Ecology

1.Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol. Biogepogr. 16, 265–280 (2005).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
4.Boyles, J., Cryan, P., McCracken, G. F. & Kunz, T. H. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332, 41–42 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Puig-Montserrat, X. et al. Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: linking agroecosystems structure to ecological functions. Mamm. Biol. 80, 237–245 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Maas, B. et al. Bird and bat predation services in tropical forests and agroforestry landscapes. Biol. Rev. 91, 1081–1101 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Maes, J. et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 31–39 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Alkemade, R., Burkhard, B., Crossman, N. D., Nedkov, S. & Petz, K. Quantifying ecosystem services and indicators for science, policy and practice. Ecol. Indic. 37, 161–162 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Mandle, L. et al. Assessing ecosystem service provision under climate change to support conservation and development planning in Myanmar. PLoS ONE 12(9), 23 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Dang, A. N., Jackson, B. M., Benavidez, R. & Tomscha, S. A. Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, 101266 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Eurostats. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. European Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (2021).12.Eurostats. Pests and diseases in viticulture. EIP-AGRI Focus Group. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/ (2019).13.Eurostats. Pests and diseases of the olive tree. EIP-AGRI Focus Group. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/ (2019).14.EPPO. EPPO Global Database. https://gd.eppo.int (2018).15.Chaplin-Kramer, R., O’Rourke, M. E., Blitzer, L. J. & Kremen, C. A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 922–932 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Equipa Atlas. Atlas das Aves Nidificantes em Portugal (1999–2005). Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Parque Natural da Madeira e Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar. Assírio & Alvim, Lisboa (2008).17.Rainho, A., Alves, P., Amorim, F. & Marques, J. T. Atlas dos morcegos: de Portugal continental. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (2013).18.Herrera, J. M., Ploquin, E., Rodriguez-Pérez, J. & Obeso, J. R. Determining habitat suitability of a mountain bumblebee fauna: a baseline approach for testing the impact of climate change on species distribution and abundance. J. Biogeogr. 41, 700–712 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Araújo, M. B. et al. Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4858 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Jiménez-Valverde, A., Lobo, J. M. & Hortal, J. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers. Distrib. 14, 885–890 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Tylianakis, J. M., Laliberté, E., Nielsen, A. & Bascompte, J. Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2270–2279 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Valiente-Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Karp, D. S. et al. Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control, and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1339–1347 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Maas, B., Clough, Y. & Tscharntke, T. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1480–1487 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Barbaro, L. et al. Avian pest control in vineyards is driven by interactions between bird functional diversity and landscape heterogeneity. J. App. Ecol. 54, 500–508 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Paiola, A. et al. Exploring the potential of vineyards for biodiversity conservation and delivery of biodiversity-mediated ecosystem services: a global-scale systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 706, 135839 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Charbonnier, Y. et al. Pest control services provided by bats in vineyard landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 306, 107207 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Rey, P. J. et al. Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of ground herb cover in olive groves: implications for regional biodiversity conservation. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 277, 61–73 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Morgado, R. et al. A Mediterranean silent spring? The effects of olive farming intensification on breeding bird communities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 288, 106694 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Martínez-Núñez, C. et al. Direct and indirect effects of agricultural practices, landscape complexity and climate on insectivorous birds, pest abundance and damage in olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 304, 107145 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Herrera, J. M., Costa, P., Medinas, D., Marques, J. T. & Mira, A. Community composition and activity of insectivorous bats in Mediterranean olive farms. Anim. Conserv. 18, 557–566 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Costa, A. et al. Structural simplification compromises the potential of common insectivorous bats to provide biocontrol services against the major olive pest Prays oleae. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 287, 106708 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Puig-Montserrat, X., Mas, M., Flaquer, C., Tuneu-Corrala, C. & López-Baucells, A. Benefits of organic olive farming for the conservation of gleaning bats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 313, 107361 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Rey, P. J. Preserving frugivorous birds in agro-ecosystems: lessons from Spanish olive orchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 228–237 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Rodríguez-San Pedro, A. et al. Influence of agricultural management on bat activity and species richness in vineyards of central Chile. J. Mamm. 99, 1495–1502 (2018).
