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

Of which at the third instar, the external morphology of larvae is quite similar; thus, the morphological identification used to differentiate between its genera or species, generally includes cephalophalyngeal skeleton, anterior spiracle, and posterior spiracles. The morphology of the posterior spiracle is one of the important characteristics for identification. A typical morphology of the posterior spiracle of third stage larvae was shown in Fig. 2. Based on studying under light microscopy, the posterior spiracle of M. domestica was clearly distinguished from the others. On the other hand, the morphology of the posterior spiracle of C. megacephala and A. rufifacies was quite similar. For C. megacephala and C. rufifacies, the peritreme, a structure encircling the three spiracular openings (slits), was incomplete and slits were straight as shown Fig. 2A,B, respectively. The complete peritreme encircling three slits was found in L. cuprina and M. domestica as shown in Fig. 2C,D, respectively. However, only the slits of M. domestica were sinuous like the M-letter (Fig. 2D). Their morphological characteristics found in this study were like the descriptions in the previous reports23,24,25.Figure 2Morphology of posterior spiracles of four different fly species after inverting the image colors; (A) Chrysomya (Achoetandrus) ruffifacies, (B) Chrysomya megacephala, (C) Lucilia cuprina, (D) Musca domestica.Full size imageFor model training, four of the CNN models used for species-level identification of fly maggots provided 100% accuracy rates and 0% loss. Number of parameter (#Params), model speed, model size, macro precision, macro recall, f1-score, and support value were also presented in Table 1. The result demonstrated that the AlexNet model provided the best performance in all indicators when compared among four models. The AlexNet model used the least number of parameters while the Resnet101 model used the most. For model speed, the AlexNet model provided the fastest speed, while the Densenet161 model provided the slowest speed. For the model size, the AlexNet model was the smallest, while the Resnet101 model was the largest which corresponded to the number of parameters used. Macro precision, macro recall, f1-score and support value of all models were the same.Table 1 Comparison of model size, speed, and performances of each studied model (The text in bold indicates the best value in each category).Full size tableAs the training results presented in the supplementary data (Fig. S1), all models provided 100% accuracy and 0% loss in the early stage of training ( More

Hill, L. et al. The£ 15 billion cost of ash dieback in Britain. Curr. Biol. 29(9), R315–R316 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pliûra, A. & Heuertz, M. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for Genetic Conservation and Use for Common Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) (Bioversity International, 2003).
Google Scholar 
Dufour, S. & Piégay, H. Geomorphological controls of Fraxinus excelsior growth and regeneration in floodplain forests. Ecology 89(1), 205–215 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, R. J. et al. Ash dieback in the UK: a review of the ecological and conservation implications and potential management options. Biol. Conserv. 175, 95–109 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Przybył, K. Fungi associated with necrotic apical parts of Fraxinus excelsior shoots. For. Pathol. 32(6), 387–394 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Vasaitis, R., & Enderle, R. Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.)-consequences and guidelines for sustainable management. Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.). Report on COST Action FP1103 FRAXBACK. ISBN978-91-576-8696-1. (SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).Børja, I. et al. Ash dieback in Norway-current situation. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 166–175 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Ghelardini, L. et al. From the Alps to the Apennines: Possible spread of ash dieback in Mediterranean areas. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 140–149 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Marçais, B., Husson, C., Godart, L. & Cael, O. Influence of site and stand factors on Hymenoscyphus fraxineus-induced basal lesions. Plant. Pathol. 65(9), 1452–1461 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Queloz, V., Hopf, S., Schoebel, C. N., Rigling, D. & Gross, A. Ash dieback in Switzerland: History and scientific achievements. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 68–78 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Orton, E. S. et al. Population structure of the ash dieback pathogen, Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, in relation to its mode of arrival in the UK. Plant. Pathol. 67(2), 255–264 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Enderle, R., Stenlid, J. & Vasaitis, R. An overview of ash (Fraxinus spp.) and the ash dieback disease in Europe. CAB Rev. 14, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Heinze, B., Tiefenbacher, H., Litschauer, R. & Kirisits, T. Ash dieback in Austria: History, current situation and outlook. in Dieback of European Ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management, 33–52 (2017).Coker, T. L. et al. Estimating mortality rates of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) under the ash dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) epidemic. Plants People Planet 1(1), 48–58 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Cleary, M., Nguyen, D., Stener, L. G., Stenlid, J., & Skovsgaard, J. P. Ash and ash dieback in Sweden: A review of disease history, current status, pathogen and host dynamics, host tolerance and management options in forests and landscapes. Dieback of European Ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management, 195–208 (2017).Stocks, J. J., Buggs, R. J. & Lee, S. J. A first assessment of Fraxinus excelsior (common ash) susceptibility to Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (ash dieback) throughout the British Isles. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–7 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Díaz-Yáñez, O. et al. The invasive forest pathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus boosts mortality and triggers niche replacement of European ash (Fraxinus excelsior). Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–10 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Enderle, R., Metzler, B., Riemer, U. & Kändler, G. Ash dieback on sample points of the national forest inventory in south-western Germany. Forests 9(1), 25 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Klesse, S. et al. Spread and severity of ash dieback in Switzerland: Tree characteristics and landscape features explain varying mortality probability. Front. For. Glob. Change 4, 18 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Timmermann, V., Potočić, N., Ognjenović, M. & Kirchner, T. Tree crown condition in 2020. In Forest Condition in Europe: The 2021 Assessment ICP Forests Technical Report under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (Air Convention) (eds Michel, A. et al.) (Thünen Institute, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Chumanová, E. et al. Predicting ash dieback severity and environmental suitability for the disease in forest stands. Scand. J. For. Res. 34(4), 254–266 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Solheim, H. & Hietala, A. M. Spread of ash dieback in Norway. Balt. For. 23(1), 1–6 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kjær, E. D. et al. Genetics of ash dieback resistance in a restoration context: Experiences from Denmark. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 106–114 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Madsen, C. L. et al. Combined progress in symptoms caused by Hymenoscyphus fraxineus and Armillaria species, and corresponding mortality in young and old ash trees. For. Ecol. Manage. 491, 119177 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Trapiello, E., Schoebel, C. N. & Rigling, D. Fungal community in symptomatic ash leaves in Spain. Balt. For. 23(1), 68–73 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Grosdidier, M., Ioos, R. & Marçais, B. Do higher summer temperatures restrict the dissemination of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in France?. For. Pathol. 48(4), e12426. https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12426 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stroheker, S., Queloz, V. & Nemesio-Gorriz, M. First report of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus causing ash dieback in Spain. New Dis. Rep. 44(2), e12054 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Chandelier, A., Gerarts, F., San Martin, G., Herman, M. & Delahaye, L. Temporal evolution of collar lesions associated with ash dieback and the occurrence of Armillaria in Belgian forests. For. Pathol. 46(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12258 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gross, A., Holdenrieder, O., Pautasso, M., Queloz, V. & Sieber, T. N. H ymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, the causal agent of E uropean ash dieback. Mol. Plant Pathol. 15(1), 5–21 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clark, J. & Webber, J. The ash resource and the response to ash dieback in Great Britain. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 228–237 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Dandy, N., Marzano, M., Porth, E. F., Urquhart, J. & Potter, C. Who has a stake in ash dieback? A conceptual framework for the identification and categorisation of tree health stakeholders. In Dieback of European ash (Fraxinus spp.): Consequences and Guidelines for Sustainable Management (eds Vasaitis, R. & Enderle, R.) 15–26 (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Kjær, E. D., McKinney, L. V., Nielsen, L. R., Hansen, L. N. & Hansen, J. K. Adaptive potential of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) populations against the novel emerging pathogen Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus. Evol. Appl. 5(3), 219–228 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Plumb, W. J. et al. The viability of a breeding programme for ash in the British Isles in the face of ash dieback. Plants People Planet 2(1), 29–40 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Evans, M. R. Will natural resistance result in populations of ash trees remaining in British woodlands after a century of ash dieback disease?. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6(8), 190908 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Buggs, R. J. A. Changing perceptions of tree resistance research. Plants People Planet 2, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10089 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tomlinson, I. & Potter, C. ‘Too little, too late’? Science, policy and Dutch Elm Disease in the UK. J. Hist. Geogr. 36(2), 121–131 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Kelly, L. J. et al. Convergent molecular evolution among ash species resistant to the emerald ash borer. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1209-3 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sollars, E. S. et al. Genome sequence and genetic diversity of European ash trees. Nature 541(7636), 212–216 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stocks, J. J. et al. Genomic basis of European ash tree resistance to ash dieback fungus. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3(12), 1686–1696 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Volkovitsh, M. G., Bieńkowski, A. O. & Orlova-Bienkowskaja, M. J. Emerald ash borer approaches the borders of the european union and kazakhstan and is confirmed to infest European ash. Forests 12(6), 691 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Eichhorn, J. et al. Part IV: Visual Assessment of Crown Condition and Damaging Agents. in Manual on Methods and Criteria for Harmonized Sampling, Assessment, Monitoring and Analysis of the Effects of Air Pollution on Forests. (Thünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems, 2016). Annex http://www.icp-forests.org/manual.htm.Koontz, M. J., Latimer, A. M., Mortenson, L. A., Fettig, C. J. & North, M. P. Cross-scale interaction of host tree size and climatic water deficit governs bark beetle-induced tree mortality. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 1–13 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Taccoen, A. et al. Climate change impact on tree mortality differs with tree social status. For. Ecol. Manage. 489, 119048 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survival/vignettes/survival.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2021Godaert, L. et al. Prognostic factors of inhospital death in elderly patients: A time-to-event analysis of a cohort study in Martinique (French West Indies). BMJ Open 8(1), e018838 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sargeran, K., Murtomaa, H., Safavi, S. M. R., Vehkalahti, M. M. & Teronen, O. Survival after diagnosis of cancer of the oral cavity. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 46(3), 187–191 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cox, D. R. Regression models and life-tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 34(2), 187–202 (1972).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Aalen, O. O. A linear regression model for the analysis of life times. Stat. Med. 8(8), 907–925 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. The cox model. In Modeling survival data: extending the Cox model, pp. 39–77. (Springer, 2000).Neumann, M., Mues, V., Moreno, A., Hasenauer, H. & Seidl, R. Climate variability drives recent tree mortality in Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 23(11), 4788–4797 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Senf, C., Buras, A., Zang, C. S., Rammig, A. & Seidl, R. Excess forest mortality is consistently linked to drought across Europe. Nat. Commun. 11(1), 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Haylock, M. R. et al. A European daily high-resolution gridded data set of surface temperature and precipitation for 1950–2006. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D20 (2008).
Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. RStudio, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Development Core Team, 2017).Holt, C. C. Forecasting Trends and Season-Als by Exponentially Weighted Averages. (Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh ONR memorandum no. 52, 1957)Hyndman, R. J. & Khandakar, Y. Automatic time series forecasting: the forecast package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 27(3), 1–22 (2008).
Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

Mikusiński, G., Roberge, J. M. & Fuller, R. J. Ecology and Conservation of Forest Birds (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
Newton, I. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol. Conserv. 70, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90172-4 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korpimäki, E. & Hakkarainen, H. The Boreal Owl: Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation of a Forest-Dwelling Predator (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N. & Bauer, K. M. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 9. (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1980).Newton, I. Population Limitation in Birds (Academic press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Moning, C. & Müller, J. Environmental key factors and their thresholds for the avifauna of temperate montane forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 1198–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.018 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walankiewicz, W., Czeszczewik, D., Stański, T., Sahel, M. & Ruczyński, I. Tree cavity resources in spruce-pine managed and protected stands of the Białowieża Forest, Poland. Nat. Areas J. 34, 423–428. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0404 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lambrechts, M. M. et al. The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol. 45, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164510X516047 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lambrechts, M. M. et al. Nest box design for the study of diurnal raptors and owls is still an overlooked point in ecological, evolutionary and conservation studies: a review. J. Ornithol. 153, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0720-3 (2012).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. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12509 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kubizňák, P. et al. Designing network-connected systems for ecological research and education. Ecosphere 10(6), e02761. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2761 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mänd, R., Tilgar, V., Lõhmus, A. & Leivits, A. Providing nest boxes for hole-nesting birds—Does habitat matter?. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 1823–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-1039-7 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
König, C. & Weick, F. Owls of the World 2nd ed. (Christopher Helm, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Morelli, F., Benedetti, Y., Møller, A. P. & Fuller, R. A. Measuring avian specialization. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8378–8386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5419 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ševčík, R., Riegert, J., Šťastný, K., Zárybnický, J. & Zárybnická, M. The effect of environmental variables on owl distribution in Central Europe: A case study from the Czech Republic. Ecol. Inform. 64, 101375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101375 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brambilla, M. et al. Species interactions and climate change: How the disruption of species co-occurrence will impact on an avian forest guild. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1212–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14953 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hayward, G. D., Hayward, P. H. & Garton, E. O. Ecology of boreal owl in the northern Rocky-Mountains, USA. Wildl. Monogr. 124, 3–59 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Riegert, J. & Šťastný, K. The role of Apodemus mice and Microtus voles in the diet of the Tengmalm’s owl in Central Europe. Popul. Ecol. 55, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-013-0367-4 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Sedláček, O., Salo, P., Šťastný, K. & Korpimäki, E. Reproductive responses of temperate and boreal Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus populations to spatial and temporal variation in prey availability. Ibis 157, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12244 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mossop, D. H. The importance of old growth refugia in the Yukon boreal forest to cavity-nesting owls in Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere (eds. Duncan, J. R., Johnson, D. H. & Nicholls, T. H.) 584–586 (Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-NC-190, 1997).Domahidi, Z., Nielsen, S., Bayne, E. & Spence, J. Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) and northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) breeding records in managed boreal forests. Can. Field-Nat. 134, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v134i2.2146 (2020).Whitman, J. S. Diets of nesting boreal owls, Aegolius funereus, in western interior Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 115, 476–479 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Whitman, J. S. Post-fledging estimation of annual productivity in boreal owls based on prey detritus mass. J. Raptor Res. 42, 58–60. https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-06-88.1 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, A. G. Wildfire impacts on nest provisioning and survival of Alaskan boreal owls. Master thesis, Miami University, Ohio (2017).Hayward, G. D., Steinhorst, R. K. & Hayward, P. H. Monitoring boreal owl populations with nest boxes: sample size and cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56, 777–785. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809473 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koopman, M. E., McDonald, D. B. & Hayward, G. D. Microsatellite analysis reveals genetic monogamy among female boreal owls. J. Raptor Res. 41, 314–318. https://doi.org/10.3356/0892-1016(2007)41[314:MARGMA]2.0.CO;2 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fang, Y., Tang, S.-H., Gu, Y. & Sun, Y.-H. Conservation of Tengmalm’s owl and Sichuan wood owl in Lianhuashan Mountain, Gansu, China. Ardea 97, 649–649. https://doi.org/10.5253/078.097.0437 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Löfgren, O., Hörnfeldt, B. & Carlsson, B. Site tenacity and nomadism in Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus (L.)) in relation to cyclic food production. Oecologia 69, 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377051 (1986).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hörnfeldt, B. & Nyholm, N. E. I. Breeding performance of Tengmalm’s owl in a heavy metal pollution gradient. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404759 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hipkiss, T., Hörnfeldt, B., Eklund, U. & Berlin, S. Year-dependent sex-biased mortality in supplementary-fed Tengmalm’s owl nestlings. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 693–699. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.t01-1-00635.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hipkiss, T., Gustafsson, J., Eklund, U. & Hörnfeldt, B. Is the long-term decline of boreal owls in Sweden caused by avoidance of old boxes?. J. Raptor Res. 47, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-11-91.1 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korpimäki, E. Selection for nest-hole shift and tactics of breeding dispersal in Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/4808 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drdáková-Zárybnická, M. Breeding biology of the Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) in air-pollution damaged areas of the Krušné hory Mts. Sylvia 39, 35–51 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Riegert, J., Kloubec, B. & Obuch, J. The effect of elevation and habitat cover on nest box occupancy and diet composition of boreal owls Aegolius funereus. Bird Study 64, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2017.1316236 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Kloubec, B., Obuch, J. & Riegert, J. Fledgling productivity in relation to diet composition of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus in Central Europe. Ardeola 62, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.62.1.2015.163 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kloubec, B. Breeding of Tengmalm’s owls (Aegolius funereus) in nest-boxes in Šumava Mts.: a summary from the years 1978–2002. Buteo 13, 75–86 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Flousek, J. Ochrana sov v Krkonošském národním parku in Sovy 1986 (eds. Sitko, J. & Trpák, P.) 33–34 (Státní ústav památkové péče a ochrany přírody, Přerov, 1988).Ravussin, P.-A. et al. Quel avenir pour la Chouette de Tengmalm Aegolius funereus dans le massif du Jura? Bilan de trente années de suivi. Nos Oiseaux 62, 5–28 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Schelper, W. Zur Brutbiologie, Ernährung und Populationsdynamik des Rauhfusskauzes Aegolius funereus im Kaufunger Wald (Südniedersachsen). Vogelkundliche Berichte aus Niedersachsen 21, 33–53 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Schwerdtfeger, O. The dispersion dynamics of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus in Central Europe in Raptor Conservation Today (eds. Meyburg, B. U. & Chancellor, R. C.) 543–550 (World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Pica Press, 1994).Hunke, W. Versuch eine Population des Raufußkauzes Aegolius funereus durch Anbringen von Nistkästen in den Jahren 1980 bis 2010 zu fördern. Charadrius 47, 93–101 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mezzavilla, F. & Lombardo, S. Indagini sulla biologia riproduttiva della civetta capogrosso Aegolius funereus: anni 1987–2012 in Atti Secondo Convegno Italiano Rapaci Diurni e Notturni Vol. 3 (eds. Mezzavilla, F. & Scarton, F.) 261–270 (Associazione Faunisti Veneti, Quaderni Faunistici, 2013).Rajković, D. Diet composition and prey diversity of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus (Linnaeus, 1758; Aves: Strigidae) in central Serbia during breeding. Turk. J. Zool. 42, 346–351. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-1709-28 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Riegert, J. & Šťastný, K. Non-native spruce plantations represent a suitable habitat for Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) in the Czech Republic, Central Europe. J. Ornithol. 156, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-014-1145-6 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kopáček, J. & Veselý, J. Sulfur and nitrogen emissions in the Czech Republic and Slovakia from 1850 till 2000. Atmos. Environ. 