven by stochastic and deterministic processes and generates variability in plant-fungal interactions. New Phytol. 204, 180–191 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, N. D., Hales, J. D. A., Ricketts, T. H. & Dinerstein, E. Factoring species, non-species values and threats into biodiversity prioritisation across the ecoregions of Africa and its islands. Biol. Conserv. 127, 383–401 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Dejene, T., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Fungal community succession and sporocarp production following fire occurrence in Dry Afromontane forests of Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manag. 398, 37–47 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Větrovský, T. et al. GlobalFungi, a global database of fungal occurrences from high-throughput-sequencing metabarcoding studies. Sci. Data 7, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. et al. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science (80-. ). 346 (2014).Hawksworth, D. L. Global species numbers of fungi: are tropical studies and molecular approaches contributing to a more robust estimate?. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 2425–2433 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Crous, P. W. et al. How many species of fungi are there at the tip of Africa?. Stud. Mycol. 55, 13–33 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martínez, M. L. et al. Effects of land use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical montane cloud forests of Mexico. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 1856–1863 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Phillips, H. et al. The effects of global change on soil faunal communities: a meta-analytic approach. Res. Ideas Outcomes 5 (2019).Riutta, T. et al. Experimental evidence for the interacting effects of forest edge, moisture and soil macrofauna on leaf litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 49, 124–131 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rantalainen, M., Haimi, J., Fritze, H., Pennanen, T. & Setala, T. Soil decomposer community as a model system in studying the effects of habitat fragmentation and habitat corridors. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 853–863 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newsham, K. K. et al. Relationship between soil fungal diversity and temperature in the maritime Antarctic. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 182–186 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bahram, M., Põlme, S., Kõljalg, U., Zarre, S. & Tedersoo, L. Regional and local patterns of ectomycorrhizal fungal diversity and community structure along an altitudinal gradient in the Hyrcanian forests of northern Iran. New Phytol. 193, 465–473 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rousk, J. et al. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J. 4, 1340–1351 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krüger, C. et al. Plant communities rather than soil properties structure arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities along primary succession on a mine spoil. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–16 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bahram, M., Peay, K. G. & Tedersoo, L. Local-scale biogeography and spatiotemporal variability in communities of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 205, 1454–1463 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, P. et al. Spatial variation in soil fungal communities across paddy fields in Subtropical China. mSystems 5 (2020).Grilli, G., Urcelay, C. & Galetto, L. Forest fragment size and nutrient availability: Complex responses of mycorrhizal fungi in native–exotic hosts. Plant Ecol. 213, 155–165 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A. & Fonturbel, T. Shrub Resprouting Response After Fuel Reduction Treatments: Comparison of Prescribed Burning, Clearing and Mastication (Elsevier, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L., Sadam, A., Zambrano, M., Valencia, R. & Bahram, M. Low diversity and high host preference of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Western Amazonia, a neotropical biodiversity hotspot. ISME J. 4, 465–471 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glassman, S. I., Wang, I. J. & Bruns, T. D. Environmental filtering by pH and soil nutrients drives community assembly in fungi at fine spatial scales. Mol. Ecol. 26, 6960–6973 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Colwell, R. K. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. User’s Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates (2013).Purvis, A. & Hector, A. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405, 212–219 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pan, W. et al. DNA polymerase preference determines PCR priming efficiency. BMC Biotechnol. 14, 10 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kirk, P. M., Cannon, P. F., Minter, D. W. & J.A, S. Dictionary of the Fungi (The Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI), 2008).Rossman, A., Samuel, G., Rogerson, C. & Lowen, R. Genera of bionectriaceae, hypocreaceae and nectriaceae (hypocreales, ascomycetes). Stud. Mycol. 42, 1–260 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Samuels, G. Trichoderma: A review of biology and systematics of the genus. Mycol. Res. 923–935 (1996).Alem, D. et al. Soil fungal communities and succession following wildfire in Ethiopian dry Afromontane forests, a highly diverse underexplored ecosystem. For. Ecol. Manag. 474, 118328 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Muleta, D., Woyessa, D. & Teferi, Y. Mushroom consumption habits of Wacha Kebele residents, southwestern Ethiopia. Glob. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 4, 6–16 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Dejene, T., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Edible wild mushrooms of Ethiopia: Neglected non-timber forest products. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 40, 391–397 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. et al. Disentangling global soil fungal diversity. Science (80-) 346, 1052–1053 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Dejene, T., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Fungal community succession and sporocarp production following fire occurrence in Dry Afromontane forests of Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manag. 398 (2017).Dang, P. et al. Changes in soil fungal communities and vegetation following afforestation with Pinus tabulaeformis on the Loess Plateau. Ecosphere 9 (2018).Gilbert, G. S., Ferrer, A. & Carranza, J. Polypore fungal diversity and host density in a moist tropical forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 11, 947–957 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Kottke, I., Beck, A., Oberwinkler, F., Homeier, J. & Neill, D. Arbuscular endomycorrhizas are dominant in the organic soil of a neotropical montane cloud forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 20, 125–129 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Barnes, C. J., Van der Gast, C. J., Burns, C. A., McNamara, N. P. & Bending, G. D. Temporally variable geographical distance effects contribute to the assembly of root-associated fungal communities. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Tian, J. et al. Environmental factors driving fungal distribution in freshwater lake sediments across the Headwater Region of the Yellow River, China. Sci. Rep. 8, 4–11 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Rosales-Castillo, J. et al. Fungal community and ligninolytic enzyme activities in Quercus deserticola Trel. litter from forest fragments with increasing levels of disturbance. Forests 9, 11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kuhar, F., Barroetaveña, C. & Rajchenberg, M. New species of Tomentella (Thelephorales) from the Patagonian Andes forests. Mycologia 108, 780–790 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alem, D., Dejene, T., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A., Geml, J. & Martín-Pinto, P. Soil fungal communities under Pinus patula Schiede ex Schltdl. & Cham. Plantation forests of different ages in Ethiopia. Forests 11, 1109 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. et al. Terrestrial and lignicolous macrofungi. ISME J. 10, 1228–1239 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ruiz, R., Decock, C., Saikawa, M., Gene, J. & Guarro, J. Polyschema obclaviformis sp. Nov., and some new records of hyphomycetes from Cuba. Cryptogam. Mycol. 21, 215–220 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Kaygusuz, O. New locality records of Trichoglossum hirsutum (Geoglossales: Geoglossaceae) based on molecular analyses, and prediction of its potential distribution in Turkey. Curr. Res. Environ. Appl. Mycol. 10, 443–456 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mayer, P. M. Ecosystem and decomposer effects on litter dynamics along an old field to old-growth forest successional gradient. Acta Oecol. 33, 222–230 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Krishna, M. P. & Mohan, M. Litter decomposition in forest ecosystems: A review. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2, 236–249 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kirschbaum, M. U. F. The temperature dependence of soil organic matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic C storage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 753–760 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mayer, P. M., Tunnell, S. J., Engle, D. M., Jorgensen, E. E. & Nunn, P. Invasive grass alters litter decomposition by influencing macrodetritivores. Ecosystems 8, 200–209 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Epstein, H. E., Burke, I. C. & Lauenroth, W. K. Regional patterns of decomposition and primary production rates in the U.S. great plains. Ecology 83, 320 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Sharon, R., Degani, G. & Warburg, M. Comparing the soil macro-fauna in two oak-wood forests: Does community structure differ under similar ambient conditions?. Pedobiologia (Jena). 45, 355–366 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Clocchiatti, A., Hannula, S. E., van den Berg, M., Korthals, G. & de Boer, W. The hidden potential of saprotrophic fungi in arable soil: Patterns of short-term stimulation by organic amendments. Appl. Soil Ecol. 147, 103434 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Drenovsky, R., Vo, D., Graham, K. & Scow, K. Soil water content and organic carbon availability are major determinants of soil microbial community composition. Microb. Ecol. 48, 424–430 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lauber, C., Hamady, M., Knigh, R. & Fierer, N. Pyrosequencing based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 5111–5120 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ullah, S. et al. The response of soil fungal diversity and community composition to long-term fertilization. Appl. Soil Ecol. 140, 35–41 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bååth, E. & Anderson, T.-H. Comparison of soil fungal/bacterial ratios in a pH gradient using physiological and PLFA-based techniques. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 955–963 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, T., Wang, N.-F., Liu, H.-Y., Zhang, Y.-Q. & Yu, L.-Y. Soil pH is a key determinant of soil fungal community composition in the Ny-Ålesund Region, Svalbard (high arctic). Front. Microbiol. 7 (2016).Tian, D. et al. Effects of nitrogen deposition on soil microbial communities in temperate and subtropical forests in China. Sci. Total Environ. 607–608, 1367–1375 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, A. et al. Influences of canopy nitrogen and water addition on am fungal biodiversity and community composition in a mixed deciduous forest of China. Front. Plant Sci. 9 (2018).He, J. et al. Greater diversity of soil fungal communities and distinguishable seasonal variation in temperate deciduous forests compared with subtropical evergreen forests of eastern China. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Shi, L. et al. Variation in forest soil fungal diversity along a latitudinal gradient. Fungal Divers. 64, 305–315 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Gebeyehu, G., Soromessa, T., Bekele, T. & Teketay, D. Plant diversity and communities along environmental, harvesting and grazing gradients in dry afromontane forests of Awi Zone, northwestern Ethiopia. Taiwania 64, 307–320 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zegeye, H., Teketay, D. & Kelbessa, E. Diversity and regeneration status of woody species in Tara Gedam and Abebaye forests, northwestern Ethiopia. J. For. Res. 22, 315–328 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Abere, F., Belete, Y., Kefalew, A. & Soromessa, T. Carbon stock of Banja forest in Banja district, Amhara region, Ethiopia: An implication for climate change mitigation. J. Sustain. For. 36, 604–622 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Masresha, G., Soromessa, T. & Kelbessa, E. Status and species diversity of Alemsaga Forest, Northwestern Ethiopia 14 (2015).Rudolph, S., Maciá-Vicente, J. G., Lotz-Winter, H., Schleuning, M. & Piepenbring, M. Temporal variation of fungal diversity in a mosaic landscape in Germany. Stud. Mycol. 89, 95–104 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
De la Varga, H., Águeda, B., Martínez-Peña, F., Parladé, J. & Pera, J. Quantification of extraradical soil mycelium and ectomycorrhizas of Boletus edulis in a Scots pine forest with variable sporocarp productivity. Mycorrhiza 22, 59–68 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Voříšková, J. & Baldrian, P. Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. ISME J. 7, 477–486 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reeuwijk, L. Procedures for Soil Analysis (International Soil Reference and Information Centre, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Walkley, A. & Black, I. A. An examination of the digestion method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 34, 29–38 (1934).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, J., Kreller, C. R. & Greenberg, M. M. Preparation and analysis of oligonucleotides containing the C4’-oxidized abasic site and related mechanistic probes. J. Org. Chem. 70, 8122–8129 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kim, H. T. Soil sampling, preparation and analysis. 139–145 (1996).Bouyoucos, G. H. A reclamation of the hydrometer for making mechanical analysis. Soil. Agro. J. 43, 434–438 (1951).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ihrmark, K., Bödeker, I. & Cruz-Martinez, K. New primers to amplify the fungal ITS2 region—evaluation by 454-sequencing of artificial and natural communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 82, 666–677 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
White, T. ., Bruns, S., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. in PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications (eds. Innis, M. A., Gelfand, D. H., Sninsky, J. J. & White, T. J.) 315–322 (Academic Press, 1990).Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17, 10 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kõljalg, U. et al. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol. Ecol. 22, 5271–5277 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Põlme, S. et al. FungalTraits: a user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 105 (2020).Hedberg, I. & Edwards, S. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritria (1989).Collins, C. G., Stajich, J. E., Weber, S. E., Pombubpa, N. & Diez, J. M. Shrub range expansion alters diversity and distribution of soil fungal communities across an alpine elevation gradient. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2461–2476 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schön, M. E., Nieselt, K. & Garnica, S. Belowground fungal community diversity and composition associated with Norway spruce along an altitudinal gradient. PLoS ONE 13, e0208493 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Castaño, C. et al. Changes in fungal diversity and composition along a chronosequence of Eucalyptus grandis plantations in Ethiopia. Fungal Ecol. 39, 328–335 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, 1949).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kent, M. & Coker, P. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach (Belhaven Press, 1993).
Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement (Princeton University Press, 1988).
Google Scholar 
Jost, L., Chao, A. & Chazdon, R. Compositional similarity and β (beta) diversity. in Biological Diversity. Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment (eds. A.E., Magurran & B.J., M.) 66–84 (Oxford University Press, 2011).Kindt, R. & Coe, R. Tree diversity analysis. A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), 2005).R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020).Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 3.1-128. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme (2016).Tóthmérész, B. Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. J. Veg. Sci. 6, 283–290 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R., Gorley, R. N., Somerfield, P. J. & Warwick, R. M. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. (PRIMER-E, Plymouth, 2014).Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4, 9 (2001).
Google Scholar  More

Climate change is affecting arctic ecosystems through temperature increase1, hydrological changes2, earlier snowmelt3,4, and the associated increase in growing season length5. Annual arctic air temperature has been increasing at more than double the magnitude of the global mean air temperature increase1, and terrestrial snow cover in June has decreased by 15.2% per decade from 1981 to 20194. Warming is the main driver of the earlier start of the growing season, and the greening of the Arctic6,7,8. Arctic greening is associated with enhanced vegetation height, biomass, cover, and abundance9. However, the complexity of arctic systems reveals an intricate patchwork of landscape greening and browning8,10,11, with browning linked to a variety of stresses to vegetation8 including water stress12,13. The interconnected changes in temperature, soil moisture, snowmelt timing, etc. can have important effects on the carbon sequestered by arctic ecosystems14. The reservoir of carbon in arctic soil and vegetation depends on the interaction of two main processes: (1) changes in net CO2 uptake by vegetation; and (2) increased net loss of CO2 (from vegetation and soil) to the atmosphere via respiration. Therefore, defining the response of both plant productivity and ecosystem respiration to environmental changes is needed to predict the sensitivity of the net CO2 fluxes of arctic systems to climate change.An earlier snowmelt, and a longer growing season, do not necessarily translate into more carbon sequestered by high latitude ecosystems5. There is a large disagreement on the response of plant productivity and the net CO2 uptake to early snowmelt in tundra ecosystems15,16,17,18,19. A warmer and longer growing season might not result in more net CO2 uptake if CO2 loss from respiration increases16, particularly later in the season, and surpasses the CO2 sequestered by enhanced plant productivity in northern ecosystems16,20. Moreover, snowmelt timing and the growing season length greatly affect hydrologic conditions of arctic soils21, as well as plant productivity22. Longer non-frozen periods earlier in the year23 and earlier vegetation greening can increase evapotranspiration (ET), resulting in lower summer soil moisture24,25,26. The complexity in the hydrology of tundra systems arises from the tight link between the water drainage and the presence and depth of permafrost. The presence of permafrost reduces vertical water losses, preventing soil drainage in northern wetlands during most of the summer despite low precipitation input27. Increasing rainfall28 and increased permafrost degradation can increase soil wetness in continuous permafrost regions2. Further permafrost degradation (e.g. ice-wedge melting) can increase hydrologic connectivity leading to increased lateral drainage of the landscape and subsequent soil drying2,29.Given the importance of soil moisture in affecting the carbon balance of arctic ecosystems, and its links with snowmelt timing, in this study, we investigated the correlation between summer fluxes of CO2 (i.e., net ecosystem exchange (NEE), gross primary productivity (GPP) ecosystem respiration (ER)), ET, and environmental drivers such as soil moisture and snowmelt timing, while controlling for the other most important drivers of photosynthesis and respiration (i.e. solar radiation and air temperature). We expected earlier snowmelt to be correlated with larger ET and lower soil moisture, particularly during peak and late season, consistent with drying associated with a longer growing season. The lower soil moisture with earlier snowmelt should result in a negative correlation between snowmelt timing and GPP, particularly during the peak and late season (when we expect the most water stress), and in a positive correlation between snowmelt timing and ER during the entire growing season. This soil moisture limitation to plant productivity should result in lower net cumulative CO2 sequestration during the entire summer, because of lower plant productivity if these ecosystems are water-limited due to lower soil moisture with earlier snowmelt.Testing the impact of snowmelt timing on the carbon dynamics and hydrology of tundra ecosystemsThe 11 sites were selected as among the longest-running tower sites in the circumpolar Arctic (including 6 to 19 years of fluxes per site and a total of 119 site-years of summer (June to August) eddy covariance CO2 flux data, Table S1). All sites lie in the zone of continuous permafrost. The sites are representative of dominant tundra vegetation classes (wetland, graminoids, and shrub tundra), together accounting for 31% of all tundra vegetation types (Fig. 130 and Supplementary Information). Given the complex interactions among different variables (many covarying together), we used a variety of statistical analyses to identify the association between standardized anomalies of NEE, GPP, ER, and ET, and standardized anomalies of the main environmental controls during different periods of the summer corresponding to various stages in seasonal phenology (early season: June, peak season: July, and late season: August). We used a partial correlation analysis to identify if the timing of the snowmelt associates with anomalies of ET, soil moisture, NEE, GPP, ER, atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD), or the Bowen ratio (the ratio between Sensible Heat (H) and Latent Heat (LE)) while statistically controlling for the main meteorological forcing such as air temperature and solar radiation (Methods). Identifying the correlation between ET (and the Bowen ratio) and snowmelt timing is a way to assess water limitation to ecosystems (in addition to testing their response to soil moisture changes), as H, and therefore, the Bowen ratio, are expected to increase with surface drying31,32. To identify the association between snowmelt timing, the main environmental variables (i.e., air temperature and solar radiation), and NEE, GPP, ER, and ET over time, we performed a maximum covariance analysis (MCA) on the monthly median standardized anomalies from 2004 to 2019 (a time period when data for most of the sites were available). MCA allowed us to find patterns in two space–time datasets that are highly correlated using a cross-covariance matrix26. We retained sites as the unit of variation (i.e., by estimating the standardized anomalies by site for each of the indicated variables, see “Methods”), hence the results of the MCA integrated the site level relationships between each of the variables over time). The goal of this analysis was to identify the most important environmental drivers associated with NEE, GPP, and ER across all the sites over time. MCA is particularly appropriate for this study as it can handle data with gaps and unequal lengths in the datasets. We also tested the relative importance of the abovementioned environmental drivers on the monthly median GPP, ER, and NEE using a linear mixed effect model, including site as a random effect to account for the site-to-site variability. The MCA and the mixed model analyses were conducted to test the relative importance of snowmelt and other variables at different times of the season. Finally, to evaluate the water balance at different times of the season, we estimated the difference between Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) and the actual ET, and the difference between precipitation (PPT) and ET for each of the sites, years, and months (e.g. June, July, and August). This study did not attempt to describe the long-term temporal changes in the anomalies of snowmelt and carbon fluxes, given the short data record available for some of the sites (i.e. less than 10 years, Table S1), but instead focused on understanding the association between environmental variables and the carbon balance at different times of the season. More details of these analyses are included in the Methods.Figure 1Study sites. Locations of the 11 eddy covariance flux tower sites used in this study. Light blue regions delineate the total Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM), green regions delineate the subset of CAVM vegetation types represented in this study (including all the vegetation types listed in Table S1). This map was created using QGIS.org, 2020, QGIS 3.10. Geographic Information System User Guide. QGIS Association: https://docs.qgis.org/3.10/en/docs/user_manual/index.html. The dataset used in the map was the CAVM map: CAVM Team. 2003. Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map. (1:7,500,000 scale), Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Map No. 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. ISBN: 0-9767525-0-6, ISBN-13: 978-0-9767525-0-9.Full size imageInfluence of snowmelt timing on NEE, GPP, ER, and hydrological status of tundra ecosystemsOnce statistically controlling for solar radiation and air temperature (in the partial correlation analysis, see “Methods”), we observed a significant positive relationship between the snowmelt timing anomalies and NEE anomalies (i.e. earlier snowmelt was associated with a higher net CO2 sequestration) in June and July, but a negative correlation in August (Fig. 2a, Table 1). A significant relationship was also found between snowmelt date anomalies and GPP anomalies, with more positive GPP anomalies (i.e. higher plant productivity) with earlier snowmelt in June and July, and more negative GPP anomalies with earlier snowmelt in August (Fig. 2b, Table 1). Earlier snowmelt was associated with significantly higher ER in both June and July, but there was no significant relationship in August (Fig. 2c, Table 1), suggesting that the late-season correlation between NEE and snowmelt timing was mostly driven by the lower GPP and with earlier snowmelt in August. The MCA analysis showed that the anomalies in snowmelt timing had the highest squared covariance fraction (SCF) with the monthly median anomalies of GPP, NEE, and ER in June and July, and the lowest in August over the 2004–2019 period (Fig. 3). A similar result was observed in the linear mixed effect model, which showed a significant relationship between snowmelt date and GPP, and NEE, in all summer months, higher ({R}_{m}^{2}) between the snowmelt date and GPP in June and July, and no significant relationship between snowmelt date and ER in August (Table S3). In late season, other environmental variables had a higher covariance with the GPP, NEE, and ER anomalies than the snowmelt timing (Fig. 3, Table S3).Figure 2Relationships between the indicated median monthly anomalies using partial correlation analysis accounting for solar radiation and air temperature anomalies (retaining site as the unit of variation). Given that the interaction term between “month” and snowmelt timing was significant, we included the correlation coefficients and P of the regressions for each of the indicated months separately in each panel (also included in Table 1). Negative values indicate CO2 uptake and positive values CO2 release into the atmosphere, and shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals.Full size imageTable 1 Significance (P) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) of the relationships between the indicated monthly median standardized anomalies for June, July, and August retaining site as a unit of variation.Full size tableFigure 3Squared covariance fraction (SCF) of each couple of the indicated variables for the maximum covariance analysis (MCA) of the monthly median anomalies of GPP, ER, and NEE in June, July, and August. The first pair of singular vectors are the phase-space directions when projected that have the largest possible cross-covariance. The singular vectors describe the patterns in the anomalies that are linearly correlated. A higher SCF indicates a stronger association over time between the indicated variables.Full size imageOur results are consistent with the discrepancy between the observed increase in the maxNDVI over the last four decades and the time-integrated (TI) NDVI which instead has plateaued in the last two decades and even decreased over the last 10 years in several northern arctic ecosystems33. TI-NDVI considers the length of the growing season and phenological variations34 and, therefore, better integrates vegetation development during the entire growing season. Moisture was shown to be important for the NDVI trends33,35. Given the potential water limitation to summer carbon uptake in northern ecosystems12,23,24,25, we tested if an earlier snowmelt was associated with a decrease in soil moisture, which would affect GPP and NEE. We only observed a significant correlation between soil moisture anomalies and snowmelt date anomalies in June (i.e. higher soil moisture with earlier snowmelt, Fig. S1a, Table S2), but no significant correlation