Google Scholar 
37.Pithon, J. A., Beaujouan, V., Daniel, H., Pain, G. & Vallet, J. Are vineyards important habitats for birds at local or landscape scales?. Basic Appl. Ecol. 17, 240–251 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Froidevaux, J. S. P., Louboutin, B. & Jones, G. Does organic farming enhance biodiversity in Mediterranean vineyards? A case study with bats and arachnids. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 249, 112–122 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Van der Biest, K. et al. Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: focus on ecosystem processes. Sci. Total Environ. 712, 136350 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Janzen, D. H. Latent extinction-the living dead. Encycl. Biodivers. 3, 689–699 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Herrera, J. M. et al. Generalities of vertebrate responses to landscape composition and configuration gradients in a highly heterogeneous Mediterranean region. J. Biogeogr. 43, 1203–1214 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Ponti, L., Gutierrez, A. P., Rutid, P. M. & Dell’Aquila, A. Fine-scale ecological and economic assessment of climate change on olive in the Mediterranean Basin reveals winners and losers. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 5598–5603 (2014).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
43.Silva, L. P. et al. Advancing the integration of multi-marker metabarcoding data in dietary analysis of trophic generalists. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 1420–1432 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Pejchar, L. et al. Net effects of birds in agroecosystems. Bioscience 68, 896–904 (2018).
Google Scholar 
45.Alberdi, A. et al. DNA metabarcoding and spatial modelling link diet diversification with distribution homogeneity in European bats. Nat. Comm. 11, 1154 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

Weight and dimensions of fruit and stoneThe mean weight of a fruit from a particular tree ranged from 21.25 ± 4.26 to 58.26 ± 10.44 g, with the weight of the heaviest mean fruit weight being 2.74 times that of the lightest. Similarly, the mean stone weight ranged from 8.99 ± 2.35 to 20.32 ± 3.14 g, with a 2.26 times difference between the heaviest and lightest stones (Table 2). There were significant differences (p  More

1.Clapham, P. J. & Mead, J. G. Sharing the space: Review of humpback whale occurrence in the Amazonian equatorial coast. In: Mammalian Species: Megaptera novaeangliae. American Society of Mammalogists Issue, vol 604, 5 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00854.2.Rasmussen, K. et al. Southern Hemisphere humpback whales wintering off Central America: Insights from water temperature into the longest mammalian migration. Biol. Lett. 3, 302–305. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0067 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.De Weerdt, J., Ramos, E. A. & Cheeseman, T. Northernmost records of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) migrating from the Antarctic Peninsula to the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 36, 1015–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12677 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Mikhalev, Y. A. Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the Arabian Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 149, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps149013 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Ristau, N. G. et al. Sharing the space: Review of humpback whale occurrence in the Amazonian Equatorial Coast. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00854 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Kellogg, R. What is known of the migration of some of the whalebone whales U.S.G.P.O. In Publication Smithsonian Institution, 2997 Rex Nan Kivell Collection, NK5765, 467e494, 2997 (2) leaves of plates (Smithsonian Publication, 1929).7.Clapham, P. J. Humpback whale. In Megaptera novaeangliae. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 3rd edn, 489–492. (Academic Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00154-0.8.Chereskin, E. et al. Song structure and singing activity of two separate humpback whales populations wintering off the coast of Caño Island in Costa Rica. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 146, EL509–EL515 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Jackson, J. et al. Global diversity and oceanic divergence of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133222. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3222 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Baker, C. S. et al. Abundant mitochondrial DNA variation and world-wide population structure in humpback whales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 90, 8239–8243 (1993).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Palsbøll, P. J. et al. Distribution of mtDNA haplotypes in North Atlantic humpback whales: The influence of behaviour on population structure. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 116, 1–10 (1995).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Rosenbaum, H. C. et al. First circumglobal assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whale mitochondrial genetic variation and implications for management. Endang. Species Res. 32, 551–567. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00822 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Kershaw, F. et al. Multiple processes drive genetic structure of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations across spatial scales. Mol. Ecol. 26, 977–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13943 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Baker, C. S. et al. Strong maternal fidelity and natal philopatry shape genetic structure in North Pacific humpback whales. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 494, 291–306 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Garland, E. C. et al. Dynamic horizontal cultural transmission of humpback whale song at the ocean basin scale. Curr. Biol. 21, 687–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.019 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Garland, E. C. et al. Humpback whale song on the Southern Ocean feeding grounds: Implications for cultural transmission. PLoS ONE 8, 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079422 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Donovan, G. A. Review of IWC stock boundaries. In Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue), vol. 13, 39–68 (1991).18.IWC. JCRM (Supplement), vol. 15, 287–288 (2014).19.Félix, F. & Guzmán, H. M. Satellite tracking and sighting data analyses of Southeast Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae): Is the migratory route coastal or oceanic?. Aquat. Mamm. 40, 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.40.4.2014.329 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Albertson, G. R. et al. Temporal stability and mixed-stock analyses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the nearshore waters of the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biol. 41, 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-017-2193-1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Acevedo, J. et al. First evidence of interchange of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) between the Magellan Strait and Antarctic Peninsula feeding grounds. Polar Biol. 44, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-021-02827-2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Andriolo, A., Kinas, P. G., Engel, M. H., Martins, C. C. A. & Rufino, A. M. Humpback whales within the Brazilian breeding ground: Distribution and population size estimate. Endanger. Species Res. 11, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00282 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Martins, C. C. A., Andriolo, A., Engel, M. H., Kinas, P. G. & Saito, C. H. Identifying priority areas for humpback whale conservation at Eastern Brazilian Coast. Ocean Coast. Manag. 75, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Dalla Rosa, L. et al. Feeding ground of the eastern South Pacific humpback whale population include the south Orkney island. Polar Res. 31, 17324. https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17324 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Zerbini, A. N. et al. Satellite-monitored movements of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 313, 295e304. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps313295 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Zerbini, A. et al. Migration and summer destinations of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western South Atlantic Ocean. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 3, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.vi.315 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Engel, M. H. et al. Mitochondrial DNA diversity of the Southwestern Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) breeding area off Brazil, and the potential connections to Antarctic feeding areas. Conserv. Genet. 9, 1253e1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9453-5 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Engel, M. H. & Martin, A. R. Feeding grounds of the western South Atlantic humpback whale population. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 25, 964e969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00301.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.IWC. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of Southern hemisphere humpback whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 1, 1–50 (2011).30.Horton, T., Zerbini, A., Andriolo, A., Danilewicz, D. & Sucunza, F. Multi-decadal humpback whale migratory route fidelity despite oceanographic and geomagnetic change. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00414 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Stevick, P. T. et al. Population spatial structuring on the feeding grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J. Zool. 270, 244e255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00128.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.IWC. Report of the scientific committee. Rep. Int. Whal. Commun. 48, 53–118 (1998).33.Cypriano-Souza, A. L. et al. Genetic differentiation between humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) from Atlantic and Pacific breeding grounds of South America. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12378 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.IWC. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. (Supplement) 7, 235–246 (2005).35.Dalla Rosa, L., Secchi, E. R., Maia, Y. G., Zerbini, A. N. & Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. Movements of satellite-monitored humpback whales on their feeding ground along the Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biol. 31, 771–781 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Bombosch, A. et al. Predictive habitat modelling of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Antarctic minke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) whales in the Southern Ocean as a planning tool for seismic surveys. Deep Sea Res. (I Oceanogr. Res. Pap.) 91, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2014.05.017 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Stevick, P. et al. Migrations of individually identified humpback whales between the Antarctic Peninsula and South America. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 6, 109–113 (2004).
Google Scholar 
38.Pomilla, C. & Rosenbaum, H. C. Against the current: An inter-oceanic whale migration event. Biol. Lett. 1, 476–479. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0351 (2005).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Stevick, P. T. et al. A quarter of a world away: Female humpback whale moves 10 000 km between breeding areas. Biol. Lett. 7, 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0717 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Stevick, P. T. et al. Inter-oceanic movement of an adult female humpback whale between Pacific and Atlantic breeding grounds off South America. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 13, 159–162 (2013).