39, 2179–2188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.002 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kloubec, B., Hora, J. & Šťastný, K. (eds.). Ptáci jižních Čech (Jihočeský kraj, 2015).Ševčík, R., Riegert, J., Šindelář, J. & Zárybnická, M. Vocal activity of the Central European boreal owl population in relation to varying environmental conditions. Ornis Fenn. 96, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Savický, J. AM Services – Play Spectrogram Screens v. 4v7 (Czech Republic, 2009).Korpimäki, E. Diet of breeding Tengmalm’s owls Aegolius funereus: long-term changes and year-to-year variation under cyclic food conditions. Ornis Fenn. 65, 21–30 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Kouba, M. et al. Home range size of Tengmalm’s owl during breeding in Central Europe is determined by prey abundance. PLoS ONE 12, e0177314. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177314 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Sedláček, O. & Korpimäki, E. Do Tengmalm’s owls alter parental feeding effort under varying conditions of main prey availability?. J. Ornithol. 150, 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-008-0342-6 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020).ter Braak, C. & Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination, version 5.10. (Microcomputer Power, 2018).Kosiński, Z. & Kempa, M. Density, distribution and nest-sites of woodpeckers Picidae, in a managed forest of Western Poland. Pol. J. Ecol. 55, 519–533 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Miller, K. E. Nest-site limitation of secondary cavity-nesting birds in even-age southern pine forests. Wilson J. Ornithol. 122, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1676/07-130.1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonerud, G. A. Nest hole shift in Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus as defence against nest predation involving long-term memory in the predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 54, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/4629 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonerud, G. A. Reduced predation by pine martens on nests of Tengmalm’s owl in relocated boxes. Anim. Behav. 37, 332–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90122-X (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonerud, G. A. Win – and stay, but not too long: cavity selection by boreal owls to minimize nest predation by pine marten. J. Ornithol. 162, 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-021-01876-y (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korpimäki, E. Does nest-hole quality, poor breeding success or food depletion drive the breeding dispersal of Tengmalm’s owls?. J. Anim. Ecol. 62, 606–613. https://doi.org/10.2307/5382 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hruška, F. The boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) – breeding distribution, numbers, ringing results and notes on the breeding biology and feeding ecology of this species in the central part of the Jihlavské vrchy Hills. Crex 38, 112–150 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Broughton, R. et al. Nest-site competition between bumblebees (Bombidae), social wasps (Vespidae) and cavity-nesting birds in Britain and the Western Palearctic. Bird Study 62, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2015.1046811 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pawlikowski, T. & Pawlikowski, K. Nesting interactions of the social wasp Dolichovespula saxonica [F.] (Hymenoptera: Vespinae) in wooden nest boxes for birds in the forest reserve „Las Piwnicki” in the Chełmno Land (Northern Poland). Ecol. Quest. 13, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10090-010-0017-9 (2010).Langowska, A., Ekner-Grzyb, A., Skórka, P., Tobółka, M. & Tryjanowski, P. Nest-site tenacity and dispersal patterns of Vespa crabro colonies located in bird nest-boxes. Sociobiology 56, 375–382 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Meyer, W. Mit welchem Erfolg nutzt der Rauhfusskauz Aegolius funereus (L.) Natruhölen und Nistkästen zur Brut. Vogelwelt 124, 325–331 (2003).
Google Scholar 
López, B. C. et al. Nest-box use by boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) in the Pyrenees Mountains in Spain. J. Raptor Res. 44, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-09-32.1 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M., Riegert, J. & Kouba, M. Indirect food web interactions affect predation of Tengmalm’s owls Aegolius funereus nests by pine martens Martes martes according to the alternative prey hypothesis. Ibis 157, 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12265 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zárybnická, M. & Vojar, J. Effect of male provisioning on the parental behavior of female boreal owls Aegolius funereus. Zool. Stud. 52, 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1810-522X-52-36 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Llambías, P. & Fernandez, G. Effects of nestboxes on the breeding biology of southern house wrens Troglodytes aedon bonariae in the southern temperate zone. Ibis 151, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00868.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vrezec, A. Breeding density and altitudinal distribution of the Ural, tawny, and boreal owls in North Dinaric Alps (Central Slovenia). J. Raptor Res. 37, 55–62 (2003).