in July and August (Fig. S1a, Table S2). The higher soil moisture with earlier snowmelt in June is consistent with surface inundation after snowmelt36,37 and earlier soil thawing resulting in higher soil moisture (i.e., soil moisture is low while soils are frozen). A similar result was observed for the ET anomalies. Higher ET with earlier snowmelt in June (Fig. S1b) could be the result of surface inundation after snowmelt32. The standardized NEE anomalies were significantly correlated with the soil moisture anomalies in each of the summer months (Fig. S1d, Table S2). However, the relationship between the GPP (and ER anomalies) and soil moisture anomalies was only significant in June (Fig. S1e,f, Table S2) suggesting an earlier activation of the vegetation with earlier soil thaw (and the associated higher soil moisture). A higher water loss from ET in early season (Fig. S1b) could have resulted in the drying of the surface moss layer with the progression of the summer, which would have been consistent with the observed lower GPP and the lower net CO2 sequestration with earlier snowmelt observed in August (Fig. 2a,b, Table 1). A potential moisture limitation to plant productivity might have been consistent also with the higher SCF of NEE, or GPP and VPD anomalies in August than in June and July (Fig. 3). However, no significant relationship between ET (or soil moisture) and snowmelt date anomalies was observed in July and August (Fig. S1a,b) contrary to what would be expected if drying occurred following earlier snowmelt. No significant relationship was found between VPD anomalies and snowmelt date anomalies in any of the summer months (P = 0.14 in a partial correlation considering air temperature and solar radiation anomalies). Finally, surface drying should result in an increase in the Bowen ratio anomalies with the progression of the summer, given that H increases with a decrease in water table and surface drying32,38. However, the Bowen ratio showed no correlation with the standardized snowmelt date anomalies in any of the summer months (Fig. S1c, Table S2), and presented similar values in all the summer months (Fig. S2a). The lack of correlation between the soil moisture, VPD, Bowen ratio, and snowmelt date anomalies suggests that an earlier snowmelt did not result in significant surface drying in the sites of this study. The median PET-ET and PPT-ET for all years and sites included in this analysis (Fig.S2 b,c) was slightly higher in August, similar to reports by others for the Russian arctic tundra38,39, further supporting a lack of soil moisture limitation in late season. Although these analyses do not consider runoff, which can be significant21,26, overall our results do not suggest that an earlier snowmelt resulted in a water stress that significantly limited plant productivity in these arctic ecosystems over continuous permafrost.The correlation between the anomalies in the August GPP and snowmelt timing is consistent with earlier senescence in northern plant species (e.g. Eriophorum vaginatum, a dominant species across these tundra types) compared to southern species growing in the same location in a common garden experiment40. The phenotypic variation was shown to be persisting for decades41, and ecotypes may be unable to extend their effective growth period or take advantage of a longer growing season40. Several studies across different plant functional types have shown that once plant growth is initiated after the snowmelt in northern ecosystems, it continues only for a fixed number of days until the occurrence of senescence42,43,44. Therefore, the lower GPP in August with earlier snowmelt might not be linked to water limitation on photosynthesis later in the season, but rather to an earlier senescence arising from the endogenous rhythms of growth and senescence, that plant functional types living in these extreme conditions have developed over decades. On a broader scale, earlier senescence with an earlier start of the growing season after snowmelt in northern ecosystems is also consistent with an earlier spring zero-crossing date and an earlier autumn zero-crossing date of the mean detrended seasonal CO2 variations at Barrow, AK, USA (NOAA ESRL: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/obspack/) during 2013–2017 compared to 1980–19845. The spring and autumn zero-crossing date is the time when the detrended seasonal CO2 variations intersect the zero line in spring and autumn respectively and can be used as an indicator for the start and end of the net CO2 uptake by vegetation45,46. On the other hand, NDVI measurements show both an earlier start of the season and a later end of season for 2008–2012 compared to 1982–19865. The disagreement between the detrended seasonal atmospheric CO2 concentration showing an earlier autumn zero-crossing date and the NDVI measurements showing a later end of the season has been explained by the increase in respiration in the fall20. The disagreement between atmospheric CO2 concentration trends (showing an earlier autumn zero-crossing date), and NDVI (showing a later end of the season,5 may also be explained by the challenges in using NDVI as a proxy for plant productivity in these arctic systems. The relationship between NDVI and CO2 flux and plant productivity is highly variable and non-linear in arctic ecosystems47. While some arctic ecosystems have shown that NDVI was strongly correlated with GPP (explaining 75% of the variation in GPP48, other studies showed that NDVI was either not significantly correlated with GPP and NEE49 or was only able to explain a minor fraction (maximum of 25%) of the variation in NEE and GPP in some arctic tundra ecosystems after accounting for the seasonal variation50,51.In conclusion, earlier snowmelt was associated with greater net CO2 uptake and higher GPP in early and peak seasons, but with less net CO2 uptake and lower GPP later in the summer, in the studied arctic tundra ecosystems. We did not find evidence of a late-season water limitation to GPP with earlier snowmelt. Although several hypotheses can be forwarded to explain the link between snowmelt and late season declines in plant productivity and carbon uptake, the current literature does not provide a definitive explanation (schematic Fig. 4). Future studies should investigate the potential interaction of different processes explaining the response of the carbon dynamics in the Arctic to earlier snowmelt and reconstruct the temporal changes in the carbon balance from these systems. The link between the long-term changes in the CO2 fluxes and NDVI in tundra ecosystems needs closer examination. Studies should investigate if higher NDVI is definitively associated with higher net CO2 uptake. Greening of the Arctic might not necessarily translate into more net CO2 uptake, as early and peak season carbon gains might be offset by a late-season CO2 loss, and respiration might counterbalance the increase in plant productivity. A better understanding of the processes driving these temporal changes is a fundamental step in advancing our prediction of the response of the arctic CO2 balance to changing climate.Figure 4Schematic of the effect of earlier snowmelt on NEE, GPP, and ER at different times of the season. Earlier snowmelt results in an earlier activation of the vegetation, higher plant productivity, and higher net carbon uptake in June and July. This earlier activation could result in more carbon loss and lower plant productivity with earlier snowmelt in August, potentially related to either environmental stress, or to earlier senescence. Photo credit: Donatella Zona.Full size image More

Akins JR, Aubry KB, Sacks BN (2018) Genetic integrity, diversity, and population structure of the Cascade red fox. Conserv Genet 19:969–980
Google Scholar 
Allen SH, Sargeant AB (1993) Dispersal patterns of red foxes relative to population density. J Wildlife Manag 57(3):526–533Arbogast BS, Schumacher KI, Kerhoulas NJ, Bidlack AL, Cook JA, Kenagy GJ (2017) Genetic data reveal a cryptic species of New World flying squirrel: Glaucomys oregonensis. J Mammal 98(4):1027–41
Google Scholar 
Ashbrook FG (1928) Silver-Fox Farming. US Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.Aubry KB (1984) The recent history and present distribution of the red fox in Washington. Northwest Sci 58(1):69–79
Google Scholar 
Aubry KB, Statham MJ, Sacks BN, Perrine JD, Wisely SM (2009) Phylogeography of the North American red fox: vicariance in Pleistocene forest refugia. Mol Ecol 18(12):2668–2686CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bailey V (1936a) The red fox in America. Nature 28:269–272
Google Scholar 
Bailey V (1936b) The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C
Google Scholar 
Ball MC, Finnegan L, Manseau M, Wilson P (2010) Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatially delineate and characterize genetic population structure: an application to boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada. Conserv Genet 11(6):2131–2143
Google Scholar 
Barrowclough GF, Groth JG, Mertz LA, Gutiérrez RJ (2004) Phylogeographic structure, gene flow and species status in blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus). Mol Ecol 13(7):1911–22CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bell DA, Robinson ZL, Funk WC, Fitzpatrick SW, Allendorf FW, Tallmon DA et al. (2019) The exciting potential and remaining uncertainties of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 34(12):1070–1079PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Black KL, Petty SK, Radeloff VC, Pauli JN (2018) The Great Lakes Region is a melting pot for vicariant red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. J Mammal 99(5):1229–1236
Google Scholar 
Champagnon J, Elmberg J, Guillemain M, Gauthier-Clerc M, Lebreton JD (2012) Conspecifics can be aliens too: a review of effects of restocking practices in vertebrates. J Nat Conserv 20(4):231–41
Google Scholar 
Chen C, Durand E, Forbes F, François O (2007) Bayesian clustering algorithms ascertaining spatial population structure: a new computer program and a comparison study. Mol Ecol Notes 7(5):747–756
Google Scholar 
Cross PR, Sacks BN, Luikart G, Schwartz MK, Van Etten KW, Crabtree RL (2018) Red Fox Ancestry and Connectivity Assessments Reveal Minimal Fur Farm Introgression in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. J Fish Wildl Manag 9(2):519–530
Google Scholar 
Dalquest, WW (1948) Mammals of Washington, Vol II. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, Lawrence, KansasDevenish-Nelson ES, Harris S, Soulsbury CD, Richards SA, Stephens PA (2013) Demography of a carnivore, the red fox, Vulpes vulpes: what have we learnt from 70 years of published studies? Oikos 122(5):705–16
Google Scholar 
Do C, Waples RS, Peel D, Macbeth G, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR (2014) NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour 14(1):209–214CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Durand E, Jay F, Gaggiotti OE, François O (2009) Spatial inference of admixture proportions and secondary contact zones. Mol Biol Evol 26(9):1963–1973CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) Structure Harvester: a website and program for visualizing Structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4(2):359–361
Google Scholar 
Edmands S (2007) Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol 6(3):463–75
Google Scholar 
Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164(4):1567–1587CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fichter E, Williams R (1967) Distribution and status of the red fox in Idaho. J Mammal 48(2):219–230
Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick SW, Bradburd GS, Kremer CT, Salerno PE, Angeloni LM, Funk WC (2020) Genomic and fitness consequences of genetic rescue in wild populations. Curr Biol 30(3):517–22CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv Biol 10(6):1500–8
Google Scholar 
Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: Meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24(11):2610–2618PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham R, Ballou JD, Eldridge MD, Lacy RC, Ralls K, Dudash MR, Fenster CB (2011) Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv Biol 25(3):465–75PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham R, Ballou JD, Ralls K, Eldridge MD, Dudash MR, Fenster CB et al. (2017) Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Fuhrmann RT (1998) Distribution, Morphology, and Habitat Use of the Red Fox in the Northern Yellowstone Ecosystem. MSc Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MontanaGortázar C, Travaini A, Delibes M (2000) Habitat-related microgeographic body size variation in two Mediterranean populations of red fox (Vulpes vulpes). J Zool Lond 250:335–338
Google Scholar 
Gosselink TE, Piccolo KA, Van Deelen TR, Warner RE, Mankin PC (2010) Natal dispersal and philopatry of red foxes in urban and agricultural areas of Illinois. J Wildl Manag 74(6):1204–17
Google Scholar 
Goudet J (2005) Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol Ecol Notes 5(1):184–186
Google Scholar 
Green GA, Sacks BN, Erickson LJ, Aubry KB (2017) Genetic characteristics of red foxes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Naturalist 98(2):73–81
Google Scholar 
Grinnell J, Dixon JS, Linsdale JM (1937) Fur-Bearing Mammals of California, Vol II. University of California Press, Berkeley, California
Google Scholar 
Hall E, Kelson KR (1959) The Mammals of North America. 2 Vols. Ronald Press, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Hampe A, Petit RJ (2005) Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecol Lett 8(5):461–7PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harris K, Zhang Y, Nielsen R (2019) Genetic rescue and the maintenance of native ancestry. Conserv Genet 20(1):59–64