Google Scholar 
41.Félix, F. et al. A new case of interoceanic movement of a humpback whale in the Southern hemisphere: The El Niño link. Aquat. Mamm. 46, 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.46.6.2020.578 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Castro, C. Engel, M., Martin, A. & Kaufman, G. Comparison of humpback whale catalogues between Ecuador, and South Georgia and Sandwich Island: Evidence of increased feeding area I boundary or overlap between feeding areas I and II? Report of the scientific committee. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. SC/66/SH (2015).43.Cheeseman, T. et al. Advanced image recognition: A fully automated, high-accuracy photo-identification matching system for humpback whales. Mamm. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00180-9 (in press).44.Gura, T. Citizen science: Amateur experts. Nature 496, 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7444-259a (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.de Sherbinin, A. et al. The critical importance of citizen science data. Front. Clim. 3, 650760. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.650760 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Pallin, L. J., Robbins, J., Kellar, N., Bérubé, M. & Friedlaender, A. Validation of a blubber-based endocrine pregnancy test for humpback whales. Conserv. Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coy031 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Gabriele, C. M., Straley, J. M. & Neilson, J. L. Age at first calving of female humpback whales in Southeastern Alaska. In Proceedings of the Fourth Glacier Bay Science Symposium, October 26–28, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report (eds. Piatt, J. F. & Gende, S. M.) vol. 2007–5047, 159–162 (2007).49.Baker, C. S. & Medrano-González, L. Worldwide distribution and diversity of humpback whale mitochondrial DNA lineages. In Molecular and Cell Biology of Marine Mammals (ed. Pfeiffer, C. J.) 84–99 (Krieger Publishing Company, 2002).
Google Scholar 
50.Bettridge, S. et al. Status Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-540, ID#4883, 241. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4883 (2015).51.IWC. Annex H: Report of the sub-committee on other Southern hemisphere whale stocks. J. Cetacean Res. Manag.(Supplement) 17, 250–282 (2016).52.Zerbini, A. et al. Assessing the recovery of an Antarctic predator from historical exploitation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190368 (2019).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Zerbini, A. N., Clapham, P. J. & Wade, P. R. Assessing plausible rates of population growth in humpback whales from life-history data. Mar. Biol. 157, 1432e1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1403-y (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Gonçalves, M. I. C. et al. Low latitude habitat use patterns of a recovering population of humpback whales. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 98, 1087–1096. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315418000255 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Riekkola, L. et al. Longer migration not necessarily the costliest strategy for migrating humpback whales. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1, 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3295 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Pallin, L. J. et al. High pregnancy rates in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) around the Western Antarctic Peninsula, evidence of a rapidly growing population. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 180017. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180017 (2018).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Avila, I. C. et al. Whales extend their stay in a breeding ground in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz251 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Fritsen, C. H., Memmott, J. C. & Stewart, F. J. Inter-annual sea-ice dynamics and micro-algal biomass in winter pack ice of Marguerite Bay, Antarctica. Deep Sea Res II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 55, 2059–2067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.04.034 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Meyer, B. The overwintering of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, from an ecophysiological perspective. Polar Biol. 35, 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-011-1120-0 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Seyboth, E. et al. Influence of krill (Euphausia superba) availability on humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) reproductive rate. Mar. Mamm. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12805 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Atkinson, A. A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. & Rothery, P. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean. Nature 432, 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02996 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Atkinson, A. et al. Krill (Euphausia superba) distribution contracts southward during rapid regional warming. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0370-z (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Loeb, V. J. & Santora, J. A. Climate variability and spatiotemporal dynamics of five Southern Ocean krill species. Prog. Ocean. 134, 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.01.002 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Forcada, J., Trathan, P. & Murphy, E. J. Life history buffering in Antarctic mammals and birds against changing patterns of climate and environmental variation. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2473–2488 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Fielding, S. et al. Interannual variability in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) density at South Georgia, Southern Ocean: 1997–2013. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 2578–2588. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu104 (2014).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Wedekin, L. L. et al. Running fast in the slow lane: Rapid population growth of humpback whales after exploitation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 575, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12211 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Rogers, A. D. et al. Antarctic futures: An assessment of climate-driven changes in ecosystem structure, function, and service provisioning in the Southern Ocean. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-011028 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Glockner, D. A. & Venus, S. Determining the sex of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in their natural environment. In Behavior and Communication of Whales. (Westview Press, 1983).69.Darling, J. D. & Berubé, M. Interactions of singing humpback whales with other males. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17, 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01005.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Noad, M. J., Cato, D. H., Bryden, M. M., Jenner, M. N. & Jenner, K. C. S. Cultural revolution in whale songs. Nature 408, 537–537 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Darling, D. J. & Sousa-Lima, R. S. Songs indicate interaction between humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations in western and eastern South Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 21, 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2005.tb01249.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.McKnight, A., Allyn, A. J., Duffy, D. C. & Irons, D. B. ‘Stepping stone’ pattern in Pacific Arctic tern migration reveals the importance of upwelling areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 491, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10469 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Groch, K. R. et al. Cetacean morbilivirus in humpback whale’s exhaled breath. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13883 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Ballance, L. T. Contributions of photographs to cetacean science. Aquat. Mamm. 44, 668–682 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Vieira, E. A., Souza, L. R. & Longo, G. O. Diving into science and conservation: Recreational divers can monitor reef assemblages. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 18, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.12.001 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Bed bugsFour bed bug populations (one laboratory strain and three collected from infested homes) were used in this study (Table 1). All populations were reared in the laboratory as described by DeVries et al.28. Briefly, bed bugs were maintained in 168 cm3 plastic containers on paper substrate at 25 °C, 50% relative humidity, and a photoperiod of 12 h:12 h (Light:Dark). Bed bugs were fed defibrinated rabbit blood (Hemostat Laboratories, Dixon, CA, USA) weekly using an artificial feeding system. This system maintained blood at 35 °C by circulating water through custom-made water-jacketed glass feeders. An artificial membrane (plant budding tape, A.M. Leonared, Piqua, OH, USA) was stretched over the bottom of each glass feeder, containing the blood while simultaneously allowing bed bugs to feed through it. In all experiments, adult males starved for 7–10 days were used. All populations were used for documenting responses to human skin swabs. The WS population was used for bioassays with various human volunteers and hexane extracted swabs, and the JC population was used for testing various lipids.Table 1 Bed bug populations used in this study.Full size tableSkin swab collectionThe North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board approved this study (IRB #14173). Informed consent was obtained from all human participants, and all the methods were performed according to the relevant guidelines and regulations. Six human volunteers (3 males, 3 females) ranging from 25 to 50 years old representing several ethnicities (white/Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian) provided samples for this project. Skin swabs were collected following the exact methods outlined by DeVries et al.16. In our 2019 study, these swabs were reported to attract bed bugs independent of other cues in Y-tube olfactometer assays. Briefly, participants were asked to follow a standard operating procedure, which was reviewed with them prior to sample collection. Before collecting skin swabs, participants were asked to not to eat ‘spicy’ food for at least 24 h, take a morning shower, avoid the use of deodorant and cosmetics after showering, and avoid strenuous physical activity. Skin swabs were collected 4–8 h after showering. Hands were washed with water only before lifting filter paper. Swabs were collected using 4.5 cm diameter filter paper discs (#1; Whatman plc, Madistone, United Kingdom). Both sides of a single filter paper disc were rubbed over the left arm from hand to armpit for 12 s, left leg from lower thigh to ankle for 12 s, and left armpit for 6 s. This procedure was repeated on the right side using a new filter paper disc, so that two samples were collected during each swabbing session. The skin swab samples were then stored in glass vials at − 20 °C, and used within one month of collection. The swabs from all human volunteers were used to compare participants and establish that bed bugs responded similarly to all, and participant A’s skin swabs were used for all subsequent bioassays.Two-choice arrestment bioassaysTwo-choice bioassays were conducted in plastic Petri dishes of 6 cm diameter (Corning Life Sciences, Durham, NC, USA) (Fig. 1). The bottom surface of each Petri dish was roughened so that bed bugs could freely move about the arena. Two tents (3 × 1.5 cm) were created using