Ecology

Marine Ecology Research Group and Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandMads S. Thomsen, Luca Mondardini, David R. Schiel & Alfonso SicilianoDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, 4000, Roskilde, DenmarkMads S. ThomsenSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado, 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Republic of PanamaAndrew H. Altieri, Viktoria M. M. Frühling, Seamus B. Harrison & Gerhard ZotzEnvironmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAAndrew H. Altieri & Christine AngeliniDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaMelanie J. Bishop & Semonn OleksynDipartimento di Biologia, Università di Pisa, CoNISMa, Via Derna 1, 56126, Pisa, ItalyFabio Bulleri & Joachim LangeneckMarine Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USARoxanne FarhanCentre for Marine Science and Innovation, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaPaul E. Gribben & Brendan S. LanhamSydney Institute of Marine Science, Chowder Bay Road, Mosman, 2088, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaPaul E. Gribben & Brendan S. LanhamCoastal Ecology Lab, MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, 2005 Songhu Road, 200438, Shanghai, ChinaQiang HeInstitute for Biology and Environmental Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, GermanyMoritz Klinghardt, Tristan Schneider & Gerhard ZotzSchool of Biological Sciences and UWA Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, AustraliaYannick Mulders & Thomas WernbergDepartment of Biology and Marine Biology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USAAaron P. RamusNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC, USABrian R. Silliman & Stacy ZhangMarine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB, UKDan A. SmaleCawthron Institute, Nelson, New ZealandPaul M. South More

Lázaro-Lobo, A. & Ervin, G. N. A global examination on the differential impacts of roadsides on native versus exotic and weedy plant species. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17(e00555), 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Christen, D. C. & Matlack, G. R. The habitat and conduit functions of roads in the spread of three invasive plant species. Biol. Invasions 11(2), 453–465 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mortensen, D. A., Rauschert, E. S., Nord, A. N. & Jones, B. P. Forest roads facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2(3), 191–199 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lemke, A., Kowarik, I. & von der Lippe, M. How traffic facilitates population expansion of invasive species along roads: The case of common ragweed in Germany. J. Appl. Ecol. 56(2), 413–422 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rauschert, E. S., Mortensen, D. A. & Bloser, S. M. Human-mediated dispersal via rural road maintenance can move invasive propagules. Biol. Invasions 19(7), 2047–2058 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meunier, G. & Lavoie, C. Roads as corridors for invasive plant species: New evidence from smooth bedstraw (Galium mollugo). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 5(1), 92–100 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mohit, S., Johnson, T. B. & Arnott, S. E. Recreational watercraft decontamination: Can current recommendations reduce aquatic invasive species spread?. Manag. Biol. Invasions 12(1), 148–164 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferguson, L., Duncan, C. L., & Snodgrass, K. Backcountry road maintenance and weed management. United States: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. 22pp (2003). At https://www.google.com/books/edition/Backcountry_Road_Maintenance_and_Weed_Ma/y2amRwT1rIsC?hl=en&gbpv=0.Lelong, B., Lavoie, C., Jodoin, C. & Belzile, F. Expansion pathways of the exotic common reed (Phragmites australis): A historical and genetic analysis. Divers. Distrib. 13, 430–437 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joly, M. et al. Paving the way for invasive species: Road type and the spread of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Environ. Manag. 48(3), 514–522 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, D. Q., Stuckey, R. L. & Thompson, E. B. Spread, impact, and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1987). At http://stoppinginvasives.com/dotAsset/670d2f92-cd0c-41ab-9955-7204f1a9a192.pdf.Stuckey, R. L. Distributional history of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in North America. Bartonia 47, 3–20 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Blossey, B., Skinner, L. C. & Taylor, J. Impact and management of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodivers. Conserv. 10(10), 1787–1807 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilcox, D. A. Migration and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) along highway corridors. Environ. Manag. 13(3), 365–370 (1989).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
St. Louis, E., Stastny, M. & Sargent, R. D. The impacts of biological control on the performance of Lythrum salicaria 20 years post-release. Biol. Control. 140, 104–123 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau. Environmental Handbook for Transportation Operations: A Summary of the Environmental Requirements and Best Practices for Maintaining the Constructing Highways and Transportation Systems. Prepared by NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau, (2011) At https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/repository/oprhbook.pdf.Blossey, B., Schroeder, D., Hight, S. D. & Malecki, R. A. Host specificity and environmental impact of two leaf beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla) for biological control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Sci. 42, 134–140 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blossey, B. Before, during and after: The need for long-term monitoring in invasive plant species management. Biol. Invasions 1, 301–311 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blossey, B. & Hunt, T. R. Mass rearing methods for Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), biological control agents of Lythrum salicaria (Lythraceae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2), 325–334 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grevstad, F. S. Ten-year impacts of the biological control agents Galerucella pusilla and G. calmariensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in Central New York State. Biol. Control 39(1), 1–8 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boag, A. E. & Eckert, C. G. The effect of host abundance on the distribution and impact of biocontrol agents on purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, Lythraceae). Écoscience 20(1), 90–99 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lakoba, V. T., Brooks, R. K., Haak, D. C. & Barney, J. N. An Analysis of US State regulated weed lists: A discordance between biology and policy. Bioscience 70(9), 804–813 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Welling, C. H. & Becker, R. L. Seed bank dynamics of Lythrum salicaria L.: Implications for control of this species in North America. Aquat. Bot. 38, 303–309 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, B. J. & Wickstrom, C. E. Adventitious root production and survival of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) shoot sections. Ohio J. Sci. 97, 2–4 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Farnsworth, E. J. & Ellis, D. R. Is purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) an invasive threat to freshwater wetlands? Conflicting evidence from several ecological metrics. Wetlands 21(2), 199–209 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mahaney, W. M., Smemo, K. A. & Yavitt, J. B. Impacts of Lythrum salicaria invasion on plant community and soil properties in two wetlands in central New York, USA. Botany 84(3), 477–484 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Treberg, M. A. & Husband, B. C. Relationship between the abundance of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and plant species richness along the Bar River Canada. Wetlands 19(1), 118–125 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hager, H. & Vinebrooke, R. E. Positive relationships between invasive purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and plant species diversity and abundance in Minnesota wetlands. Can. J. Bot. 82(6), 763–773 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lavoie, C. Should we care about purple loosestrife? The history of an invasive plant in North America. Biol. Invasions 12(7), 1967–1999 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fickbohm, S. S. & Zhu, W. X. Exotic purple loosestrife invasion of native cattail freshwater wetlands: Effects on organic matter distribution and soil nitrogen cycling. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 32(1), 123–131 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramula, S. Annual mowing has the potential to reduce the invasion of herbaceous Lupinus polyphyllus. Biol. Invasions 22(10), 3163–3173 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milakovic, I., Fiedler, K. & Karrer, G. Management of roadside populations of invasive Ambrosia artemisiifolia by mowing. Weed Res. 54(3), 256–264 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitalos, M. & Karrer, G. Dispersal of Ambrosia artemisiifolia seeds along roads: The contribution of traffic and mowing machines. Neobiota 8, 53–60 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Forman, R. T. & Alexander, L. E. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29(1), 207–231 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milt, A. W. et al. Minimizing opportunity costs to aquatic connectivity restoration while controlling an invasive species. Conserv. Biol. 32(4), 894–904 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC. (2021). URL http://www.rstudio.com/.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2021). https://www.R-project.org/.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (2020).Yakimowski, S. B., Hager, H. A. & Eckert, C. G. Limits and effects of invasion by the nonindigenous wetland plant Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife): A seed bank analysis. Biol. Invasions 7, 687–698 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, S. M. & Moloney, K. A. Combining the effects of surrounding land-use and propagule pressure to predict the distribution of an invasive plant. Biol. Invasions 17, 477–495 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbier, E. B., Knowler, D., Gwatipedza, J., Reichard, S. H. & Hodges, A. R. Implementing policies to control invasive plant species. Bioscience 63(2), 132–138 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blossey, B. Measuring and Evaluating Ecological Outcomes of Biological Control Introductions. In Integrating Biological Control into Conservation Practice (eds Van Driesche, R. et al.) 161–188 (Wiley, 2016).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Rowell, N. Warren County Purple Loosestrife Management Program Final Report. (2015). At https://www.warrenswcd.org/reports.html.Vanneste, T. et al. Plant diversity in hedgerows and road verges across Europe. J. Appl. Ecol. 57(7), 1244–1257 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, A. G. & Lindgren, E. Roadside diversity in relation to age and surrounding source habitat: Evidence for long time lags in valuable green infrastructure. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1(1), e12005 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mccleery, R. A., Holdorf, A. R., Hubbard, L. L. & Peer, B. D. Maximizing the wildlife conservation value of road right-of-ways in an agriculturally dominated lands. Plos one 10(3), e0120375 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
New York Invasive Species Information (NYISI). Purple Loosestrife. (2019). at http://nyis.info/invasive_species/purple-loosestrife.Rogers, J. Controlling purple loosestrife (Lythrum Salicaria) along roadsides in St. Lawrence County: Monitoring and biological controls. Adirondack J. Environ. Stud. 23(1), 5 (2019).