Google Scholar 
Hedrick PW, Peterson RO, Vucetich LM, Adams JR, Vucetich JA (2014) Genetic rescue in Isle Royale wolves: genetic analysis and the collapse of the population. Conserv Genet 15(5):1111–21
Google Scholar 
Hiller TL, McFadden-Hiller JE, Sacks BN (2015) Genetic and photographic detections document Sierra Nevada red fox in the Northern Cascades of Oregon. Northwest Sci 89(4):409–13
Google Scholar 
Hoffmann M, Sillero-Zubiri C (2021) Vulpes vulpes (amended version of 2016 assessment). IUCN Red List Threatened Species 2021:e.T23062A193903628. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T23062A193903628.en. Accessed 23 September 2021Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann RS, Wright PL, Newby FE (1969) The distribution of some mammals in Montana I. Mammals other than bats. J Mammal 50(3):579–604
Google Scholar 
Hope AG, Malaney JL, Bell KC, Salazar-Miralles F, Chavez AS, Barber BR et al. (2016) Revision of widespread red squirrels (genus: Tamiasciurus) highlights the complexity of speciation within North American forests. Mol Phylogenet Evol 100:170–82PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23(14):1801–1806CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T (2008) adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24(11):1403–1405CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11(1):94PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kamler JF, Ballard WB (2002) A review of native and nonnative red foxes in North America. Wildlife Soc Bullet 30(2):370–379Kamler JF, Ballard WB (2003) Range expansion of red foxes in eastern Nevada and western Utah. J Arizona-Nevada Acad Sci 36(1):18–20Kardos M, Taylor HR, Ellegren H, Luikart G, Allendorf FW (2016) Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild. Evolut Appl 9(10):1205–18
Google Scholar 
Kasprowicz AE, Statham MJ, Sacks BN (2016) Fate of the other redcoat: remnants of colonial British foxes in the eastern United States. J Mammal 97(1):298–309
Google Scholar 
Kuchler A (1964) Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. Am Geogr Soc Spec Publ 36:1–116Kyriazis CC, Wayne RK, Lohmueller KE (2021) Strongly deleterious mutations are a primary determinant of extinction risk due to inbreeding depression. Evol Lett 5(1):33–47PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Laikre L, Schwartz MK, Waples RS, Ryman N, Group GW (2010) Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends Ecol Evol 25(9):520–529PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Larivière S, Pasitschniak-Arts M (1996) Vulpes vulpes. Mamm Species 537:1–11
Google Scholar 
Laut AC (1921) The fur trade of America. Macmillan Company, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Leigh JW, Bryant D (2015) Popart: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol Evol 6(9):1110–6
Google Scholar 
Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1995) When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation? Conserv Biol 9(4):753–60
Google Scholar 
Lewis JC, Sallee KL, Golightly Jr RT (1999) Introduction and range expansion of nonnative red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in California. Am Midland Naturalist 142(2):372–381Long J (2003) Introduced mammals of the world: their history, distribution and influence. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia
Google Scholar 
Lord KA, Larson G, Coppinger RP, Karlsson EK (2020) The history of farm foxes undermines the animal domestication syndrome. Trends Ecol Evol 35(2):125–136PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Love Stowell SM, Pinzone CA, Martin AP (2017) Overcoming barriers to active interventions for genetic diversity. Biodivers Conserv 26(8):1753–65
Google Scholar 
Lounsberry ZT, Quinn CB, Statham MJ, Angulo CL, Kalani TJ, Tiller E et al. (2017) Investigating genetic introgression from farmed red foxes into the wild population in Newfoundland, Canada. Conserv Genet 18(2):383–392
Google Scholar 
Mace RU (1970). Oregon’s Furbearing Animals. Oregon State Game Commission, Corvallis, OregonManthey JD, Klicka J, Spellman GM (2012) Is gene flow promoting the reversal of Pleistocene divergence in the Mountain Chickadee (Poecile gambeli)? PLOS ONE 7(11):e49218CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Merson C, Statham MJ, Janecka JE, Lopez RR, Silvy NJ, Sacks BN (2017) Distribution of native and nonnative ancestry in red foxes along an elevational gradient in central Colorado. J Mammal 98(2):365–377
Google Scholar 
Miller JM, Cullingham CI, Peery RM (2020) The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method. Heredity 125(5):269–280PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moore M, Brown SK, Sacks BN (2010) Thirty-one short red fox (Vulpes vulpes) microsatellite markers. Mol Ecol Resour 10:404–8PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moritz C (1994) Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: a critical review. Mol Ecol 3(4):401–11CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moritz C (2002) Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol 51(2):238–254PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Neel MC, McKelvey K, Ryman N, Lloyd MW, Bull RS, Allendorf FW et al. (2013) Estimation of effective population size in continuously distributed populations: there goes the neighborhood. Heredity 111(3):189–99CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nei M (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Pebesma EJ (2004) Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Comput Geosci 30(7):683–691
Google Scholar 
Paradis E (2010) pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated–modular approach. Bioinformatics 26(3):419–20CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Perrine JD, Campbell LA, Green GA (2010) Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): a conservation assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Vallejo, CaliforniaPerrine JD, Pollinger JP, Sacks BN, Barrett RH, Wayne RK (2007) Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. Conserv Genet 8(5):1083–1095
Google Scholar 
Petersen M (1914) The fur traders and fur bearing animals. Hammond Press, Buffalo, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Petkova D, Novembre J, Stephens M (2016) Visualizing spatial population structure with estimated effective migration surfaces. Nat Genet 48(1):94–100CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Petkova (2020) reemsplots2: Generate plots to inspect and visualize the results of EEMS. R package version 0.1.0. https://github.com/dipetkov/eemsPritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard JK, Wen W, Falush D (2003) Documentation for STRUCTURE Software: Version 2. https://web.stanford.edu/group/pritchardlab/software/readme_structure2.pdf Accessed 3 Dec 2020Quinn CB, Alden PB, Sacks BN (2019) Noninvasive sampling reveals short-term genetic rescue in an insular red fox population. J Heredity 110(5):559–576
Google Scholar 
Ralls K, Ballou JD, Dudash MR, Eldridge MD, Fenster CB, Lacy RC et al. (2018) Call for a paradigm shift in the genetic management of fragmented populations. Conserv Lett 11(2):e12412
Google Scholar 
Ralls K, Sunnucks P, Lacy RC, Frankham R (2020) Genetic rescue: a critique of the evidence supports maximizing genetic diversity rather than minimizing the introduction of putatively harmful genetic variation. Biol Conserv 251:108784
Google Scholar 
Rando HM, Stutchman JT, Bastounes ER, Johnson JL, Driscoll CA, Barr CS et al. (2017) Y-chromosome Markers for the Red Fox. J Heredity 108(6):678–685CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27(1):83–109
Google Scholar 
Roest AI (1977) Taxonomic status of the red fox in California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaRoux C, Fraisse C, Romiguier J, Anciaux Y, Galtier N, Bierne N (2016) Shedding light on the grey zone of speciation along a continuum of genomic divergence. PLOS Biol 14(12):e2000234PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sacks BN, Brazeal JL, Lewis JC (2016) Landscape genetics of the nonnative red fox of California. Ecol Evol 6(14):4775–4791PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sacks B, Lounsberry Z, Rando H, Kluepfel K, Fain S, Brown S et al. (2021) Sequencing red fox Y chromosome fragments to develop phylogenetically informative SNP markers and glimpse male-specific trans-Pacific phylogeography. Genes 12(1):97CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sacks BN, Moore M, Statham MJ, Wittmer HU (2011) A restricted hybrid zone between native and introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations suggests reproductive barriers and competitive exclusion. Mol Ecol 20(2):326–341PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sacks BN, Statham MJ, Perrine JD, Wisely SM, Aubry KB (2010) North American montane red foxes: expansion, fragmentation, and the origin of the Sacramento Valley red fox. Conserv Genet 11(4):1523–1539
Google Scholar 
Saunders G, Coman B, Kinnear J, Braysher M (1995) Managing vertebrate pests: foxes. Bureau of Resource Science and Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
Google Scholar 
Sierra Nevada Red Fox Conservation Advisory Team [SCAT] (2022) A Conservation Strategy for the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, USA, In pressSeton E (1929) Lives of Game Animals. Doubleday, Doran and Co, New York, NY
Google Scholar 
Shaffer ML, Stein BA (2000) Safeguarding our precious heritage. In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 301–322
Google Scholar 
Shirk A, Cushman S (2011) sGD: software for estimating spatially explicit indices of genetic diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 11(5):922–934CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sikes RS, Gannon WL, Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2011) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal 92:235–253
Google Scholar 
Statham MJ, Murdoch J, Janecka J, Aubry KB, Edwards CJ, Soulsbury CD et al. (2014) Range-wide multilocus phylogeography of the red fox reveals ancient continental divergence, minimal genomic exchange and distinct demographic histories. Mol Ecol 23(19):4813–4830PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Statham MJ, Sacks BN, Aubry KB, Perrine JD, Wisely SM (2012) The origin of recently established red fox populations in the United States: translocations or natural range expansions? J Mammal 93(1):52–65
Google Scholar 
Statham MJ, Trut LN, Sacks BN, Kharlamova AV, Oskina IN, Gulevich RG et al. (2011) On the origin of a domesticated species: identifying the parent population of Russian silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Biol J Linn Soc 103(1):168–175
Google Scholar 
Szuma E (2008) Evolutionary and climatic factors affecting tooth size in the red fox Vulpes vulpes in the Holarctic. Mammal Res 53(4):289–332
Google Scholar 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2015) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list Sierra Nevada red fox as an endangered or threatened species. Fed Reg 80:60989–61028
Google Scholar 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2021) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada red fox. Fed Reg 86:41743–41758
Google Scholar 
van der Valk T, de Manuel M, Marques-Bonet T, Guschanski K (2021) Estimates of genetic load suggest frequent purging of deleterious alleles in small populations. bioRxiv:696831Verts B, Carraway LN (1998) Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley
Google Scholar 
Volkmann LA, Statham MJ, Mooers AØ, Sacks BN (2015) Genetic distinctiveness of red foxes in the Intermountain West as revealed through expanded mitochondrial sequencing. J Mammal 96(2):297–307
Google Scholar 
Waples RS (2006) A bias correction for estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium at unlinked gene loci. Conserv Genet 7(2):167–184
Google Scholar 
Waples RS, Antao T, Luikart G (2014) Effects of overlapping generations on linkage disequilibrium estimates of effective population size. Genetics 197(2):769–780PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Waples RS, Do C (2008) LDNE: a program for estimating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol Ecol Resour 8(4):753–756PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Waples RS, Do C (2010) Linkage disequilibrium estimates of contemporary Ne using highly variable genetic markers: a largely untapped resource for applied conservation and evolution. Evolut Appl 3(3):244–262
Google Scholar 
Waples RS, England PR (2011) Estimating contemporary effective population size on the basis of linkage disequilibrium in the face of migration. Genetics 189(2):633–644PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) Washington’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA
Google Scholar 
Wei W, Ayub Q, Xue Y, Tyler-Smith C (2013) A comparison of Y-chromosomal lineage dating using either resequencing or Y-SNP plus Y-STR genotyping. Forensic Sci Int- Genet 7:568–572CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 36:1358–1370Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC, Tallmon DA (2015) Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 30(1):42–49PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wilder AP, Navarro AY, King SN, Miller WB, Thomas SM, Steiner CC et al. (2020) Fitness costs associated with ancestry to isolated populations of an endangered species. Conserv Genet 21(3):589–601CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wright S (1946) Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics 31(1):39CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zabel CJ, Taggart SJ (1989) Shift in red fox, Vulpes vulpes, mating system associated with El Niño in the Bering Sea. Anim Behav 38(5):830–838