Google Scholar  More

Van Gossum, H., Sherratt, T. N., Cordero-Rivera, A. & Córdoba-Aguilar, A. The evolution of sex-limited colour polymorphism. In Dragonflies and Damselflies: Model Organisms for Ecological and Evolutionary Research (ed. Córdoba-Aguilar, A.) 219–231 (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, J. M. & Jones, M. P. Shell colour polymorphism in a mangrove snail Littorina sp. (Prosobranchia: Littorinidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 25, 365–378 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Sinervo, B., Bleay, C. & Adamopoulou, C. Social causes of correlational selection and the resolution of a heritable throat color polymorphism in a lizard. Evolution 55, 2040–2052 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Westerman, E. L. et al. Does male preference play a role in maintaining female limited polymorphism in a Batesian mimetic butterfly? Behav. Process. 150, 47–58 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vane-Wright, R. I. An integrated classification for polymorphism and sexual dimorphism in butterflies. J. Zool. 177, 329–337 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Timmermans, M. J., Srivathsan, A., Collins, S., Meier, R. & Vogler, A. P. Mimicry diversification in Papilio dardanus via a genomic inversion in the regulatory region of engrailed–invected. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200443 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brodie, E. D. III. & Janzen, F. J. Experimental studies of coral snake mimicry: Generalized avoidance of ringed snake patterns by free-ranging avian predators. Funct. Ecol. 9, 186–190 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Banci, K. R., Eterovic, A., Marinho, P. S. & Marques, O. A. Being a bright snake: Testing aposematism and mimicry in a neotropical forest. Biotropica 52, 1229–1241 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wüster, W. et al. Do aposematism and Batesian mimicry require bright colours? A test, using European viper markings. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 2495–2499 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Valkonen, J. K. & Mappes, J. Resembling a viper: Implications of mimicry for conservation of the endangered smooth snake. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1568–1574 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sinervo, B. & Lively, C. M. The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380, 240–243 (1996).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moon, R. M. & Kamath, A. Re-examining escape behaviour and habitat use as correlates of dorsal pattern variation in female brown anole lizards, Anolis sagrei (Squamata: Dactyloidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 126, 783–795 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Le Rouzic, A., Hansen, T. F., Gosden, T. P. & Svensson, E. I. Evolutionary time-series analysis reveals the signature of frequency-dependent selection on a female mating polymorphism. Am. Nat. 185, E182–E196 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Udyawer, V. et al. Future directions in the research and management of marine snakes. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 399 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Goiran, C., Bustamante, P. & Shine, R. Industrial melanism in the seasnake Emydocephalus annulatus. Curr. Biol. 27, 2510–2513 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goiran, C., Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. Niche partitioning within a population of sea snakes is constrained by ambient thermal homogeneity and small prey size. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 129, 644–651 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R., Shine, T. & Shine, B. Intraspecific habitat partitioning by the sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus (Serpentes, Hydrophiidae): The effects of sex, body size, and colour pattern. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80, 1–10 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Udyawer, V., Goiran, C. & Shine, R. Peaceful coexistence between people and deadly wildlife: why are recreational users of the ocean so rarely bitten by sea snakes? People Nat. 3, 335–346 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Heatwole, H. Sea Snakes 2nd edn. (Krieger Publishing, 1999).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R., Shine, T. G., Brown, G. P. & Goiran, C. Life history traits of the sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus, based on a 17-yr study. Coral Reefs 39, 1407–1414 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Goiran, C., Dubey, S. & Shine, R. Effects of season, sex and body size on the feeding ecology of turtle-headed sea snakes (Emydocephalus annulatus) on IndoPacific inshore coral reefs. Coral Reefs 32, 527–538 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Olsson, M., Stuart-Fox, D. & Ballen, C. Genetics and evolution of colour patterns in reptiles. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 24, 529–541 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shine, R., Brischoux, F. & Pile, A. J. A seasnake’s colour affects its susceptibility to algal fouling. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2459–2464 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
White, G. C. & Burnham, K. P. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, S120–S139 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Packard, G. C. & Boardman, T. J. The misuse of ratios, indices, and percentages in ecophysiological research. Physiol. Zool. 61, 1–9 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Lukoschek, V. & Shine, R. Sea snakes rarely venture far from home. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1113–1121 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shine, R. All at sea: Aquatic life modifies mate-recognition modalities in sea snakes (Emydocephalus annulatus, Hydrophiidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 591–598 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R., Shine, T. G., Brown, G. P. & Goiran, C. Population dynamics of the sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae). Sci. Rep. 11, 20701 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rancurel, P. & Intes, A. Le requin tigre, Galeocerdo cuvieri Lacepede, des eaux neocaledoniennes examen des contenus stomacaux. Tethys 10, 195–199 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Heatwole, H. Predation on sea snakes. In The Biology of Sea Snakes (ed. Dunson, W. A.) 233–250 (University Park Press, 1975).