Google Scholar 
New York State Department of Transportation. Clear Zones. (2021). At https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/landscape/trees/rs-lsf-plant-photos.ESRI. ArcGIS Pro: Version 2.9: Environmental System Research Institute. (2021). At https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/get-started/get-started.htm.IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Released 2017. More

Seigel, R. A. & Ford, N. B. Reproductive ecology in Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (eds. Seigel, R. A., Collins, J. T. &. Novak, S. S.). 210–252. (MacMillan Publishing, 1987).Kremen, C., Merenlender, A. M. & Murphy, D. D. Ecological monitoring: A vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conserv. Biol. 8, 388–397 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R. & Bonnet, X. Snakes: A new ‘model organism’ in ecological research?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 221–222 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vilela, B., Villalobos, F., Rodríguez, M. Á. & Terribile, L. C. Body size, extinction risk and knowledge bias in New World snakes. PLoS ONE 9, e113429 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mathies, T. Reproductive cycles of tropical snakes. in Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Snakes (eds. Sever, D. & Aldridge, R.). 523–562. (CRC Press, 2016).Shine, R., Harlow, P. S. & Keogh, J. S. The allometry of life-history traits: Insights from a study of giant snakes (Python reticulatus). J. Zool. 244, 405–414 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Natusch, D. J., Lyons, J. A., Riyanto, A., Khadiejah, S. & Shine, R. Detailed biological data are informative, but robust trends are needed for informing sustainability of wildlife harvesting: A case study of reptile offtake in Southeast Asia. Biol. Conserv. 233, 83–92 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Freeman, A. & Freeman, A. Habitat use in a large rainforest python (Morelia kinghorni) in the wet tropics of north Queensland, Australia. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 4, 252–260 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Smith, S. N., Jones, M. D., Marshall, B. M. & Strine, C. T. Native Burmese pythons exhibit site fidelity and preference for aquatic habitats in an agricultural mosaic. Sci. Rep. 11, 7014 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, D. L. & Chapman, M. R. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environ. Biol. Fishes 55, 65–79 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Spong, G. Space use in lions, Panthera leo, in the Selous Game Reserve: Social and ecological factors. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 303–307 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. A field study of spatial ecology and movements of a threatened snake species, Hoplocephalus bungaroides. Biol. Conserv. 82, 203–217 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Fearn, S. & Sambono, J. A reliable size record for the scrub python Morelia amethistina (Serpentes: Pythonidae) in north east Queensland. Herpetofauna 30, 2–6 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Grow, D., Wheeler, S. & Clark, B. Reproduction of the Amethystine python Python amethystinus kinghorni at the Oklahoma City Zoo. Int. Zoo Year. 27, 241–244 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Feldman, A. & Meiri, S. Length–mass allometry in snakes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 108, 161–172 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Harvey, M. B., Barker, D. G., Ammerman, L. K. & Chippindale, P. T. Systematics of pythons of the Morelia amethistina complex (Serpentes: Boidae) with the description of three new species. Herpetol. Monogr. 14, 139–185 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Fearn, S., Schwarzkopf, L. & Shine, R. Giant snakes in tropical forests: A field study of the Australian scrub python, Morelia kinghorni. Wildl. Res. 32, 193–201 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Natusch, D. J. D., Lyons, J. A. & Shine, R. Rainforest pythons flexibly adjust foraging ecology to exploit seasonal concentrations of prey. J. Zool. 313, 114–123 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Martin, R. W. Field observation of predation on Bennett’s tree-kangaroo (Dendrolagus bennettianus) by an amethystine python (Morelia amethistina). Herpetol. Rev. 26, 74–75 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Natusch, D., Lyons, J., Mears, L. A. & Shine, R. Biting off more than you can chew: Attempted predation on a human by a giant snake (Simalia amethistina). Austral. Ecol. 46, 159–162 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Neldner, V. J. & Clarkson, J. R. Vegetation of Cape York Peninsula. (Department of Environment and Heritage, 1995).Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Data Online. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/. Accessed 17 July 2020 (2020).Whitaker, P. B. & Shine, R. A radiotelemetric study of movements and shelter-site selection by free-ranging brownsnakes (Pseudonaja textilis, Elapidae). Herpetol. Monogr. 17, 130–144 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Harris, S. et al. Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data–A review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mamm. Rev. 20, 97–123 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Fearn, S. & Sambono, J. Some ambush predation postures of the Scrub Python Morelia amethistina (Serpentes: Pythonidae) in north east Queensland. Herpetofauna 30, 39–44 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Caswell, H. Theory and models in ecology: A different perspective. Ecol. Model. 43, 33–44 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Silva, I., Crane, M., Marshall, B. M. & Strine, C. T. Reptiles on the wrong track? Moving beyond traditional estimators with dynamic Brownian bridge movement models. Move. Ecol. 8, 43 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Row, J. R. & Blouin-Demers, G. Kernels are not accurate estimators of home-range size for herpetofauna. Copeia 2006, 797–802 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Newman, P., Dwyer, R. G., Belbin, L. & Campbell, H. A. ZoaTrack—An online tool to analyse and share animal location data: User engagement and future perspectives. Aust. Zool. 41, 12–18. https://zoatrack.org/toolkit/doi (2020).Pearson, D. J. & Shine, R. Expulsion of interperitoneally-implanted radiotransmitters by Australian pythons. Herpetol. Rev. 33, 261–263 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Hale, V. L. et al. Radio transmitter implantation and movement in the wild timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). J. Wildl. Dis. 53, 591–595 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. E., Jørgensen, D. & Gates, C. C. Costs and benefits of straight versus tortuous migration paths for Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis) in seminatural and human-dominated landscapes. Can. J. Zool. 95, 921–928 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Glaudas, X., Rice, S. E., Clark, R. W. & Alexander, G. J. Male energy reserves, mate-searching activities, and reproductive success: Alternative resource use strategies in a presumed capital breeder. Oecologia 194, 415–425 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glaudas, X., Rice, S. E., Clark, R. W. & Alexander, G. J. The intensity of sexual selection, body size and reproductive success in a mating system with male–male combat: is bigger better?. Oikos 129, 998–1011 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Gannon, V. P. J. & Secoy, D. M. Seasonal and daily activity patterns in a Canadian population of the prairie rattlesnake, Crotalus viridus viridis. Can. J. Zool. 63, 86–91 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Heard, G. W., Black, D. & Robertson, P. Habitat use by the inland carpet python (Morelia spilota metcalfei: Pythonidae): Seasonal relationships with habitat structure and prey distribution in a rural landscape. Austral. Ecol. 29, 446–460 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Madsen, T. & Shine, R. Seasonal migration of predators and prey—A study of pythons and rats in tropical Australia. Ecology 77, 149–156 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Graves, B. M. & Duvall, D. Reproduction, rookery use, and thermoregulation in free-ranging, pregnant Crotalus v. viridis. J. Herpetol. 27, 33–41 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Chiaraviglio, M. The effects of reproductive condition on thermoregulation in the Argentina boa constrictor (Boa constrictor occidentalis) (Boidae). Herpetol. Monogr. 20, 172–177 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Smith, C. F., Schuett, G. W., Earley, R. L. & Schwenk, K. The spatial and reproductive ecology of the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) at the northeastern extreme of its range. Herpetol. Monogr. 23, 45–73 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R. & Fitzgerald, M. Large snakes in a mosaic rural landscape: The ecology of carpet pythons Morelia spilota (Serpentes: Pythonidae) in coastal eastern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 76, 113–122 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Heard, G. W. et al. Canid predation: A potentially significant threat to relic populations of the Inland Carpet Python ‘Morelia spilota metcalfei’ (Pythonidae) in Victoria. Vic. Nat. 123, 68–74 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Downes, S. & Shine, R. Sedentary snakes and gullible geckos: Predator–prey coevolution in nocturnal rock-dwelling reptiles. Anim. Behav. 55, 1373–1385 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Miller, A. K., Maritz, B., McKay, S., Glaudas, X. & Alexander, G. J. An ambusher’s arsenal: chemical crypsis in the puff adder (Bitis arietans). Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20152182 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maritz, B. & Alexander, G. J. Dwarfs on the move: Spatial ecology of the world’s smallest viper, Bitis schneideri. Copeia 2012, 115–120 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Stirrat, S. C. Seasonal changes in home-range area and habitat use by the agile wallaby (Macropus agilis). Wildl. Res. 30, 593–600 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Ayers, D. Y. & Shine, R. Thermal influences on foraging ability: Body size, posture and cooling rate of an ambush predator, the python Morelia spilota. Funct. Ecol. 11, 342–347 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Pearson, D., Shine, R. & Williams, A. Spatial ecology of a threatened python (Morelia spilota imbricata) and the effects of anthropogenic habitat change. Austral. Ecol. 30, 261–274 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Freeman, A. A study in power and grace: The amethystine python. Wildl. Aust. 53, 27–29 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Silva, I., Crane, M., Suwanwaree, P., Strine, C. & Goode, M. Using dynamic Brownian bridge movement models to identify home range size and movement patterns in king cobras. PLoS ONE 13, e0203449 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, B. M. et al. Space fit for a king: Spatial ecology of king cobras (Ophiophagus hannah) in Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve, Northeastern Thailand. Amphibia-Reptilia 40, 163–178 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Udyawer, V., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Heupel, M. R. & Clark, T. D. Temporal and spatial activity-associated energy partitioning in free-swimming sea snakes. Funct. Ecol. 31, 1739–1749 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Smaniotto, N. P., Moreira, L. F., Rivas, J. A. & Strüssmann, C. Home range size, movement, and habitat use of yellow anacondas (Eunectes notaeus). Salamandra 56, 159–167 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Low, M. R. Rescue, rehabilitation and release of reticulated pythons in Singapore. in Global Reintroduction Perspectives: 2018. Case Studies from Around the Globe (ed. Soorae, P. S.) 78–81 (IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, 2018).Alexander, G. J. & Maritz, B. Sampling interval affects the estimation of movement parameters in four species of African snakes. J. Zool. 297, 309–318 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Smith, B. J. et al. Betrayal: Radio-tagged Burmese pythons reveal locations of conspecifics in Everglades National Park. Biol. Invasions 18, 3239–3250 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

Quicke, D. L. Parasitic Wasps (Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1997).
Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology (Princeton University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Mayhew, P. J. & van Alphen, J. J. M. Gregarious development in alysiine parasitoids evolved through a reduction in larval aggression. Anim. Behav. 58 , 131–141 (1999).Mayhew, P. J. & Hardy, I. C. W. Nonsiblicidal behavior and the evolution of clutch size in bethylid wasps. Am. Nat. 151, 409–424 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, J. M. & Smith, J. J. B. Correlations between body angles and substrate curvature in the parasitoid wasp Trichogramma minutum: A possible mechanism of host radius measurement. J. Exp. Biol. 125, 271–285 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Boivin, G. & Baaren, J. The role of larval aggression and mobility in the transition between solitary and gregarious development in parasitoid wasps. Ecol. Lett. 3, 469–474 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Rosenheim, J. A., Wilhoit, L. R. & Armer, C. A. Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population. Oecologia 96, 439–449 (1993).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mayhew, P. J. The evolution of gregariousness in parasitoid wasps. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 265, 383–389 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Harvey, P. H. & Partridge, L. Murderous mandibles and black holes in hymenopteran wasps. Nature 326, 128–129 (1987).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pexton, J. J. & Mayhew, P. J. Competitive interactions between parasitoid larvae and the evolution of gregarious development. Oecologia 141, 179–190 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pexton, J. J. & Mayhew, P. J. Immobility: The key to family harmony? Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 7–9 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. The evolution of clutch size in parasitic wasps. Am. Nat. 129, 221–233 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Laing, J. E. & Corrigan, J. E. Intrinsic competition between the gregarious parasite, Cotesia glomeratus and the solitary parasite Cotesia rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for their host Artogeia rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Entomophaga 32, 493–501 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Pexton, J. J. & Mayhew, P. J. Clutch size adjustment, information use and the evolution of gregarious development in parasitoid wasps. Behav. Ecol. Soc. 58, 99–110 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Reitz, S. R. & Adler, P. H. Fecundity and oviposition of Eucelatoria bryani, a gregarious parasitoid of Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 75, 175–181 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Wei, K., Tang, Y. L., Wang, X. Y., Cao, L. M. & Yang, Z. Q. The developmental strategies and related profitability of an idiobiont ectoparasitoid Sclerodermus pupariae vary with host size. Ecol. Entomol. 39, 101–108 (2014).
Google Scholar 
van Alphen, J. J. M. & Visser, M. E. Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 35, 59–79 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Mayhew, P. J. & Glaizot, O. Integrating theory of clutch size and body size evolution for parasitoids. Oikos 92, 372–376 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Samková, A., Hadrava, J., Skuhrovec, J. & Janšta, P. Reproductive strategy as a major factor determining female body size and fertility of a gregarious parasitoid. J. Appl. Entomol. 143, 441–450 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Hardy, I. C. W., Griffiths, N. T. & Godfray, H. C. J. Clutch size in a parasitoid wasp: A manipulation experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 121–129 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Visser, M. E. The importance of being large: The relationship between size and fitness in females of the parasitoid Aphaereta minuta (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 963–978 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Sagarra, L. A., Vincent, C. & Stewart, R. K. Body size as an indicator of parasitoid quality in male and female Anagyrus kamali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 91, 363–367 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bezemer, T. M. & Mills, N. J. Clutch size decisions of a gregarious parasitoid under laboratory and field conditions. Anim. Behav. 66, 1119–1128 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Takagi, M. The reproductive strategy of the gregarious parasitoid, Pteromalus puparum (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Oecologia 68, 1–6 (1985).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jervis, M. A., Ferns, P. N. & Heimpel, G. E. Body size and the timing of egg production in parasitoid wasps: A comparative analysis. Funct. Ecol. 17, 375–383 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Waage, J. K. & Lane, J. A. The reproductive strategy of a parasitic wasp: II. Sex allocation and local mate competition in Trichogramma evanescens. J. Anim. Ecol. 53, 417–426 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Waage, J. K. & Ming, N. S. The reproductive strategy of a parasitic wasp: I. Optimal progeny and sex allocation in Trichogramma evanescens. J. Anim. Ecol. 53, 401–415 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Rabinovich, J. E., Jorda, M. T. & Bernstein, C. Local mate competition and precise sex ratios in Telenomus fariai (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), a parasitoid of triatomine eggs. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 308–315 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Goubault, M., Mack, A. F. & Hardy, I. C. W. Encountering competitors reduces clutch size and increases offspring size in a parasitoid with female–female fighting. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. 274, 2571–2577 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Duval, J. F., Brodeur, J., Doyon, J. & Boivin, G. Impact of superparasitism time intervals on progeny survival and fitness of an egg parasitoid. Ecol. Entomol. 43, 310–317 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mesterton-Gibbons, M. & Hardy, I. C. W. The influence of contests on optimal clutch size: A game–theoretic model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 271, 971–978 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Koppik, M., Thiel, A. & Hoffmeister, T. S. Adaptive decision making or differential mortality: What causes offspring emergence in a gregarious parasitoid? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 150, 208–216 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Heimpel, G. E. Host–parasitoid population dynamics. In Parasitoid population biology (eds Hochberg, M. E. & Ives, A. R.) 27–40 (Princeton, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Zaviezo, T. & Mills, M. Factors influencing the evolution of clutch size in a gregarious insect parasitoid. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 1047–1057 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Kazmer, D. J. & Luck, R. F. Field tests of the size-fitness hypothesis in the egg parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum. Ecology 76, 412–425 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Segoli, M. & Rosenheim, J. A. The effect of body size on oviposition success of a minute parasitoid in nature. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 483–485 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Gao, S. K., Wei, K., Tang, Z. L., Wang, X. Y. & Yang, Z. Q. Effect of parasitoid density on the timing of parasitism and development duration of progeny in Sclerodermus pupariae (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Biol. Control 97, 57–62 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. C. & Paschke, J. D. The biology and ecology of Anaphes flavipes (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an exotic egg parasite of the cereal leaf beetle. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 61, 1–5 (1968).