Google Scholar  More

United Nations. (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2019).Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9712 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tablado, Z. & Jenni, L. Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance. Biol. Rev. 92, 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12224 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. IUCN Programme 2017–2020. (2016).IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021–3. (2021).Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 13, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmford, A. et al. A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS Biol. 7, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seto, K. C., Guneralp, B. & Hutyra, L. R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109 (2012).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen, G. Z. et al. Global projections of future urban land expansion under shared socioeconomic pathways. Nat. Commun. 11, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14386-x (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Larson, C. L., Reed, S. E., Merenlender, A. M. & Crooks, K. R. Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systematic review. PLoS ONE 11, 21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167259 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frid, A. & Dill, L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 16 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Moen, G. K., Stoen, O. G., Sahlen, V. & Swenson, J. E. Behaviour of solitary adult scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos) when approached by humans on foot. PLoS ONE 7, 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031699 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Le Grand, L. et al. Behavioral and physiological responses of scandinavian brown bears (ursus arctos) to dog hunts and human encounters. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00134 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, D. H. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecol. (Washington D C) 61, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937156 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zimmermann, B., Nelson, L., Wabakken, P., Sand, H. & Liberg, O. Behavioral responses of wolves to roads: scale-dependent ambivalence. Behav. Ecol. 25, 1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru134 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Heinemeyer, K. et al. Wolverines in winter: indirect habitat loss and functional responses to backcountry recreation. Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2611 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ladle, A. et al. Grizzly bear response to spatio-temporal variability in human recreational activity. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13277 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coppes, J., Burghardt, F., Hagen, R., Suchant, R. & Braunisch, V. Human recreation affects spatio-temporal habitat use patterns in red deer (Cervus elaphus). PLoS ONE 12, 19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175134 (2017).CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ordiz, A., Bischof, R. & Swenson, J. E. Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator?. Biol. Conserv. 168, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.024 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205106 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ordiz, A. et al. Habituation, sensitization, or consistent behavioral responses? Brown bear responses after repeated approaches by humans on foot. Biol. Conserv. 232, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.016 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. S., Oyster, J., Partridge, S. D., Martin, I. E. & Sisson, A. Assessing American black bear response to human activity at Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska. Ursus 23, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.2192/ursus-d-11-00020.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wam, H. K., Eldegard, K. & Hjeljord, O. Minor habituation to repeated experimental approaches in Scandinavian wolves. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 60, 839–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-014-0841-0 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sweanor, L. L., Logan, K. A. & Hornocker, M. G. Puma responses to close approaches by researchers. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33, 905–913. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[905:Prtcab]2.0.Co;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coppes, J., Ehrlacher, J., Thiel, D., Suchant, R. & Braunisch, V. Outdoor recreation causes effective habitat reduction in capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: a major threat for geographically restricted populations. J. Avian Biol. 48, 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01239 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coppes, J. et al. Habitat suitability modulates the response of wildlife to human recreation. Biol. Conserv. 227, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.018 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gundersen, V., Vistad, O. I., Panzacchi, M., Strand, O. & van Moorter, B. Large-scale segregation of tourists and wild reindeer in three Norwegian national parks: Management implications. Tourism Manage. 75, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.017 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filla, M. et al. Habitat selection by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is primarily driven by avoidance of human activity during day and prey availability during night. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6367–6381. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3204 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, O., Gundersen, V., Wold, L. C. & Stange, E. Monitoring visitors to natural areas in wintertime: issues in counter accuracy. J. Sustain. Tour. 22, 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.839693 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marion, S. et al. A systematic review of methods for studying the impacts of outdoor recreation on terrestrial wildlife. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00917 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corradini, A. et al. Effects of cumulated outdoor activity on wildlife habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 253, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108818 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jager, H., Schirpke, U. & Tappeiner, U. Assessing conflicts between winter recreational activities and grouse species. J. Environ. Manage. 276, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111194 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Linnell, J. D. C., Broseth, H., Odden, J. & Nilsen, E. B. Sustainably harvesting a large Carnivore? Development of Eurasian Lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy. Environ. Manage. 45, 1142–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9455-9 (2010).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Andren, H. et al. Survival rates and causes of mortality in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in multi-use landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 131, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.025 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manly, B., McDonald, L., Thomas, D., McDonald, T. & Erickson, W. Resource Selection by Animals (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).Odden, J., Linnell, J. D. C. & Andersen, R. Diet of Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, in the boreal forest of southeastern Norway: the relative importance of livestock and hares at low roe deer density. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 52, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-006-0052-4 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gervasi, V., Nilsen, E. B., Odden, J., Bouyer, Y. & Linnell, J. D. C. The spatio-temporal distribution of wild and domestic ungulates modulates lynx kill rates in a multi-use landscape. J. Zool. 292, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12088 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arnemo, J. M. & Evans, A. Biomedical protocols for free-ranging brown bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx (Hedmark University College Evenstad, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Padgham, M., Lovelace, R., Salmon, M. & Rudis, B. osmdata. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 305 (2017).
ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2020).Northrup, J. M., Hooten, M. B., Anderson, C. R. & Wittemyer, G. Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design. Ecology 94, 1456–1463. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1688.1 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Horne, J. S., Garton, E. O., Krone, S. M. & Lewis, J. S. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88, 2354–2363. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0957.1 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Calenge, C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.2–7. (2020).Fay, M. P., Graubard, B. I., Freedman, L. S. & Midthune, D. N. Conditional logistic regression with sandwich estimators: Application to a meta-analysis. Biometrics 54, 195–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534007 (1998).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Prima, M.-C., Duchesne, T. & Fortin, D. Robust inference from conditional logistic regression applied to movement and habitat selection analysis. PLoS ONE 12, e0169779 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basille, M. et al. Selecting habitat to survive: the impact of road density on survival in a large carnivore. PLoS ONE 8, 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065493 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Basille, M. et al. What shapes Eurasian lynx distribution in human dominated landscapes: selecting prey or avoiding people?. Ecography 32, 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05712.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouyer, Y. et al. Eurasian lynx habitat selection in human-modified landscape in Norway: effects of different human habitat modifications and behavioral states. Biol. Conserv. 191, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.007 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heggem, E. S. F., Mathisen, H. & Frydenlund, J. J. N. R. AR50–Arealressurskart i målestokk 1: 50 000. Et heldekkende arealressurskart for jord-og skogbruk. (2019).Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.4–5. (2020).Bivand, R. & Lewin-Koh, N. maptools: Tools for Handling Spatial Objects. R package version 1.1–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=maptools. (2021).Akaike, H. in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control Vol. 19 716–723 (1974).Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference—a practical information-theoretic approach.2nd edn. Springer, New York (2002).Hastie, T. J. & Tibshirani, R. J. Generalized additive models. Vol. 43 (CRC press, 1990).Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000980 (2004).MathSciNet 
Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Vazquez, C., Rowcliffe, J. M., Spoelstra, K. & Jansen, P. A. Comparing diel activity patterns of wildlife across latitudes and seasons: Time transformations using day length. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 2057–2066. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13290 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rowcliffe, M. activity: Animal Activity Statistics. R package version 1.3.1. (2021).Olson, L. E., Squires, J. R., Roberts, E. K., Ivan, J. S. & Hebblewhite, M. Sharing the same slope: behavioral responses of a threatened mesocarnivore to motorized and nonmotorized winter recreation. Ecol. Evol. 8, 8555–8572. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4382 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Squires, J. R., Olson, L. E., Roberts, E. K., Ivan, J. S. & Hebblewhite, M. Winter recreation and Canada lynx: reducing conflict through niche partitioning. Ecosphere 10, 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2876 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Belotti, E., Mayer, K., Kreisinger, J., Heurich, M. & Bufka, L. Recreational activities affect resting site selection and foraging time of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Hystrix 29, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-00053-2018 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunde, P., Stener, S. O. & Kvam, T. Tolerance to humans of resting lynxes Lynx lynx in a hunted population. Wildlife Biol. 4, 177–183 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heurich, M. et al. Activity patterns of Eurasian Lynx are modulated by light regime and individual traits over a wide latitudinal range. PLoS ONE 9, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114143 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bischof, R., Gjevestad, J. G. O., Ordiz, A., Eldegard, K. & Milleret, C. High frequency GPS bursts and path-level analysis reveal linear feature tracking by red foxes. Sci. Rep. 9, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45150-x (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouyer, Y. et al. Tolerance to anthropogenic disturbance by a large carnivore: the case of Eurasian lynx in south-eastern Norway. Anim. Conserv. 18, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12168 (2015).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Gundersen, V., Figari, H. & Nowell, M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, Y. R., Du, Y. Y., Wang, Y. & Zhuang, L. Y. Examining associations of environmental characteristics with recreational cycling behaviour by street-level strava data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060644 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, G. P. & Jiao, J. Where does bicycling for health happen? analysing volunteered geographic information through place and plexus. J. Transp. Health 2, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.12.001 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conrow, L., Wentz, E., Nelson, T. & Pettit, C. Comparing spatial patterns of crowdsourced and conventional bicycling datasets. Appl. Geogr. 92, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.01.009 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