Google Scholar 
Ineich, I. & Laboute, P. Les serpents marins de Nouvelle-Calédonie (IRD éditions, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Kerford, M. R., Wirsing, A. J., Heithaus, M. R. & Dill, L. M. Danger on the rise: diurnal tidal state mediates an exchange of food for safety by the bar-bellied sea snake Hydrophis elegans. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 358, 289–294 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Masunaga, G., Kosuge, T., Asai, N. & Ota, H. Shark predation of sea snakes (Reptilia: Elapidae) in the shallow waters around the Yaeyama Islands of the southern Ryukyus, Japan. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 1, e96 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wirsing, A. J. & Heithaus, M. R. Olive-headed sea snakes Disteria major shift seagrass microhabitats to avoid shark predation. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 387, 287–293 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Goiran, C. & Shine, R. The ability of damselfish to distinguish between dangerous and harmless sea snakes. Sci. Rep. 10, 1377 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Norman, M. D., Finn, J. & Tregenza, T. Dynamic mimicry in an Indo-Malayan octopus. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 1755–1758 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pernetta, J. C. Observations on the habits and morphology of the sea snake Laticauda colubrina (Schneider) in Fiji. Can. J. Zool. 55, 1612–1619 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Randall, J. E. A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zool. Stud. 44, 299–328 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Dudgeon, C. L. & White, W. T. First record of potential Batesian mimicry in an elasmobranch: Juvenile zebra sharks mimic banded sea snakes? Mar. Freshw. Res. 63, 545–551 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Sullivan Caldwell, G. & Wolff Rubinoff, R. Avoidance of venomous sea snakes by naive herons and egrets. Auk 100, 195–198 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Sanders, K. L., Malhotra, A. & Thorpe, R. S. Evidence for a Müllerian mimetic radiation in Asian pitvipers. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1135–1141 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raveendran, D. K., Deepak, V., Smith, E. N. & Smart, U. A new colour morph of Calliophis bibroni (Squamata: Elapidae) and evidence for Müllerian mimicry in Tropical Indian coral snakes. Herpetol. Notes 10, 209–217 (2017).
Google Scholar  More

Chemicals and materialsAnalytical standard ( > 99% purity) of spiromesifen, BSN2060-enol, and chromafenozide were purchased from AB Solution Co., Ltd., Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. HPLC grade water and acetonitrile were supplied by Merck, Darmstadt, Germany. QuEChERS kit (4.0 g magnesium sulfate, 1.0 g sodium chloride, 1.0 g sodium citrate tribasic dihydrate, 0.5 g disodium citrate sesquihydrate) were obtained from Phenomenex, California, USA. Individual stock solutions of the target compounds were prepared in acetonitrile and stored at − 20 °C before use.Field experimentsThe trials were carried out in a greenhouse farm during the season 2018 at two different sites (with approximately 24 km distance between both sites) located in Chuncheon and Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea following the method described by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)38. The field test of lettuce (Latuca sativa L.) crop was conducted in Chuncheon city, and perilla (Perilla frutescens (L.) Britton) crop in Hongcheon city. The area of each field was divided into two plots (treatment and control). The treatment plots were further divided into three replicates (subplots 33 m2). The control plot was separated by a buffer zone of 3 m2 from the treated site. To minimize spray overlap, buffer zones (1 m) were set up between subplots. The commercial products of spiromesifen 20% SC diluted 2000 times and chromafenozide 5% EC diluted 1000 times were sprayed twice at 7-days intervals using an automatic sprayer. After the second spray samples (lettuce and perilla leaves) were collected from each subplot at 0 (2 h after spraying), 1, 3, 5, and 7 days according to the Korean RDA23 method. Thirty samples 1.0 kg each from the collected crop were placed in polyethylene bag and labeled. After collection, the samples were transported to the laboratory, where they were chopped and homogenized. The homogenized samples were kept frozen at − 20 °C until analysis.We confirm all plant samples used in the current work comply with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.Samples pretreatmentA QuEChERS method was used for the extraction of the targeted compounds from lettuce and perilla leaves. A 10 g of previously homogenized samples were weighed into a 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tube and mixed with 10 mL of water followed by 10 mL of acetonitrile. The samples were shaken at 1500 rpm in a shaker machine for 10 min. Then commercial QuEChERS kit was added, and the mixtures were shaken vigorously for 2 min in a shaker. Subsequently, the samples were centrifuged at 3584 g-force for 10 min. After centrifugation, the supernatant was filtered with a 0.22 μm membrane filter and transferred into the glass vial for instrumental analysis.LC-MS/MS analysisQuantitative determination of the tested compounds was carried out by using HPLC system Dionex Ultimate 3000 (Thermo