Google Scholar 
Hoffman, G. D. & Rao, S. Oviposition site selection on oats: The effect of plant architecture, plant and leaf age, tissue toughness, and hardness on cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 141, 232–244 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Samková, A., Hadrava, J., Skuhrovec, J. & Janšta, P. Host population density and presence of predators as key factors influencing the number of gregarious parasitoid Anaphes flavipes offspring. Sci. Rep. UK 9, 1–7 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hardy, I. C. W. Sex ratio and mating structure in the parasitoid Hymenoptera. Oikos 69, 3–20 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. Models for clutch size and sex ratio with sibling interaction. Theor. Popul. Biol. 30, 215–231 (1986).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Hardy, I. C. W. Non-binomial sex allocation and brood sex ratio variances in the parasitoid Hymenoptera. Oikos 65, 143–158 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Petersen, G. & Hardy, I. C. W. The importance of being larger: Parasitoid intruder–owner contests and their implications for clutch size. Anim. Behav. 51, 1363–1373 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Klomp, H. & Teerink, B. J. The significance of oviposition rates in the egg parasite, Trichogramma embryophagum Htg. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 17, 350–375 (1967).
Google Scholar 
May, R. M., Hassell, M. P., Anderson, R. M. & Tonkyn, D. W. Density dependence in host–parasitoid models. J. Anim. Ecol. 50, 855–865 (1981).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Hoddle, M. S., Van Driesche, R. G., Elkinton, J. S. & Sanderson, J. P. Discovery and utilization of Bemisia argentifolii patches by Eretmocerus eremicus and Encarsia formosa (Beltsville strain) in greenhouses. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 87, 15–28 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Samková, A., Raška, J., Hadrava, J. & Skuhrovec, J. Scarcity of hosts for gregarious parasitoids indicates an increase of individual offspring fertility by reducing their own fertility. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.05.434037 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Dijken, M. J. & Waage, J. K. Self and conspecific superparasitism by the egg parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 43, 183–192 (1987).
Google Scholar 
van de Vijver, E. et al. Inter-and intrafield distribution of cereal leaf beetle species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Belgian winter wheat. Environ. Entomol. 48, 276–283 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Samková, A., Hadrava, J., Skuhrovec, J. & Janšta, P. Host specificity of the parasitic wasp Anaphes flavipes (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and a new defence in its hosts (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Oulema spp.). Insects 11, 175 (2020).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bezděk, J. & Baselga, A. Revision of western Palaearctic species of the Oulema melanopus group, with description of two new species from Europe (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Criocerinae). Acta Entomol. Mus. Nat. Pragae 55, 273–304 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. C. & Paschke, J. D. Additional observations on the biology of Anaphes flavipes (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), with special reference to the effects of temperature and superparasitism on development. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62, 1316–1321 (1969).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. More

Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goulson, D. The insect apocalypse, and why it matters. Curr. Biol. 29, R967–R971 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heikkinen, R. K. et al. Assessing the vulnerability of European butterflies to climate change using multiple criteria. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 695–723 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Montgomery, G. A. et al. Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108327 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hufnagel, L. & Kocsis, M. Impacts of climate change on Lepidoptera species and communities. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 9, 43–72 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Geyle, H. M. et al. Butterflies on the brink: identifying the Australian butterflies (Lepidoptera) most at risk of extinction. Austral Entomol. 60, 98–110 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Merckx, T., Huertas, B., Basset, Y. & Thomas, J. A global perspective on conserving butterflies and moths and their habitats. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, 237–257 (2013).
Google Scholar 
New, T. R. Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) and conservation: background and perspective. J. Insect Conserv. 8, 79–94 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L., Fox, R., Salcido, D. M. & Dyer, L. A. A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002549117 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Van Langevelde, F. et al. Declines in moth populations stress the need for conserving dark nights. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 925–932 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Green, K. et al. Australian Bogong moths Agrotis infusa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). 1951–2020: decline and crash. Austral Entomol. 60, 66–81 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Sánchez‐Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Further evidence for a global decline of the entomofauna. Austral Entomol. 60, 9–26 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Rönkä, K., Mappes, J., Kaila, L. & Wahlberg, N. Putting Parasemia in its phylogenetic place: a molecular analysis of the subtribe Arctiina (Lepidoptera). Syst. Entomol. 41, 844–853 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Witt, T. J., Speidel, W., Ronkay, G., Ronkay, L. & László, G. M. Subfamilia Arctiinae in Noctuidae Europaeae. Volume 13. Lymantriinae and Arctiinae including phylogeny and check list of the quadrifid Noctuoidea of Europe (eds. Witt, T. J. & Ronkay, L.) 81-216 (Entomological Press, 2011).Dowdy, N. J. et al. A deeper meaning for shallow‐level phylogenomic studies: nested anchored hybrid enrichment offers great promise for resolving the tiger moth tree of life (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae). Syst. Entomol. 45, 874–893 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zahiri, R. et al. Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea). Syst. Entomol. 37, 102–124 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Holloway, J. D. The Moths of Borneo 6: family Arctiidae, subfamilies: Syntominae, Euchromiinae, Arctiinae; Noctuidae misplaced in Arctiidae (Camptoma, Aganinae) (Southdene Sdn. Bhd., 1988).Černý, K. & Pinratana, A. Arctiidae. Moths of Thailand 6, 1–283 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Černý, K. A review of the subfamily Arctiinae (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) from the Philippines. Entomofauna 32, 29–92 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Bucsek, K. Erebidae, Arctiinae (Lithosiini, Arctiini) of Malay Peninsula – Malaysia (Institut of Zoology SAS, 2012).Bolotov, I. N., Kondakov, A. V. & Spitsyn, V. M. A review of tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae: Arctiini) from Flores Island, Lesser Sunda Archipelago, with description of a new species and new subspecies. Ecol. Montenegrina 16, 1–15 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dubatolov, V. V. New genera and species of Arctiinae from the Afrotropical fauna (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Nachr. Entomol. Ver. Apollo 27, 139–152 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Ferro, V. G., Melo, A. S. & Diniz, I. R. Richness of tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) in the Brazilian Cerrado: how much do we know? Zoologia (Curitiba) 27, 725–731 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schmidt, B. C. A new genus and two new species of arctiine tiger moth (Noctuidae, Arctiinae, Arctiini) from Costa Rica. Zookeys 9, 89–96 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Dubatolov, V. V. Tiger-moths of Eurasia (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae) (Nyctemerini by Rob de Vos and V. V. Dubatolov). Neue Ent. Nachr. 65, 1–106 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Fibiger, M. et al. Lymantriinae and Arctiinae, including phylogeny and check list of the quadrifid Noctuoidea of Europe. Noctuidae Europaeae 13, 1–448 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Koshkin, E. S. Moths (Lepidoptera, Macroheterocera, excluding Geometridae and Noctuidae s.l.) of the Bureinsky State Nature Reserve and adjacent territories (Khabarovsk Krai, Russia) [In Russian]. Amur. Zool. J. 12, 412–435 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kullberg, J., Filippov, B. Y., Spitsyn, V. M., Zubrij, N. A. & Kozlov, M. V. Moths and butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of the Russian Arctic islands in the Barents Sea. Polar Biol. 42, 335–346 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bolotov, I. N. et al. The distribution and biology of Pararctia subnebulosa (Dyar, 1899) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae), the largest tiger moth species in the High Arctic. Polar Biol. 38, 905–911 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bolotov, I. N. et al. New occurrences, morphology, and imaginal phenology of the rarest Arctic tiger moth Arctia tundrana (Erebidae: Arctiinae). Ecol. Montenegrina 39, 121–128 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bolotov, I. N., Gofarov, M. Y., Kolosova, Y. S. & Frolov, A. A. Occurrence of Borearctia menetriesii (Eversmann, 1846) (Erebidae: Arctiinae) in Northern European Russia: a new locality in a disjunct species range. Nota Lepidopterol. 36, 65–75 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Dubatolov, V. V. Borearctia gen. n., a new genus for the tiger moth Callimorpha menetriesi (Ev.) (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae) [In Russian]. Entomol. Rev. 63, 157–161 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Hori, H. An unrecorded species of the Arctiidae [In Japanese]. Kontyu 1, 86 (1926).
Google Scholar 
Eversmann, E. Lepidoptera quaedam nova in Rossia observata. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 19, 83–88 (1846).
Google Scholar 
Koshkin, E. S. Life history of the rare boreal tiger moth Arctia menetriesii (Eversmann, 1846) (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Arctiinae) in the Russian Far East. Nota Lepidopterol. 44, 141–151 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Krogerus, H. D. Vorkommen von Callimorpha menetriesi Ev. in Fennoskandien, nebst Beschriebungen der verschiedenen Entwicklungsstadien [In German]. Not. Entomol. 24, 79–86 (1944).