filter paper (Whatman #1). One tent served as the control tent, and the other served as the treatment tent. Control tents were either untreated (nothing added) or treated with hexane only. Treatment tents were either made directly from human odor swabs, treated with human odor extract (in hexane), or treated with a specific compound (in hexane). Tents were allowed 60 min to acclimate to room conditions and allow for the solvent to evaporate prior to initiating bioassays. The positions of tents (treatment and control) were alternated to account for any side-bias.Figure 1Two-choice behavioral assay (top-view) consisting of two equal size paper shelter tents. A clean filter paper (control) was always paired with a treated filter paper that either represented a human skin swab, hexane extract of swabbed paper, SPE fraction of human skin swab extract, or authentic TAGs. A single male bed bug was introduced into the center of each arena and allowed to select a tent to arrest under.Full size imageAdult male bed bugs were housed in individual vials for 24 h prior to each experiment. A single adult male bed bug was released in the middle of the arena 5 h into the scotophase, by transferring it on its harborage. The harborage material was removed immediately after the bed bug moved off of it (the harborage). Bed bugs were allowed the remaining 7 h of the scotophase to freely move around the arena, with their final position reported 3 h into the photophase. Bed bugs that were in contact with the filter paper with any part of their body were recorded as making a choice (i.e. arrestment state); others not in contact with either filter paper tent were recorded as non-responders, reported in the figures, but not used in data analysis. It should be noted that momentary pauses in movement (feeding or other behaviors) are not referred to as arrestment in this study. In total, 15–39 replicates were performed for each experiment (reported for each bioassay).Bioassays with human skin swabsBioassays with human skin swabs were performed to understand if bed bug arrestment behavior (1) differed among different bed bug populations, and (2) influenced by different host odors. Skin swabs were removed from the freezer, equilibrated to room temperature, divided into three equal parts and trimmed to a rectangular shape corresponding to the size of a shelter tent (Fig. 1). Skin swabs from participant A were used to evaluate the responses of four bed bug populations (Table 1). Skin swabs from all participants A–F were used to evaluate the robustness of our findings across multiple human hosts.Skin swab extraction and fractionationSkin swabs collected from volunteer A were pooled and extracted in hexane. Extraction procedures were carried out sequentially by placing a single skin swab into a 20 ml glass vial containing 5 ml of hexane, vortexing for 30 s, then moving the filter paper to a new 20 ml vial containing 5 ml of hexane and repeating the process. Three sequential extractions were performed for each skin swab, and a minimum of 10 skin swabs (collected over several days) were used for each extraction. After all skin swabs were extracted, all sequential hexane extracts were combined and concentrated to a final concentration of one skin swab equivalent per 300 µl, or one bioassay equivalent (BE) per 100 µl (since each swab was used for 3 bioassays; see “Bioassays with human skin swabs” for more information on the size used for each bioassay). Control swabs were also extracted. These swabs were treated identically to the skin swabs, except they did not contact human skin.To determine what compound classes were responsible for the observed behavior, hexane extracts were fractionated using solid phase extraction (SPE). Extracted samples were concentrated to 1 BE/10 µl hexane, then loaded onto a 1 g silica SPE column (6 ml total volume; J.T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). The column was eluted with the following solvents (4 ml of each, each repeated twice sequentially): hexane, 2% ether (in hexane), 5% ether (in hexane), 10% ether (in hexane), 20% ether (in hexane), 50% ether (in hexane), 100% ether, ethyl acetate, and methanol (all solvents acquired from Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Each solvent fraction was then concentrated to a final concentration of 1 BE/100 µl and stored at − 20 °C.Bioassays with extracted and fractionated human skin swabsFor all extraction and fractionation bioassays, filter paper tents were cut to a size of 3 cm × 1.5 cm (Fig. 1) and treated with 100 µl (1 BE) of extracted or fractionated human skin swabs (50 µl on each side). A dose–response bioassay was run first to determine if the compounds responsible for bed bug arrestment responses could be extracted and at what concentration (BE) they were behaviorally active. Dilutions were made in hexane, with control tents receiving extracts of control filter paper. At least 20 replicates were conducted for each concentration. After validating an appropriate BE that could be used in future experiments, SPE fractions were diluted in hexane to 0.1 BE and applied to filter paper tents as previously described (50 µl per side). A minimum of 15 replicates were conducted for each fraction to identify behaviorally active fractions.Compound identificationTo better understand what classes of compounds were present in behaviorally active fractions, we conducted thin layer chromatography (TLC) with known standards. A flexible, silica (250 µm) TLC plate (Whatman) was placed into a glass chamber containing a solvent layer of 1.5 cm. The plate was cleaned twice with acetone, then standards (triglyceride [TAG], wax ester, squalene) and samples (fractions) were each loaded into separate lanes. The plate was developed twice in 10% ether (in hexane), then visualized non-destructively with iodine.In addition, behaviorally active fractions were further evaluated for their composition with GC–MS and LC–MS. GC–MS was employed to analyze free