A combined DNA metabarcoding/in-situ macro photography approach to reliably analyse carnivorous plant prey spectraResults indicate that DNA metabarcoding allows for reliable analysis of prey spectra composition in carnivorous plants at a taxonomic resolution and level of completeness unachievable by traditional morphology-based approaches (as performed, for example, by4,5,6,7,9,10,11). Even in remote tropical northern Western Australia, where many (if not most) arthropod species have not yet been accessioned into the BOLD or GenBank barcode reference libraries, this method identified over 90% of obtained OTUs from our sample set; most of them at family-level, but 41% to genus-level, and 17% even down to species rank (Supplementary Data S1). Lekesyte et al.27 were able to identify 80% of the analysed prey items found on D. rotundifolia in England to species-level. However, their sampling was performed in western Europe, whose entomofauna is comparatively well studied taxonomically and has an excellent coverage in the BOLD reference library of DNA barcodes41. New insect barcodes are regularly added to the BOLD library through large-scale initiatives such as the international Barcode of Life Project (iBOL; https://ibol.org/) and its Australian node Australian Barcode of Life Network (ABOLN), hence accuracy of future metabarcoding research performed in Australia can be expected to increase to similar levels soon.In-situ macro photography was found to provide a valuable plausibility control tool for the prey taxa identified by metabarcoding. While many of the smaller prey taxa detected by metabarcoding were impossible to identify in the in-situ macro photographs due to their tendency to quickly degenerate after digestion into small, shapeless “crumbs”8, this control method considerably reduced the amount of prey taxa detected which were not actually present as prey in the Drosera samples. This flaw of metabarcoding is most commonly a consequence of procedural errors resulting in cross-contamination within the DNA extraction procedure27, usually resulting in low read numbers. However, in-situ macro photographs may also fail to detect species if prey captured by the sundew escaped from the trap33,42, or was stolen by larger animals. In both cases, a DNA imprint left on the Drosera leaves as excretions, detached scales, hairs or, frequently, as autotomised (shedded) body parts42 could have been detected by metabarcoding. Additionally, some barcoding-detected taxa may not constitute prey if they were associated with another captured prey taxon (either as part of its diet, or as a parasite). The latter may explain some barcode hits for taxa not immediately apparent from the in-situ macro photographs, as they are (endo)parasites of captured prey taxa. This was likely the case in the detected Strepsiptera (stylops) which are frequently contained as larvae and adult females in their hymenopteran and orthopteran hosts43. However, insect endoparasites and other non-obvious prey taxa were by default not excluded by the very conservative approach of pictorial plausibility control. Additionally, in the case of endoparasites, these organisms would also contribute to plant nutrition as “bycatch” after being digested together with their host, despite not having been actively attracted to the carnivorous traps. Finally, the control method tested in this study showed that even heavily digested prey items in the samples had sufficient amounts of intact (mitochondrial) DNA present to be detected by metabarcoding, as we found no instance of any prey item being clearly identifiable in the macro photographs but not present in the barcoding data.Prey spectra composition of the studied Drosera speciesThe analysed prey spectra of the three studied species from D. sect. Arachnopus most commonly contained flying insects (especially of the orders Diptera and Hemiptera, both present in 100% of the samples; Fig. 3), thus confirming earlier in-situ macro photography-based studies of closely-related D. sect. Arachnopus species by Krueger et al.8. All members of D. sect. Arachnopus are characterised by a large, erect growth habit and thread-like aerial leaves which usually do not contact the ground8,32, thereby excluding most ground-dwelling arthropods as prey. This result is also similar to other prey spectra studies of erect-leaved Drosera from different geographic areas, where flying insects (particularly Diptera) unanimously comprised almost the entire recorded prey5,11,44. Furthermore, this study confirmed the result of Krueger et al.8 that Hemiptera—and within this order especially the Cicadellidae—are exceptionally common in the prey spectra of D. sect. Arachnopus compared with all other, previously studied Drosera. A possible explanation for this may be the relatively high abundance of Cicadellidae in tropical habitats45 compared to subtropical or temperate habitats where the above-mentioned previous Drosera prey spectra studies were conducted.Of the five most commonly detected orders, Lepidoptera generally comprised the largest prey items in terms of body size or wingspan, respectively. This prey order was exceptionally common in D. finlaysoniana, being present in 100% of samples and also visually conspicuous in the in-situ photographs. Since this Drosera species had by far the largest trapping leaves among the three species studied with an average leaf length of 10.4 ± 0.6 cm (Suppl Appendix S7), and exhibits the largest leaves in D. section Arachnopus32, this may represent an example of large prey items being more easily captured by species with larger trapping leaves33. Additionally, the sampled population of D. finlaysoniana was huge and dense (see Supplementary Figure S1), probably attracting larger prey and enabling capture of larger prey items by “collective” trapping46. Alternatively, Fleischmann30 suggested that captured Lepidoptera themselves could attract further individuals of the same species by pheromone release, potentially explaining the very high numbers of this insect order observed in D. finlaysoniana.Differences among observed prey spectraComparison of prey spectra between the three studied Drosera species revealed significant differences at arthropod family-level but not at the higher level of arthropod orders, indicating that at a coarse taxonomic resolution, the same five arthropod orders (Diptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera and Thysanoptera) generally comprise most of the prey in D. sect. Arachnopus, regardless of given Drosera species or habitat. However, as strong differences were discovered in the ANOSIM comparison at family-level, it can be concluded that differences might likely increase with finer taxonomic resolution of prey taxa, a conclusion also reached by the carnivorous plant prey spectra meta-analysis of Ellison & Gotelli47. While these differences may be partially attributed to different morphological traits of the three species such as leaf scent8,30 or eglandular appendages31, the very high ANOSIM R-values returned and the large number of prey families contributing nearly equally to dissimilarity (Table 2) indicate that the most likely explanation is very different available prey spectra at the three study sites. Indeed, significant differences among different study sites, even within the same species, were previously reported for Drosera rotundifolia by Lekesyte et al.27 and for four species from D. sect. Arachnopus by Krueger et al.8. Notably, the three study sites feature different habitat types and climate regimes (Supplementary Fig. S1).Analyses indicate that there is likely little specialisation in prey capture by the three studied Drosera species. For example, the relatively high detection rate of Lepidoptera in the samples of D. finlaysoniana and D. hartmeyerorum compared to D. margaritacea may be explained by the lake margin habitats of the former two species, while the latter species was found in a completely dry drainage channel lacking any nearby waterbodies (Supplementary Fig. S1). Lepidoptera are likely to occur in much higher concentrations near water sources, especially during the dry season (May to November) when the surrounding areas are lacking other water sources (G. Bourke in Fleischmann30).Estimating prey quantityIn addition to providing a plausibility control for the compositional prey analysis by metabarcoding, the in-situ macro photography method facilitated an estimation of prey quantity per sample. Metabarcoding by itself is currently not a reliable tool for prey quantification due to the lack of a linear relationship between the number of sequence reads and organism biomass26,27.In contrast to Krueger et al.8, who generally found more prey items on larger trapping leaves in species of D. sect. Arachnopus (even when values were compared as per cm of trapping leaf length), the species with the largest leaves studied here (D. finlaysoniana) captured significantly less prey items than the smaller-leaved species D. margaritacea and D. hartmeyerorum (Fig. 4). However, while Krueger et al.8 was able to compare sympatric species (thus minimising any potential effects of the habitat or region on prey spectra), the three species in this study were studied at three different, geographically distant sites. While it is possible that overall prey abundance in the habitat was much lower at the D. finlaysoniana study site (Site 1), it can be hypothesised that the low total prey capture observed in this species may be due to the very large and extremely dense population resulting in strong intraspecific competition for prey (see Supplementary Fig. S1). This effect of population structure on prey capture has also been observed by Gibson48 and Tagawa and Watanabe46 who found a significant negative correlation between total prey capture and population density in different species of Drosera.Conclusions and outlookOur study is the first to employ a DNA metabarcoding approach supported by controls for species presence to analyse carnivorous plant prey spectra. When combined with in-situ macro photography, this method is clearly superior in terms of taxonomic resolution and completeness for analysis of environmental bulk samples (containing different organisms in highly variable states of preservation), as used here for the reconstruction of prey spectra of carnivorous plants. The capability of this method increases with new reference barcodes being regularly added to DNA barcode libraries (such as BOLD and NCBI GenBank) and it thus has the potential to become the standard methodology for future carnivorous plant prey spectra research.Additional studies are needed to test this method for other carnivorous plant species and genera, especially those possessing different trap types. Within Western Australia, three additional trap types occur: snap traps (Aldrovanda), suction traps (Utricularia) and pitfall traps (Cephalotus). In particular, it might be expected that in-situ macro photography will not work as well for the extremely small, typically submerged traps of Aldrovanda and Utricularia (which also completely enclose their captured, microscopic prey items49), potentially necessitating usage of alternative control methods for metabarcoding data. Furthermore, even within Drosera (adhesive traps) some species may require adjustments to the methodology presented here as they accumulate captured prey in a central point via tentacle movement (e.g., many climbing tuberous Drosera) or their leaves may be very difficult to place on paper sheets with the sticky side facing upwards (e.g., all pygmy Drosera). The latter problem may be solved by using reverse action forceps and photographing the leaves while held in place by the forceps.Extensive sampling of sites with co-occurring species from D. sect. Arachnopus is clearly required to better understand the ecological role of trap scent and eglandular appendages in this section. For example, manipulation experiments involving the removal of all yellow blackberry-shaped appendages of D. hartmeyerorum (which have been hypothesised to function as visual prey attractants31) and subsequent metabarcoding prey spectra comparisons of mutilated plants lacking emergences with control plants are proposed. Potential effects of population density on prey spectra (as hypothesised here for D. finlaysoniana) could be studied by comparing prey spectra of individual plants from within mass populations with more exposed-growing individuals of the same population. More

Morey, D. F. Burying key evidence: The social bond between dogs and people. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 158–175 (2006).