Google Scholar 
Saarenmaa, H. Conservation ecology of Borearctia menetriesii [online]. http://www.bormene.myspecies.info/en (2011-2021).Berlov, O. E. & Bolotov, I. N. Record of Borearctia menetriesii (Eversmann, 1846) (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Arctiinae) larva on Aconitum rubicundum Fischer (Ranunculaceae) in Eastern Siberia. Nota Lepidopterol. 38, 23–27 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Staudinger, O. & Rebel, H. Catalog der Lepidopteren des palaearctischen Faunengebietes. Vol. 1. Th. Famil. Papilionidae-Hepialidae (R. Friedländer & Sohn, 1901).Filipiev, I. Lepidoptera [In Russian]. Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 16, 376–378 (1916).
Google Scholar 
Fabritius, G. R. Anmärkningsvärda fynd av fjärilar, bland dessa den för Europa nya Callimorpha menetriesii Ev. [In Finnish]. Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 40, 47–49 (1914).
Google Scholar 
Carpelan, J. Callimorpha menetriesii Ev. återfunnen [In Finnish]. Meddeland. Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 48, 108–109 (1921).
Google Scholar 
Kurentzov, A. I. Zoogeography of the Amur Region [In Russian] (Nauka Publisher, 1965).Dubatolov, V. V. Tiger moths (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae: Arctiinae) of South Siberian mountains (report 2) [In Russian] in Arthropods and Helminths, Fauna of Siberia Series (ed. Zolotarenko, G. S.) 139–169 (Nauka Publisher, 1990).Klitin, A. K. New record of the tiger moth Borearctia menetriesii on Sakhalin Island [In Russian]. Bulletin of Sakhalin Museum 16, 269–271 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Nupponen, K. & Fibiger, M. Additions to the checklist of Bombycoidea and Noctuoidea of the Volgo-Ural region. Part II. (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae, Erebidae, Nolidae, Noctuidae). Nota Lepidopterol. 35, 33–50 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Koshkin, E. S. Preliminary results of the examination of the fauna of Higher Moths (Macroheterocera, excluding Geometridae and Noctuidae) of the upper Bureya River basin (Khabarovsk Region) [In Russian]. Proceedings of Grodekovsky Museum (Nature of the Far East) 24, 65–75 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Marttila, O., Saarinen, K., Haahtela, T. & Pajari, M. Idänsiilikäs Borearctia menetriesi (Eversmann, 1846) [In Finnish] in Suomen kiitäjät ja kehrääjät [Macrolepidoptera of Finland] 265–266 (Kirjayhtymä Oy, 1996).Lappi, E., Mikkola, K. & Ryynänen, J. Idänsiilikäs Borearctia menetriesii, tervetuloa takaisin! [Welcome back Borearctia menetriesii] [In Finnish]. Baptria 29, 28–29 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Silvonen, K. Borearctia Dubatolov, 1985 [online]. Kimmo’s Lepidoptera Site, Finland. http://www.kolumbus.fi/~kr5298/lnel/a/bormenet.htm (2010).Bolotov, I. N. et al. Menetries’ Tiger Moth Range and Ecology Database (1840s-2020). figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15000399 (2022).Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Young, H. S., McCauley, D. J., Galetti, M. & Dirzo, R. Patterns, causes, and consequences of anthropocene defaunation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 333–358 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Conrad, K. F., Warren, M. S., Fox, R., Parsons, M. S. & Woiwod, I. P. Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol. Conserv. 132, 279–291 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Simmons, B. I. et al. Worldwide insect declines: An important message, but interpret with caution. Ecol. Evol. 9, 3678–3680 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Didham, R. K. et al. Interpreting insect declines: seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv. Diver. 13, 103–114 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Boyes, D. H., Evans, D. M., Fox, R., Parsons, M. S. & Pocock, M. J. Is light pollution driving moth population declines? A review of causal mechanisms across the life cycle. Insect Conserv. Diver. 14, 167–187 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Raven, P. H. & Wagner, D. L. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002548117 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L., Grames, E. M., Forister, M. L., Berenbaum, M. R. & Stopak, D. Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023989118 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schowalter, T. D., Pandey, M., Presley, S. J., Willig, M. R. & Zimmerman, J. K. Arthropods are not declining but are responsive to disturbance in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002556117 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Berry, P. A. M., Smith, R. G. & Benveniste, J. ACE2: the new global digital elevation model in Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation (ed. Mertikas, S. P.) 231–237 (Springer, 2010).Kurentzov, A. I. My travels [In Russian] (Far Eastern Publishing House, 1973).Dubatolov, V. V. A catalogue of type specimens of Palaearctic tiger moths (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Arctiinae) preserved in the collection of the Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg) [In Russian]. Entomol. Rev. 75, 338–356 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Bailey, R. G. Explanatory Supplement to Ecoregions Map of the Continents. Environ. Conserv. 16, 307–309 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. & Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 89, 199–224 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Beaumont, L. J. et al. Impacts of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2306–2311 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Smith, J. R. et al. A global test of ecoregions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1889–1896 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Direct habitat lossAccording to the global projections of urban expansion under five SSPs17 (Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Fig. 1), 36–74 million hectares (Mha) of land areas will be urbanized by 2100, representing a 54–111% increase compared with the baseline year of 2015. Among these, 11–33 Mha natural habitats (Supplementary Table 1) will become urban areas by 2100. Across SSP scenarios, the patterns of change in losses of total habitat, forest, shrubland, and grassland are consistent with the global projections of urban expansion (Fig. 1). In terms of urban encroachment on wetlands, wetland will undergo the largest loss under scenario SSP4 than under other scenarios. However, if the sustainable pathway of scenario SSP1 is properly implemented, this will enable us to conserve the global wetland. The greatest loss of other habitat will occur under scenario SSP3, but the minimal loss of other habitat will occur under scenario SSP1. Under the five different SSP scenarios, the United States, Nigeria, Australia, Germany, and the UK are consistently predicted to have greater habitat loss due to urban expansion (Supplementary Table 2).Fig. 1: Future direct habitat loss due to urban expansion under SSP scenarios.a The habitat loss by 2100 for each habitat type. Bars indicate the mean habitat loss area (five scenarios) for each habitat type. Error bars represent mean values ± 1 SEM for the loss of each habitat type under five scenarios, n = 5 scenarios. Points represent data in five scenarios. b The losses in total area, forest, shrubland, grassland, wetland, and other land.Full size imageThere are obvious disparities in the hot spots and cold spots of habitat loss under the five SSP scenarios (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figs. 2–6). Potential hot spots of habitat loss are concentrated in regions such as the northeastern, southern, and western coasts of the United States, the Gulf of Guinea coastal areas, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Persian Gulf coastal areas. Under scenario SSP5, parts of central and western Europe will also become hot spots. However, under other scenarios, the cold spots will be particularly concentrated in eastern and southern Europe. East Asia and South Asia, which are represented by China, India, and Japan, are dominated by cold spots (Supplementary Figs. 2–6), because these regions may experience a decline in urban land demand from 2050 to 2100 (for examples in China, see Supplementary Figs. 7–11), although they are currently the most populous regions in the world.Fig. 2: Future hot spots and cold spots of habitat loss due to urban expansion under SSP scenarios by 2100.Figures for the United States (a), Europe (b), Africa (c), and China (d) are presented separately. The Gi_Bin identifies statistically significant hot spots and cold spots. Statistical significance was based on the p-value and z-score (two-sided), and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.Full size imageOur scenario projections show that the largest natural habitat loss is expected to occur in the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome (except for scenario SSP3). In addition, many biomes will experience proportionate loss of natural habitat. These biomes include the tropical and subtropical coniferous forests biome, the temperate coniferous forests biome, the flooded grasslands and savannas biome, the Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub biome, and the mangroves biome (Supplementary Table 3). Although the rate of future habitat loss is small at the global scale, it can be large in some areas. For example, the habitat in the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests may decrease by 1.4% under scenario SSP5. At the ecoregion scale, about 9% of 867 terrestrial ecoregions will lose more than 1% of habitat due to urban expansion (Supplementary Fig. 12). In the future, four ecoregions—the Atlantic coastal pine barrens, the coastal forests of the northeastern United States, and the Puerto Rican moist and dry forests—will experience more than 20% of habitat loss.Urban expansion threatens biodiversity prioritization schemesTo reflect the potential impact of urban expansion on protected areas (Supplementary Note 4), the analyses presented here were based on the assumption that urban expansion within protected areas is not strictly restricted and can even occur in the currently gazetted protected areas (Supplementary Note 5, Supplementary Figs. 13 and 14). In 2015, urban areas with a total area of 30,594 km2 were distributed in 28,152 protected areas, accounting