Science, USA) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) (TSQ Quantum Access Max (Thermo Science, USA). Water (solvent A) and acetonitrile (solvent B) containing 0.1% formic acid and 5 mM ammonium format were used as mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min and injection volume 1.0 µL. To obtain desirable chromatographic peaks, two different instrumental conditions were used. The chromatographic separation of spiromesifen was separated by Capcell core-C18 (2.1 mm I.D. × 150 mm × 2.7 μm, Shiseido Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and BSN2060-enol was performed by C18 column (Poroshell 120 SB-Ag, 2.1 mm I.D. × 100 mm × 2.7-μm, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California, USA) with a gradient elution as follows (mobile phase B%): 0.0 min, 5.0%; 2.0 min 5%; 2.5 min, 95%; 6.0 min, 95%; 6.5 min, 5.0%; 10 min, 5.0%. Likewise, chromafenozide was separated by C18 column (Imtakt Unison UK-C18, 2.0 mm I.D. × 100 mm × 3.0-μm, Imtakt, Portland, USA) with a gradient elution as follows (mobile phase B%): 0.0 min, 5%; 1.0 min, 5.0%; 1.5 min, 90%; 5.0 min, 90%; 7.0 min, 5.0%; 10 min, 5.0%. An MS/MS system (TSQ quantum ultra, Thermo Science, USA) equipped with an electrospray ionization source operating in positive mode (ESI+) was used. The MS/MS parameters and selected product ions are shown in supplementary Tables S2 and S3.The calculation of spiromesifen total residuesThe total residues in lettuce and perilla samples were calculated using Eq. (1)23.Total residues of spiromesifen (mg/kg) = spiromesifen + (BSN2060 residue × 1.36). The conversion factor was calculated as follow;$${1}.{36},{text{(conversion}},{text{factor)}} = frac{{370.49left( {{text{spiromesifen}},{text{MW}}} right)}}{{272.34{ }left( {{text{BSN}}2060,{text{MW}}} right)}}$$
(1)
where MW molecular weight.Initial deposition calculationThe initial residues of spiromesifen and chromafenozide deposition in lettuce and perilla leaves were calculated from 0-day according to Eq. (2) described by Kang et al.12 as follow;$${text{A }},({text{mg}}/{text{kg}}) = {text{B(mg}}/{text{kg)}} times frac{100}{{{text{C}}({text{% }})}} times frac{1}{{text{E}}} times 1000$$
(2)
A: Initial residue (mg/kg), B: Residues (mg/kg) on 0 day, C: active ingredients, E: dilution factor.Method validationThe analytical method was validated in terms of different performance criteria such as linearity, accuracy, precision, and method limit of quantitation (MLOQ). Matrix-matched standards were used to construct the calibration curve by evaporating (0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0 mg/kg) working solution (1 mL) and re-dissolved in the extract of control sample. The linearity of the matrix-matched calibration curve was evaluated by the values of the correlation coefficient (R2). The accuracy and precision were obtained in terms of recovery (70–120%) and repeatability (n = 3). The recoveries were determined by spiking the analytes at two concentrations levels (0.1 mg/L) and (0.5 mg/L) in 10 g control samples and were quantified by comparing the response of analytes in samples with response in calibration standard solutions prepared in matrix. The repeatability expressed as the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the analyzed samples was calculated from three repetitions. The MLOQ was calculated by Eq. (3) taking into consideration the following factors: the instrument limit of detection, volume of extraction solvent, injection volume, dilution factor, and sample amount39,40.$${text{MLOQ}},{text{(mg}}/{text{kg)}} = {text{A(ng)}} times frac{{text{B(mL)}}}{{{text{C(}}upmu {text{L)}}}} times frac{{text{D}}}{{text{E(g)}}}$$
(3)
where A: instrument limit of detection, B: volume of extraction solvent, C: injection volume, D: dilution factor, E: sample amount.Half-life calculationThe dissipation patterns of spiromesifen and chromafenozide in lettuce and perilla leaves over time were found following the first-order kinetics model28. The half-life was determined by the following equation:$${text{C}}_{{text{t}}} = {text{C}}_{0} times {text{e}}^{{ – {text{kt}}}} ,{text{DT}}_{{{5}0}} = {text{ln2}}/{text{k}}$$where Ct is the concentration of the insecticide, C0 represents the initial residue concentration of insecticide, t is the time (days) after insecticide application, and k is the constant rate.Safety assessmentIn this study, the safety assessments (percent acceptable daily intake; %ADI) of the target insecticides that are consumed with lettuce and perilla leaves were calculated by the ratio of estimated daily intake (EDI) to acceptable daily intake (ADI). The EDI was calculated using insecticide concentration and average consumption of food commodities per person per day. In addition, the theoretical maximum daily intakes (TMDIs) of both insecticides were calculated using the maximum residue limits (MRLs) and average body weight (60 kg) of adults in Republic of Korea. TMDIs were calculated following the equation described by Kim et al.41.$$begin{aligned} & {text{ADI (mg}}/{text{person}}/{text{day)}} = {text{ADI}},({text{mg}}/{text{kg}}/{text{body weight}}/{text{day}}),{text{of target insecticide}} times {text{6}}0,({text{average body weight}}) \ & {text{EDI (mg}}/{text{kg}}/{text{person)}} = {text{concentration of target insecticide (mg}}/{text{kg)}} times {text{ daily food intake (g)}} \ & % {text{ADI}} = {text{EDI}}/{text{ADI}} times {text{1}}00 \ & {text{TMDI}}% = sum % {text{ADI of all registered crops}} \ end{aligned}$$ More