Google Scholar 
de Garcia, R. C. M., Calderón, N. & Ferreira, F. Consolidação de diretrizes internacionais de manejo de populações caninas em áreas urbanas e proposta de indicadores para seu gerenciamento. Rev. Panam. Salud Pública 32, 140–144 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Willis, C. M. et al. Olfactory detection of human bladder cancer by dogs: Proof of principle study. BMJ 329, 712 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beck, A. M. The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-Ranging Urban Animals (Purdue University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Jackman, J. & Rowan, A. N. Free-roaming dogs in developing countries: The benefits of capture, neuter, and return programs (2007).Borhani, M. et al. Echinococcoses in Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan: Old diseases in the new millennium. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 34, e00290-e320 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Otranto, D. et al. Zoonotic parasites of sheltered and stray dogs in the era of the global economic and political crisis. Trends Parasitol. 33, 813–825 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Quinnell, R. J. & Courtenay, O. Transmission, reservoir hosts and control of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis. Parasitology 136, 1915–1934 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zain, S. N. M., Rahman, R. & Lewis, J. W. Stray animal and human defecation as sources of soil-transmitted helminth eggs in playgrounds of Peninsular Malaysia. J. Helminthol. 89, 740–747 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Garcia, R., Amaku, M., Biondo, A. W. & Ferreira, F. Dog and cat population dynamics in an urban area: Evaluation of a birth control strategy. Pesqui. Veterinária Bras. 38, 511–518 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Smith, L. M. et al. The effectiveness of dog population management: A systematic review. Animals 9, 1020 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tenzin, T. et al. Comparison of mark-resight methods to estimate abundance and rabies vaccination coverage of free-roaming dogs in two urban areas of south Bhutan. Prev. Vet. Med. 118, 436–448 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hiby, E. et al. Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions. BMC Vet. Res. 13, 1–20 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Chidumayo, N. N. System dynamics modelling approach to explore the effect of dog demography on rabies vaccination coverage in Africa. PLoS One 13, e0205884 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Home, C., Bhatnagar, Y. V. & Vanak, A. T. Canine Conundrum: Domestic dogs as an invasive species and their impacts on wildlife in India. Anim. Conserv. 21, 275–282 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Humane Dog Population Management 2019 Update—ICAM. https://www.icam-coalition.org/download/humane-dog-population-management-guidance/http://www.icam-coalition.org/abhay-sankalp-a-sustainable-solution-to-human-dog-conflict-for-improved-human-dog-relationships/.Belo, V. S., Werneck, G. L., da Silva, E. S., Barbosa, D. S. & Struchiner, C. J. Population estimation methods for free-ranging dogs: A systematic review. PLoS One 10, e0144830 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Font, E. Spacing and social organization: Urban stray dogs revisited. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 17, 319–328 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Patronek, G. J., Beck, A. M. & Glickman, L. T. Dynamics of dog and cat populations in a community. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 210, 637–642 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kato, M., Yamamoto, H., Inukai, Y. & Kira, S. Survey of the stray dog population and the health education program on the prevention of dog bites and dog-acquired infections: A comparative study in Nepal and Okayama Prefecture, Japan. Acta Med. Okayama 57, 261–266 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tiwari, H. K., Vanak, A. T., O’Dea, M., Gogoi-Tiwari, J. & Robertson, I. D. A comparative study of enumeration techniques for Free-roaming dogs in rural Baramati, District Pune, India. Front. Vet. Sci. 5, 104 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hiby, L. R. et al. A mark-resight survey method to estimate the roaming dog population in three cities in Rajasthan, India. BMC Vet. Res. 7, 1–10 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Childs, J. E. et al. Density estimates of rural dog populations and an assessment of marking methods during a rabies vaccination campaign in the Philippines. Prev. Vet. Med. 33, 207–218 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tiwari, H. K., Robertson, I. D., O’Dea, M. & Vanak, A. T. Demographic characteristics of free-roaming dogs (FRD) in rural and urban India following a photographic sight-resight survey. Sci. Rep. 9, 16562 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Punjabi, G. A., Athreya, V. & Linnell, J. D. C. Using natural marks to estimate free-ranging dog Canis familiaris abundance in a MARK-RESIGHT framework in suburban Mumbai, India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5, 510–520 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Cleaton, J. M. et al. Use of photography to identify free-roaming dogs during sight-resight surveys: Impacts on estimates of population size and vaccination coverage, Haiti 2016. Vaccine X 2, 100025 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rockwood, L. L. Introduction to Population Ecology (Wiley, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Baquero, O. S., Marconcin, S., Rocha, A. & de Garcia, R. C. M. Companion animal demography and population management in Pinhais, Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 158, 169–177 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Totton, S. C. et al. Stray dog population demographics in Jodhpur, India following a population control/rabies vaccination program. Prev. Vet. Med. 97, 51–57 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Høgåsen, H. R., Er, C., Di Nardo, A. & Dalla Villa, P. Free-roaming dog populations: A cost-benefit model for different management options, applied to Abruzzo, Italy. Prev. Vet. Med. 112, 401–413 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kisiel, L. M. et al. Modeling the effect of surgical sterilization on owned dog population size in Villa de Tezontepec, Hidalgo, Mexico, using an individual-based computer simulation model. PLoS One 13, e0198209 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yoak, A. J., Reece, J. F., Gehrt, S. D. & Hamilton, I. M. Optimizing free-roaming dog control programs using agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 341, 53–61 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Belsare, A. & Vanak, A. T. Modelling the challenges of managing free-ranging dog populations. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Harandi, M. F. et al. Sonographical and serological survey of human cystic echinococcosis and analysis of risk factors associated with seroconversion in rural communities of Kerman, Iran. Zoonoses Public Health 58, 582–588 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Abedi, M., Doosti-Irani, A., Jahanbakhsh, F. & Sahebkar, A. Epidemiology of animal bite in Iran during a 20-year period (1993–2013): A meta-analysis. Trop. Med. Health 47, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kartal, T. & Rowan, A. N. Stray dog population management. F. Man. Small Anim. Med. 15–28 (2018).Amaral, A. C., Ward, M. P. & da Costa Freitas, J. Estimation of roaming dog populations in Timor Leste. Prev. Vet. Med. 113, 608–613 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Melo, S. N. et al. Effects of gender, sterilization, and environment on the spatial distribution of free-roaming dogs: An intervention study in an urban setting. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 289 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Conan, A. et al. Population dynamics of owned, free-roaming dogs: Implications for rabies control. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0004177 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Belsare, A. V. & Gompper, M. E. Assessing demographic and epidemiologic parameters of rural dog populations in India during mass vaccination campaigns. Prev. Vet. Med. 111, 139–146 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mustiana, A. et al. Owned and unowned dog population estimation, dog management and dog bites to inform rabies prevention and response on Lombok Island, Indonesia. PLoS One 10, e0124092 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hossain, M. et al. A survey of the dog population in rural Bangladesh. Prev. Vet. Med. 111, 134–138 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Acosta-Jamett, G., Cleaveland, S., Cunningham, A. A. & de Bronsvoort, B. M. C. Demography of domestic dogs in rural and urban areas of the Coquimbo region of Chile and implications for disease transmission. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 272–281 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massei, G. et al. Free-roaming dogs in Nepal: Demographics, health and public knowledge, attitudes and practices. Zoonoses Public Health 64, 29–40 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rinzin, K. The epidemiology of the free-roaming dog and cat population in the Wellington Region of the New Zealand Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University. Master’s thesis (2007).Arief, R. A. et al. Determinants of vaccination coverage and consequences for rabies control in Bali, Indonesia. Front. Vet. Sci. 3, 123 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Morters, M. K. et al. The demography of free-roaming dog populations and applications to disease and population control. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1096–1106 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pal, S. K. Population ecology of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriol. (Warsz) 46, 69–78 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Rinzin, K., Tenzin, T. & Robertson, I. Size and demography pattern of the domestic dog population in Bhutan: Implications for dog population management and disease control. Prev. Vet. Med. 126, 39–47 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, J. M., O’Neill, D. G., Creevy, K. E. & Austad, S. N. Do female dogs age differently than male dogs?. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 73, 150–156 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dürr, S., Dhand, N. K., Bombara, C., Molloy, S. & Ward, M. P. What influences the home range size of free-roaming domestic dogs?. Epidemiol. Infect. 145, 1339–1350 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Aiyedun, J. O. & Olugasa, B. O. Use of aerial photograph to enhance dog population census in Ilorin, Nigeria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 10, 22–27 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Butler, J. R. A. & Bingham, J. Demography and dog-human relationships of the dog population in Zimbabwean communal lands. Vet. Rec. 147, 442–446 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, T. N. et al. Do open garbage dumps play a role in canine rabies transmission in Biyem-Assi health district in Cameroon?. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 5, 26055 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, N., Subedi, D., Pantha, S., Acharya, K. P. & Nel, L. H. The role of waste management in control of rabies: A neglected issue. Viruses 13, 225 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 

Krystosik, A. et al. Solid wastes provide breeding sites, burrows, and food for biological disease vectors, and urban zoonotic reservoirs: A call to action for solutions-based research. Front. Public Health 7, 405 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tantanee, S. & Hantrakul, S. Municipal Waste Management Challenge of Urbanization: Lesson Learned From Phitsanulok, Thailand. Geogr. Tech. 14 (2019).Desa, U. World urbanization prospects 2018. United Nations Dep. Econ. Soc. Affairs (2018).
https://www.icam-coalition.org/cnvr-in-dehradun-female-dog-focused-cnvr-implemented-with-community-engagement/
Bacon, H., Vancia, V., Walters, H. & Waran, N. Canine trap-neuter-return: A critical review of potential welfare issues. Anim. Welf. 26, 281–292 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bacon, H., Walters, H., Vancia, V., Connelly, L. & Waran, N. Development of a robust canine welfare assessment protocol for use in dog (Canis familiaris) catch-neuter-return (CNR) programmes. Animals 9, 564 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
ICAM Coalition. Are we making a difference? A guide to monitoring and evaluating dog population management interventions 2015 (2015).World Society for the Protection of Animals. Surveying roaming dog populations: Guidelines on methodology, 1–20 (2008).Acharya, M. & Dhakal, S. Survey on street dog population in Pokhara valley of Nepal, Bangladesh. J. Vet. Med. 13, 65–70 (2015).