for 12.6% of global protected areas (Supplementary Figs. 15 and 16). Moreover, 38% of the urban land-use changes within protected areas were due to the conversion of natural habitats into urban land between 1992 and 2015. If urban expansion continues without strict restrictions, 13.2–19.8% of the protected areas will be affected by urban land by 2100, and urban land will occur in 29,563–44,400 protected areas with a total urban land area of up to 46,705–89,901 km2 across the five SSP scenarios (the lowest and highest proportions of urban land in each protected area by 2100 under SSP3 and SSP5 scenarios are presented in Supplementary Figs. 17 and 18).We also found that 0.90% of all terrestrial biodiversity hotspots (Supplementary Note 6), which are the world’s most biologically rich yet threatened terrestrial regions24, were urbanized in 2015. And this proportion (0.90%) is higher than that located in the rest of the Earth’s surface (0.51%) in 2015. By 2100, the new urban expansion will additionally occupy 1.5–1.8% of hotspot areas under the five SSP scenarios (Supplementary Table 4). Five biodiversity hotspots are projected to suffer the largest proportion of urban land conversion: the California Floristic Province (6–11%), Japan (6–8%), the North American Coastal Plain (4–8%), the Guinean Forests of West Africa (4–8%), and the Forests of East Australia (2–6%). In contrast, the East Melanesian Islands and the New Caledonia are almost unaffected by urban expansion. Biodiversity hotspots (e.g., the Guinean Forests of West Africa, the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa, Eastern Afromontane, and the Polynesia-Micronesia) with few human disturbances in 2015 are projected to experience the highest percentage of future urban growth. Compared with the urban areas in 2015, by 2100, the urban areas in these four biodiversity hotspots will experience a disproportionate increase of 281–708, 294–535, 169–305, and 33–337%, respectively.The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) selected the ecoregions that are most crucial to the conservation of global biodiversity as Global 20025 (Supplementary Note 7). However, about 93% of the Global 200 ecoregions will be affected by future urban expansion. Although the proportion of urban land in each ecoregion will be less than 1% in 2100, the urban area located in these ecoregions will experience an increase of 74–160% from 2015 to 2100 across the five SSP scenarios (Supplementary Table 4). Four ecologically vulnerable ecoregions that have the highest urban growth rates are the Sudd-Sahelian Flooded Grasslands and Savannas, the East African Acacia Savannas, the Hawaii Moist Forest, and the Congolian Coastal Forests. By 2100, the urban areas in these four ecoregions will increase by 877–9955, 527–646, 18–902, and 500–1037%, respectively.The five SSP scenarios showed that the urban area is expected to increase by only 73–213 km2 in the Last of the Wild areas26 (see Supplementary Note 8 for descriptions about the Last of the Wild areas) by 2100 (Supplementary Table 4).Impacts of urban expansion on habitat fragmentationThe increasing exposures of natural habitat to urbanized land use may cause long-term changes in the function and structure of the natural habitat that is adjacent to urban areas13. To examine this proximity effect, we investigated the impact of future urban expansion on the nearest distance between urban areas and natural habitat (i.e., the distance from patch edges of urban areas to patch edges of the nearest natural habitats) under different SSP scenarios. Although the global urban area is expected to increase by 36–74 Mha by 2100, the impacts of future urban expansion on adjacent natural habitat are disproportionately large. Future urban expansion will make urban areas much closer to patch edges of 34–40 Mha natural habitat, which will inevitably threaten the natural habitat and increase the risk of biodiversity decline. The effects of urban expansion on adjacent patch edges of natural habitats are remarkably different across different scenarios. Specifically, the area of affected adjacent natural habitat is expected to be 38.45, 34.24, 40.31, 37.84, and 39.42 Mha under SSP1 to SSP5 scenarios by 2100, with the smallest effect under scenario SSP2, and the largest effect under scenario SSP3. Moreover, the scale of urban expansion does not correspond directly with the size of the impact. Several countries, including Mauritania, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Western Sahara, and the United States, will have a large change in the distance from future urban areas to natural habitats due to urban expansion (Supplementary Table 5). Such effects also varied across different natural habitat types. The distance from the patch edges of urban areas to patch edges of (a) wetland, other land, and forest, (b) grassland, and (c) shrubland will generally be shortened by ~2000, ~1500 and ~900 m, respectively.In addition to the effect on the distance to the habitat edge, urban-caused habitat fragmentation is also reflected in reducing mean patch size (MPS)13, increasing mean edge index (edge density (ED), i.e., edge length on a per-unit area)27, and enlarging isolation (mean Euclidean nearest neighbor distance, ENN_MN)28 (Fig. 3). Taking the global ecoregions as the analysis unit, we found that within a 5 km buffer of urban areas, the median of MPS of natural habitats tends to show an overall decline trend, and the segmentation and subdivision of habitats become more obvious as future urban land expands. The median of MPS is the largest under scenario SSP1, followed by SSP4, SPP2, and SSP3 with some fluctuations in between, and the smallest MPS is found with the most fragmented landscape under scenario SSP5. A smaller patch size indicates that the inner parts of the habitat are subject to higher risk of being influenced by external disturbance. Future urban expansion also tends to cause an increase in the ED of natural habitat, which is often linked with smaller patches or more irregular shapes, and therefore poses a threat to biodiversity that influences many ecological processes (e.g., the spread of dispersal and predation)13,27,28. Scenario SSP1 shows the best performance in maintaining a low habitat ED and a high level of biodiversity conservation. However, under scenario SSP5, ED will experience a rapid increase in the second half of the 21st century. Meanwhile, the ENN_MN will increase substantially in the future, suggesting that areas with the same habitat type will become increasingly isolated, irregular, dispersed, or unevenly distributed due to the barrier of urban land. This will affect the speed of dispersal and patch recolonization. Scenario SSP1 is also most conducive to maintaining the proximity of natural habitats with the same habitat type. Other scenarios show relatively similar performance.Fig. 3: Future urban expansion effects on habitat fragmentation under SSP scenarios.a Mean patch size (MPS), b edge density (ED), c mean Euclidean nearest-neighbor distance (ENN_MN).Full size imageImpacts of urban expansion on terrestrial biodiversityWe focus on biodiversity in three common vertebrate taxa (i.e., amphibians, mammals, and birds) in our analyses. Future land system conversion to urban land will cause an average of 34% loss in the overall relative species richness. Land conversion from dense forest, mosaic grassland and open forest, mosaic grassland, and bare and natural grassland to urban land will cause the highest overall relative biodiversity loss (48%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 34–59% on a 1 km grid). These land systems with a high risk of biodiversity loss are concentrated in the United States, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa (Supplementary Fig. 19). Overall, the negative effect of future urban expansion on the total abundance of species will be more pronounced than that on species richness. Urban land changes will result in an average of 52% overall loss in relative total abundance of species. In particular, the losses of dense forest, natural grassland, and mosaic grassland, due to conversion to urban land, will lead to a high risk of species loss (62%, 95% CI: 38–76%).In terms of the number of species (i.e., all amphibians, mammals, and birds), future urban expansion will cause an average loss of 7–9 species and a loss of up to ~197 species per 10 km grid cell by 2100 across the five SSP scenarios (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 20). Species loss is most likely to be concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa (particularly the Gulf of Guinea coast), the United States, and Europe. In addition, southeastern Brazil, India, and the eastern coast of Australia are also relatively high-risk areas. However, the specific effects of urban expansion vary substantially across different SSP scenarios. For instance, under scenario SSP5, urban expansion will pose a fatal threat to the global species richness in areas with urban development potential (species richness loss will occur in ~740 Mha land areas), whereas under the divided pathway (SSP4) and regional rivalry pathway (SSP3) scenarios, urban expansion will threaten the richest biodiversity hotspots, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (Supplementary Fig. 20).Fig. 4: Potential biodiversity loss due to future urban expansion under SSP scenarios.The biodiversity loss in terms of the number of terrestrial vertebrate species (amphibians, mammals, and birds) lost per 10 km grid cell in the North America (a), Europe (b), the Gulf of Guinea coast (c), and East Asia (d).Full size imageWe also found a loss of up to 12 species of threatened amphibians, mammals, and birds (including vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered categories defined in the IUCN Red List), and a loss of up to 40 species of small-ranged amphibians, mammals, and birds (small-ranged species are species with a geographic range size smaller than the median range size for that taxon)29 due to future urban expansion by 2100. There are a few scattered areas that will be hotspots for the loss of threatened species, such as West Africa, East Africa, northern India, and the eastern coast of Australia (Supplementary Fig. 21). The loss of small-ranged species will concentrate in fewer areas (Supplementary Fig. 22). We have identified 30 conservation priority ecoregions with high risks of habitat loss and small-ranged species loss due to future urban expansion (Supplementary Table 6). These conservation priority ecoregions are all found in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa (Supplementary Fig. 23). However, some hotspots outside of these conservation priority regions, such as tropical Southeast Asia, the west coast of the United States, and northern New Zealand, will also be affected (Supplementary Fig. 23).The top 5% 10 km grid cells with the highest loss in species richness (28–38 species potentially being lost) scatter across adjacent urban areas. However, only 6.4–8.6% of these regions are covered by the current global network of protected areas. These areas are often overlooked, and thus receive relatively low conservation spending. Ecoregions in Sub-Saharan African, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, and Australia will be responsible for the top 43% of average species loss across the SSP scenarios (Fig. 5). Kenya, Swaziland, Brunei, Zambia, Republic of Congo, and Zimbabwe will face the largest potential species richness loss (approximately > 29 species lost per 10 km grid cell) under all five SSP scenarios (Supplementary Fig. 24 and Supplementary Table 7).Fig. 5: Average potential biodiversity loss per 10 km grid cell in ecoregions due to future urban expansion under SSP scenarios.The mean potential biodiversity loss represents the average number of terrestrial vertebrate species (amphibians, mammals, and birds) lost per 10 km grid cell.Full size image More

Ceballos, G., García, A. & Ehrlich, P. R. The sixth extinction crisis: Loss of animal populations and species. J. Cosmol. 8, 31 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., Haines, A. M., Wiens, J. A. & Neel, M. C. Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation. Conserv. Lett. 3, 91–97 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, M. A., Kirby, R., Wang, S. & Losos, J. What drives variation in habitat use by Anolis lizards: Habitat availability or selectivity?. Can. J. Zool. 84, 877–886 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. & Lawton, J. H. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J. Anim. Ecol. 66, 579–601 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Devictor, V. et al. Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 15–25 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Razgour, O., Hanmer, J. & Jones, G. Using multi-scale modelling to predict habitat suitability for species of conservation concern: The grey long-eared bat as a case study. Biol. Cons. 144, 2922–2930 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Jetz, W., Sekercioglu, C. H. & Watson, J. E. Ecological correlates and conservation implications of overestimating species geographic ranges. Conserv. Biol. 22, 110–119 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Seddon, P. J. From reintroduction to assisted colonization: Moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restor. Ecol. 18, 796–802 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Tomlinson, S., Lewandrowski, W., Elliott, C. P., Miller, B. P. & Turner, S. R. High-resolution distribution modeling of a threatened short-range endemic plant informed by edaphic factors. Ecol. Evol. 10, 763–773 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tomlinson, S., Webber, B. L., Bradshaw, S. D., Dixon, K. W. & Renton, M. Incorporating biophysical ecology into high-resolution restoration targets: insect pollinator habitat suitability models. Restor. Ecol. 26, 338–347 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Glen, A. S., Sutherland, D. R. & Cruz, J. An improved method of microhabitat assessment relevant to predation risk. Ecol. Res. 25, 311–314 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Limberger, D., Trillmich, F., Biebach, H. & Stevenson, R. D. Temperature regulation and microhabitat choice by free-ranging Galapagos fur seal pups (Arctocephalus galapagoensis). Oecologia 69, 53–59 (1986).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parmenter, R. R., Parmenter, C. A. & Cheney, C. D. Factors influencing microhabitat partitioning in arid-land darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae): temperature and water conservation. J. Arid Environ. 17, 57–67 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Kleckova, I., Konvicka, M. & Klecka, J. Thermoregulation and microhabitat use in mountain butterflies of the genus Erebia: importance of fine-scale habitat heterogeneity. J. Therm. Biol 41, 50–58 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Napierała, A. & Błoszyk, J. Unstable microhabitats (merocenoses) as specific habitats of Uropodina mites (Acari: Mesostigmata). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 60, 163–180 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, K. L., Philpot, K. E. & Stevens, M. Microhabitat choice in island lizards enhances camouflage against avian predators. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Lovell, P. G., Ruxton, G. D., Langridge, K. V. & Spencer, K. A. Egg-laying substrate selection for optimal camouflage by quail. Curr. Biol. 23, 260–264 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wrege, P. H., Rowland, E. D., Keen, S. & Shiu, Y. Acoustic monitoring for conservation in tropical forests: Examples from forest elephants. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1292–1301 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Measey, G. J., Stevenson, B. C., Scott, T., Altwegg, R. & Borchers, D. L. Counting chirps: Acoustic monitoring of cryptic frogs. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 894–902 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lambert, K. T. & McDonald, P. G. A low-cost, yet simple and highly repeatable system for acoustically surveying cryptic species. Austral Ecol. 39, 779–785 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Picciulin, M., Kéver, L., Parmentier, E. & Bolgan, M. Listening to the unseen: Passive Acoustic Monitoring reveals the presence of a cryptic fish species. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 29, 202–210 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Linkie, M. et al. Cryptic mammals caught on camera: assessing the utility of range wide camera trap data for conserving the endangered Asian tapir. Biol. Cons. 162, 107–115 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Balme, G. A., Hunter, L. T. & Slotow, R. Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 433–441 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Carbone, C. et al. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals in Animal Conservation forum. 75–79 (2001) (Cambridge University Press).Russell, J. C., Hasler, N., Klette, R. & Rosenhahn, B. Automatic track recognition of footprints for identifying cryptic species. Ecology 90, 2007–2013 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jarvie, S. & Monks, J. Step on it: can footprints from tracking tunnels be used to identify lizard species?. N. Z. J. Zool. 41, 210–217 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Watts, C., Thornburrow, D., Rohan, M. & Stringer, I. Effective monitoring of arboreal giant weta (Deinacrida heteracantha and D. mahoenui; Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae) using footprint tracking tunnels. J. Orthop. Res. 22, 93–100 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Williams, E. M. Developing monitoring methods for cryptic species: a case study of the Australasian bittern, Botaurus poiciloptilus: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology at Massey University, Manawatū, New Zealand, Massey University (2016).Hacking, J., Abom, R. & Schwarzkopf, L. Why do lizards avoid weeds?. Biol. Invasions 16, 935–947 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Valentine, L. E. Habitat avoidance of an introduced weed by native lizards. Austral. Ecol. 31, 732–735 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M. & Clark, V. The threatened status of restricted-range coral reef fish species in Animal Conservation forum. 81–88 (2000) (Cambridge University Press).Mason, L. D., Bateman, P. W. & Wardell-Johnson, G. W. The pitfalls of short-range endemism: High vulnerability to ecological and landscape traps. PeerJ 6, e4715 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dassot, M., Constant, T. & Fournier, M. The use of terrestrial LiDAR technology in forest science: Application fields, benefits and challenges. Ann. For. Sci. 68, 959–974 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Weber, H. LiDAR Sensor Functionality and Variants (2018).Michel, P., Jenkins, J., Mason, N., Dickinson, K. & Jamieson, I. Assessing the ecological application of lasergrammetric techniques to measure fine-scale vegetation structure. Eco. Inform. 3, 309–320 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Lim, K., Treitz, P., Wulder, M., St-Onge, B. & Flood, M. LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 27, 88–106 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, L. & Burgin, S. Patterns of bird predation on reptiles in small woodland remnant edges in peri-urban north-western Sydney, Australia. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 1039–1047 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Hannam, M. & Moskal, L. M. Terrestrial laser scanning reveals seagrass microhabitat structure on a tideflat. Remote Sensing 7, 3037–3055 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Zavalas, R., Ierodiaconou, D., Ryan, D., Rattray, A. & Monk, J. Habitat classification of temperate marine macroalgal communities using bathymetric LiDAR. Remote Sens. 6, 2154–2175 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Mandlburger, G., Hauer, C., Wieser, M. & Pfeifer, N. Topo-bathymetric LiDAR for monitoring river morphodynamics and instream habitats—A case study at the Pielach River. Remote Sens. 7, 6160–6195 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Laize, C. et al. Use of LIDAR to characterise river morphology (2014).Cooper, C. & Withers, P. Physiological significance of the microclimate in night refuges of the numbat Myrmecobius fasciatus. Austral. Mammal. 27, 169–174 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Orell, P. & Morris, K. Chuditch recovery plan. Western Austral. Wildl. Manag. Program 13, 1 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Pearson, D. Western Spiny-Tailed Skink (Egernia stokesii) Recovery Plan (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2012).