Google Scholar 

http://www.icam-coalition.org/tool/dog-body-condition-scoring-training/
Tenzin, T., Ahmed, R., Debnath, N. C., Ahmed, G. & Yamage, M. Free-roaming dog population estimation and status of the dog population management and rabies control program in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0003784 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toole, T. M. A project management causal loop diagram. in Arcom Conference 5–7 (2005).Amaku, M., Dias, R. A. & Ferreira, F. Dynamics and control of stray dog populations. Math. Popul. Stud. 17, 69–78 (2010).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kitala, P. M., McDERMOTT, J. J., Coleman, P. G. & Dye, C. Comparison of vaccination strategies for the control of dog rabies in Machakos District, Kenya. Epidemiol. Infect. 129, 215–222 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dahabreh, I. J. et al. A review of validation and calibration methods for health care modeling and simulation. Model. Simul. Context Heal. Technol. Assess. Rev. Exist. Guid. Futur. Res. Needs, Validity Assess. [Internet] (2017).Knobel, D. L. et al. Re-evaluating the burden of rabies in Africa and Asia. Bull. World Health Organ. 83, 360–368 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Özen, D., Böhning, D. & Gürcan, İS. Estimation of stray dog and cat populations in metropolitan Ankara, Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 40, 7–12 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Cortez-Aguirre, G. R., Jiménez-Coello, M., Gutiérrez-Blanco, E. & Ortega-Pacheco, A. Stray dog population in a city of Southern Mexico and its impact on the contamination of public areas. Vet. Med. Int. 2018 (2018). More

Avital, E. & Jablonka, E. Animal Traditions: Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution. (Cambridge University Press, 2000).Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. Nongenetic inheritance and its evolutionary implications. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 103–125 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Mousseau, T. A. & Fox, C. W. Maternal Effects as Adaptations. (Oxford University Press, 1998).Mousseau, T. A. & Fox, C. W. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 403–407 (1998b).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M. J. Evolution in four dimensions. Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Revised Edition. (MIT Press, 2014).Uller, T. Developmental plasticity and the evolution of parental effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 432–438 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bell, A. M. & Hellmann, J. K. An integrative framework for understanding the mechanisms and multigenerational consequences of transgenerational plasticity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 97–118 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Marshall, D. J. & Uller, T. When is a maternal effect adaptive? Oikos 116, 1957–1963 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Yin, J., Zhou, M., Lin, Z., Li, Q. Q. & Zhang, Y.-Y. Transgenerational effects benefit offspring across diverse environments: a meta-analysis in plants and animals. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1976–1986 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, J. B. & Wade, M. J. What are maternal effects (and what are they not)? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, e1115 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Kilner, R. M. et al. Parental effects alter the adaptive value of an adult behavioural trait. eLife 4, e07340 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McNamara, J. M., Dall, S. R. X., Hammerstein, P. & Leimar, O. Detection vs. selection: integration of genetic, epigenetic and environmental cues in fluctuating environments. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1267–1276 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deas, J. B., Blondel, L. & Extavour, C. G. Ancestral and offspring nutrition interact to affect life-history traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20182778 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stamps, J. A. & Bell, A. M. Combining information from parental and personal experiences: simple processes generate diverse outcomes. PLoS ONE 16, e0250540 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Agrawal, A. A., Laforsch, C. & Tollrian, R. Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature 401, 60–63 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Remy, J. J. Stable inheritance of an acquired behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr. Biol. 20, R877–R878 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shama, L. N. S. & Wegner, K. M. Grandparental effects in marine sticklebacks: transgenerational plasticity across multiple generations. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 2297–2307 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crocker, K. C. & Hunter, M. D. Environmental causes and transgenerational consequences of ecdysteroid hormone provisioning in Acheta domesticus. J. Insect Physiol. 109, 69–78 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sarker, G. & Peleg-Raibstein, D. Maternal overnutrition induces long-term cognitive deficits across several generations. Nutrients 11, 7 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hellmann, J. K., Carlsson, E. R. & Bell, A. M. Sex-specific plasticity across generations II: grandpaternal effects are lineage specific and sex specific. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2800–2819 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mahaq, O. The effects of dietary edible bird nest supplementation on learning and memory functions of multigenerational mice. Brain Behav. 10, e01817 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ranade, S. C. et al. Different types of nutritional deficiencies affect different domains of spatial memory function checked in a radial arm maze. Neuroscience 152, 859–866 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Souza, A. S., Fernandes, F. S., do Carmo, T. & das Gracas, M. Effects of maternal malnutrition and postnatal nutritional rehabilitation on brain fatty acids, learning, and memory. Nutr. Rev. 69, 132–144 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Munch, K. L. et al. Maternal effects impact decision-making in a viviparous lizard. Biol. Lett. 14, 20170556 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, C. et al. The learning ability and memory retention of broiler breeders: 2 transgenerational effects of reduced balanced protein diet on reward-based learning. Animal 13, 1260–1268 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boogert, N. J., Zimmer, C. & Spencer, K. A. Pre- and post-natal stress have opposing effects on social information use. Biol. Lett. 9, 20121088 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xia, S.-Z., Liu, L., Feng, C.-H. & Guo, A.-K. Nutritional effects on operant visual learning in Drosophila melanogaster. Physiol. Behav. 62, 263–271 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eaton, L., Edmonds, E. J., Henry, T. B., Snellgrove, D. L. & Sloman, K. A. Mild maternal stress disrupts associative learning and increases aggression in offspring. Horm. Behav. 71, 10–15 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Costa, C. P. et al. Care-giver identity impacts offspring development and performance in an annually social bumble bee. BMC Ecol. Evol. 21, 20 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. P., McGhee, K. E. & Bell, A. M. Maternal predator-exposure has lifelong consequences for offspring learning in three-spined sticklebacks. Biol. Lett. 8, 932–935 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Feng, S., McGhee, K. E. & Bell, A. M. Effect of maternal predator exposure on the ability of stickleback offspring to generalize a learned colour-reward association. Anim. Behav. 107, 61–69 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ghio, S. C., Leblanc, A. B., Audet, C. & Aubin-Horth, N. Effects of maternal stress and cortisol exposure at the egg stage on learning, boldness and neophobia in brook trout. Behaviour 153, 1639–1663 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Tariel, J., Plenet, S. & Luquet, E. How do developmental and parental exposures to predation affect personality and immediate behavioural plasticity in the snail Physa acuta? Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201761 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dinh, H. et al. Transgenerational effects of parental diet on offspring development and disease resistance in flies. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 606993 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bilkó, A., Altbäcker, V. & Hudson, R. Transmission of food preference in the rabbit: The means of information transfer. Physiol. Behav. 56, 907–912 (1994).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oostindjer, M., Bolhuis, J. E., van den Brand, H., Roura, E. & Kemp, B. Prenatal flavor exposure affects growth, health and behavior of newly weaned piglets. Physiol. Behav. 99, 579–586 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wells, D. L. & Hepper, P. G. Prenatal olfactory learning in the domestic dog. Anim. Behav. 72, 681–686 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Hepper, P. G. Fetal memory: does it exist? What does it do? Acta Paediatr. 85, 16–20 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Gowri, V., Dion, E., Viswanath, A., Monteiro Piel, F. & Monteiro, A. Transgenerational inheritance of learned preferences for novel host plant odors in Bicyclus anynana butterflies. Evolution 73, 2401–2414 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peralta-Quesada, P. C. & Schausberger, P. Prenatal chemosensory learning by the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus. PLoS ONE 7, e53229 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nieberding, C. M., van Dyck, H. & Chittka, L. Adaptive learning in non-social insects: from theory to field work, and back. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 27, 75–81 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Momen, F. M. & El Saway, S. A. Biology and fee18lopemenviour of the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 33, 199–204 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Wimmer, D., Hoffmann, D. & Schausberger, P. Prey suitability of Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, and onion thrips, Thrips tabaci, for the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 18, 533–542 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Vangansbeke, D. et al. Supplemental food for Amblyseius swirskii in the control of thrips: feeding friend or foe? Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 466–473 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Delisle, J. F., Brodeur, J. & Shipp, L. Evaluation of various types of supplemental food for two species of predatory mites, Amblyseius swirskii and Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 65, 483–494 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Christiansen, I. C., Szin, S. & Schausberger, P. Benefit-cost trade-offs of early learning in foraging predatory mites Amblyseius swirskii. Sci. Rep. 6, 23571 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schausberger, P., Davaasambuu, U., Saussure, S. & Christiansen, I. C. Categorizing experience-based foraging plasticity in mites: age dependency, primacy effects and memory persistence. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 172110 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Seiter, M. & Schausberger, P. Constitutive and operational variation of learning in foraging predatory mites. PLoS ONE 11, e0166334 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schausberger, P., Seiter, M. & Raspotnig, G. Innate and learned responses of foraging predatory mites to polar and non-polar fractions of thrips’ chemical cues. Biol. Control 151, 104371 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seiter, M. & Schausberger, P. Maternal intraguild predation risk affects offspring anti-predator behavior and learning in mites. Sci. Rep. 5, 15046 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Williams, Z. M. Transgenerational influence of sensorimotor training on offspring behavior and its neural basis in Drosophila. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 131, 166–175 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jahanbazi, M., Sedaratian-Jahromi, A. & Ghane-Jahromi, M. Comparative study of predation, preference and switching behaviors of two predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus and Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Int. J. Pest Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2021.1944699 (2021).Margulies, C., Tully, T. & Dubnau, J. Deconstructing memory in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 15, R700–R713 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mery, F. & Kawecki, T. J. A cost of long-term memory in Drosophila. Science 308, 1148 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schausberger, P., Walzer, A., Hoffmann, D. & Rahmani, H. Food imprinting revisited: early learning in foraging predatory mites. Behaviour 147, 883–897 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schausberger, P. & Peneder, S. Non-associative versus associative learning by foraging predatory mites. BMC Ecol. 17, 2 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. Foraging Theory. (Princeton University Press, 1986).Mendel, D. & Schausberger, P. Diet-dependent intraguild predation between the predatory mites Neoseiulus californicus and Neoseiulus cucumeris. J. Appl. Entomol. 135, 311–319 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Somer, R. A. & Thummel, C. S. Epigenetic inheritance of metabolic state. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 27, 43–47 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bonduriansky, R. & Crean, A. J. What are condition-transfer effects and how can they be detected? Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 450–456 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Engqvist, L. & Reinhold, K. Adaptive parental effects and how to estimate them: a comment to Bonduriansky and Crean. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 457–459 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Melis, R. et al. Effect of freezing and drying processes on the molecular traits of edible yellow mealworm. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 48, 138–149 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Singh, Y., Cullere, M., Kovitvadhi, A., Chundang, P. & Dalle Zotte, A. Effect of different killing methods on physicochemical traits, nutritional characteristics, in vitro human digestibility and oxidative stability during storage of the house cricket (Acheta domesticus L.). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 65, 102444 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grafen, A. On the uses of data on lifetime reproductive success. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 1635–1645 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Monaghan, P. Early growth conditions, phenotypic development and environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 1635–1645 (2008).
Google Scholar 
English, S., Fawcett, T. W., Higginson, A. D., Trimmer, P. C. & Uller, T. Adaptive use of information during growth can explain long-term effects of early life experiences. Am. Nat. 187, 620–632 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Miller, R. R. & Polack, C. W. Sources of maladaptive behavior in ‘normal’ organisms. Behav. Process. 154, 4–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Schausberger, P. Inter-and intraspecific predation on immatures by adult females in Euseius finlandicus, Typhlodromus pyri and Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 21, 131–150 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Walzer, A. & Schausberger, P. Non-consumptive effects of predatory mites on thrips and its host plant. Oikos 118, 934–940 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Walzer, A., Paulus, H. & Schausberger, P. Ontogenetic shifts in intraguild predation on thrips by phytoseiid mites: the relevance of body size and diet specialization. Bull. Entomol. Res. 94, 577–588 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vangansbeke, D., Duarte, M. V. A. & De Clercq, P. Cold-born killers: exploiting temperature-size rule enhances predation capacity of a predatory mite. Pest Manag. Sci. 76, 1841–1846 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krantz, G. W. & Walter, D. E. A Manual of Acarology 3rd edn (Texas Tech University Press, 2008).Croft, B. A., Luh, H.-K. & Schausberger, P. Larval size relative to larval feeding, cannibalism of larvae, egg or adult female size and larval–adult setal patterns among 13 phytoseiid mite species. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 23, 599–610 (1999).
Google Scholar  More