Google Scholar 
McPeek, M. A., Cook, B. & McComb, W. Habitat selection by small mammals. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 44, 68–73 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Armstrong, K. The distribution and roost habitat of the orange leaf-nosed bat, Rhinonicteris aurantius, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Wildl. Res. 28, 95–104 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Mancina, C. et al. Endemics under threat: an assessment of the conservation status of Cuban bats. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 18, 3–15 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Webb, M. H., Holdsworth, M. C. & Webb, J. Nesting requirements of the endangered Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor). Emu-Austral. Ornithol. 112, 181–188 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Watson, S. J., Watson, D. M., Luck, G. W. & Spooner, P. G. Effects of landscape composition and connectivity on the distribution of an endangered parrot in agricultural landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 1249–1259 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Duffield, G. & Bull, M. Stable social aggregations in an Australian lizard, Egernia stokesii. Naturwissenschaften 89, 424–427 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Duffield, G. A. & Bull, M. Characteristics of the litter of the gidgee skink, Egernia stokesii. Wildl. Res. 23, 337–341 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Ecoscape. Blue Hills – Mungada East Terrestrial Fauna Assessment. (Sinosteel Midwest Corporation, 2016).Silver Lake Resources. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation Prescribe Premise Licence Application. (Egan Street Resources Limited, 2021).Maptek. I-Site 8800 Scanning System Solutions for Mining (2010).SoilWater Group. 3D LiDAR Scanning (2018).United States Department of Transportation. Ground-Based LiDAR Rock Slope Mapping and Assessment (2008).R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, https://www.R-project.org/ (2017).Bartoń, K. Package ‘MuMIn’, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/MuMIn.pdf (2020).Converse, S. J., White, G. C. & Block, W. M. Small mammal responses to thinning and wildfire in ponderosa pine-dominated forests of the southwestern United States. J. Wildl. Manag. 70, 1711–1722 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Vieira, I. C. G. et al. Classifying successional forests using Landsat spectral properties and ecological characteristics in eastern Amazonia. Remote Sens. Environ. 87, 470–481 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Whitford, K. & Williams, M. Hollows in jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla) trees: II. Selecting trees to retain for hollow dependent fauna. For. Ecol. Manag. 160, 215–232 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Salmona, J., Dixon, K. M. & Banks, S. C. The effects of fire history on hollow-bearing tree abundance in montane and subalpine eucalypt forests in southeastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 428, 93–103 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D., Cunningham, R., Donnelly, C., Tanton, M. & Nix, H. The abundance and development of cavities in Eucalyptus trees: a case study in the montane forests of Victoria, southeastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manage. 60, 77–104 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Craig, M. D. et al. How many mature microhabitats does a slow-recolonising reptile require? Implications for restoration of bauxite minesites in south-western Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 59, 9–17 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Schwarzkopf, L., Barnes, M. & Goodman, B. Belly up: Reduced crevice accessibility as a cost of reproduction caused by increased girth in a rock-using lizard. Austral Ecol. 35, 82–86 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Whiting, M. J. Islands in a sea of sand: Use of Acacia trees by tree skinks in the Kalahari Desert. J. Arid Environ. 44, 373–381 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Out on a limb: conservation implications of tree-hollow use by a threatened snake species (Hoplocephalus bungaroides: Serpentes, Elapidae). Biol. Cons. 81, 21–33 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Fitzgerald, M., Shine, R. & Lemckert, F. Radiotelemetric study of habitat use by the arboreal snake Hoplocephalus stephensii (Elapidae) in eastern Australia. Copeia 2002, 321–332 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Grimm-Seyfarth, A., Mihoub, J. B. & Henle, K. Too hot to die? The effects of vegetation shading on past, present, and future activity budgets of two diurnal skinks from arid Australia. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6803–6813 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Attum, O., Eason, P., Cobbs, G. & El Din, S. M. B. Response of a desert lizard community to habitat degradation: Do ideas about habitat specialists/generalists hold?. Biol. Cons. 133, 52–62 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Melville, J. & Schulte Ii, J. A. Correlates of active body temperatures and microhabitat occupation in nine species of central Australian agamid lizards. Austral. Ecol. 26, 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2001.01152.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munguia-Vega, A., Rodriguez-Estrella, R., Shaw, W. W. & Culver, M. Localized extinction of an arboreal desert lizard caused by habitat fragmentation. Biol. Cons. 157, 11–20 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Pietrek, A., Walker, R. & Novaro, A. Susceptibility of lizards to predation under two levels of vegetative cover. J. Arid Environ. 73, 574–577 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Moreno, S., Delibes, M. & Villafuerte, R. Cover is safe during the day but dangerous at night: The use of vegetation by European wild rabbits. Can. J. Zool. 74, 1656–1660 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Tchabovsky, A. V., Krasnov, B., Khokhlova, I. S. & Shenbrot, G. I. The effect of vegetation cover on vigilance and foraging tactics in the fat sand rat Psammomys obesus. J. Ethol. 19, 105–113 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Pizzuto, T. A., Finlayson, G. R., Crowther, M. S. & Dickman, C. R. Microhabitat use by the brush-tailed bettong (Bettongia penicillata) and burrowing bettong (B. lesueur) in semiarid New South Wales: Implications for reintroduction programs. Wildl. Res. 34, 271–279 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Hawlena, D., Saltz, D., Abramsky, Z. & Bouskila, A. Ecological trap for desert lizards caused by anthropogenic changes in habitat structure that favor predator activity. Conserv. Biol. 24, 803–809 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oversby, W., Ferguson, S., Davis, R. A. & Bateman, P. Bad news for bobtails: Understanding predatory behaviour of a resource-subsidised corvid towards an island endemic reptile. Wildl. Res. 45, 595–601 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Pianka, E. R. Rarity in A ustralian desert lizards. Austral Ecol. 39, 214–224 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Germano, J. M. & Bishop, P. J. Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conserv. Biol. 23, 7–15 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tsiouvaras, C., Havlik, N. & Bartolome, J. Effects of goats on understory vegetation and fire hazard reduction in a coastal forest in California. For. Sci. 35, 1125–1131 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Tasker, E. M. & Bradstock, R. A. Influence of cattle grazing practices on forest understorey structure in north-eastern New South Wales. Austral. Ecol. 31, 490–502 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Payne, A., Van Vreeswyk, A., Leighton, K., Pringle, H. & Hennig, P. An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone-Yalgoo-Paynes Find area, Western Australia (1998).Shoo, L. P., Freebody, K., Kanowski, J. & Catterall, C. P. Slow recovery of tropical old-field rainforest regrowth and the value and limitations of active restoration. Conserv. Biol. 30, 121–132 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lamb, D. in Regreening the Bare Hills 325–358 (Springer, 2011).Bowler, D. E. & Benton, T. G. Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: Relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol. Rev. 80, 205–225 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stow, A. J., Sunnucks, P., Briscoe, D. & Gardner, M. The impact of habitat fragmentation on dispersal of Cunningham’s skink (Egernia cunninghami): Evidence from allelic and genotypic analyses of microsatellites. Mol. Ecol. 10, 867–878 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stow, A. & Sunnucks, P. High mate and site fidelity in Cunningham’s skinks (Egernia cunninghami) in natural and fragmented habitat. Mol. Ecol. 13, 419–430 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

If you are a scientist hoping to photograph and share your own research:
•    Don’t underestimate the power of modern media and social-media platforms. Content is changing the world and people’s lives, and it can easily change your life. Stay at the forefront of media technology, or at least be aware of developments. It’s a never-ending race, but it’s easy to get into.
•    If you plan to share your work with others, imagine what will be of interest to them. If you can excitingly describe your work to a 5-year-old, you won’t have any trouble getting anyone interested. Beautiful pictures help, but the story always comes first.

•    You will stand out much more if you have a niche and unique story. It could be your rare field of science or a special angle that you use to tell the story of your work. Being different is awesome.
•    Set the bar very high. You can find dozens of examples of truly high-quality content on the Internet. And you can almost always find resources that can help you to learn how to create work of the same calibre. With practice, your skills will inevitably rise — but at any given time, it’s important to know the level you should aim for.
•    Find people who are cooler than you. Don’t hesitate to ask them for advice or to shadow them. Have them share their experiences, stand behind them and observe their work if they’ll let you. Few things are more useful than real work experience, both your own and that of others.
•    Take on a project. This could be a an illustrated workbook for colleagues or students, a guide book, a lecture for schoolchildren with compelling visuals, a course for students or a documentary on your topic.
•    If you work in a team, you can raise the bar even higher. Use each other’s strengths, share experiences, make plans, apply for grants and take on challenging science-communication projects together. This multiplies the fun and the results. More