fatty acids, squalene, and cholesterol29, whereas LC–MS was employed to characterize the intact skin lipids as previously described30. Samples were analyzed with a GC 7890A coupled to the MS 5975 VL analyzer (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA) following derivatization. Briefly, 50 µL of the extract dissolved in isopropanol were dried under nitrogen and derivatized with 100 µL BSTFA containing 1% trimethylchlorosilane (TCMS) in pyridine to generate the trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives at 60 °C for 60 min. GC separation was performed with a 30 m × 0.250 mm (i.d.) × 0.25 µm film thickness DB-5MS fused silica column (Agilent). Helium was used as the carrier gas. Samples were acquired in scan mode by means of electron impact (EI) MS.Liquid-chromatography coupled to the MS analyzer by means of an electrospray interface (ESI) was used to determine abundance and ESI tandem MS of non-volatile lipids as previously described29,30. LC separation was performed with a reverse phase Zorbax SB-C8 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.8 μm particle size, Agilent). Data were acquired in the positive ion mode at unit mass resolving power by scanning ions between m/z 100 and 1000 with G6410A series triple quadrupole (QqQ) (Agilent). LC runs and MS spectra were processed with the Mass Hunter software (B.09.00 version).Bioassays with triglyceridesAfter determining that TAGs were prominent compounds in bioactive skin swab fractions, commercially available TAGs were evaluated for behavioral activity. Filter paper tents were treated with 100 µl of hexane (50 µl to each side) containing TAG standards. First, tripalmitin (16:0/16:0/16:0) (Sigma-Aldrich) was evaluated in a dose–response fashion (60 µg to 0.6 µg) to determine what level of TAG was appropriate for bioassays. The upper level of testing was set at 60 µg as a conservative estimate of the amount of TAGs bed bugs may be exposed to, based on calculations of our arena size and previous reports of TAGs on human skin and sebum. Specifically, previous reports documented that 1.5 mg of sebum could be passively collected using Sebutape from an area of 4.7 cm230,31. Because TAGs typically constitute 60% of human sebum32, it is reasonable to assume that passive collection of sebum can result in  > 190 µg/cm2 of TAGs in a short amount of time (30 min). Our sampling methods involved swabbing rather than passive collection, but our use of 60 µg over a 9 cm2 (two sides of 4.5 cm2) shelter tent (6.67 µg/cm2) is a low-estimate of the amount of TAGs collected (although this was not directly measured in the current study). Other TAGs that we tested at a concentration of 60 µg per 9 cm2 included the saturated TAGs trimyristin (14:0/14:0/14:0) and tristearin (18:0/18:0/18:0) and the unsaturated TAGs triolein (18:1/18:1/18:1), trilinolein (18:2/18:2/18:2), and trilinolenin (18:3/18:3/18:3) (all from Sigma-Aldrich). A minimum of 30 replicates were conducted with each TAG.Statistical analysisA Chi-square goodness of fit test was used to compare the responses of bed bugs to control versus treated tents in all two-choice bioassays, with the null hypothesis that if bed bugs do not respond differentially to treated tents they should display a 1:1 preference ratio for both sides of the assay. All tests were conducted in SPSS Version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). More

Araújo MS, Perez SI, Magazoni MJC, Petry AC (2014) Body size and allometric shape variation in the molly Poecilia vivipara along a gradient of salinity and predation. BMC Evol Biol 14:251PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arendt JD (2010) Morphological correlates of sprint swimming speed in five species of spadefoot toad tadpoles: comparison of morphometric methods. J Morphol 271:1044–1052PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arendt JD, Reznick DN (2008) Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: what have we learned about the genetics of adaptation? Trends Ecol Evol 23:26–32PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arnett HA, Kinnison MT (2017) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity of shape and behavior: parallel and unique patterns across sexes and species. Curr Zool 63:369–378PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arnett HA (2016) Sources of ecologically important trait variation in mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis and Gambusia holbrooki). Thesis, University of MaineArnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23:347–361
Google Scholar 
Avise JC (1989) Gene trees and organismal histories: a phylogenetic approach to population biology. Evolution 43:1192–1208PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baldwin BG (1997) Adaptive radiation of the Hawaiian silversword alliance: congruence and conflict of phylogenetic evidence from molecular and non-molecular investigations. In: Givnish TJ, Sytsma KJ (eds.) Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 103–128Belk MC, Tuckfield RC (2010) Changing costs of reproduction: age‐based differences in reproductive allocation and escape performance in a livebearing fish. Oikos 119:163–169
Google Scholar 
Blount ZD, Lenski RE, Losos JB (2018) Contingency and determinism in evolution: replaying life’s tape. Science 362:eaam5979.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bryant EH, Meffert LM (1993) The effect of serial founder-flush cycles on quantitative genetic variation in the housefly. Heredity 70:122–129
Google Scholar 
Calsbeek R, Kuchta S (2011) Predator mediated selection and the impact of developmental stage on viability in wood frog tadpoles (Rana sylvatica). BMC Evol Biol 11:353PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chapuis M-P, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24:621–631CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2008) QST meets the G matrix: the dimensionality of adaptive divergence in multiple correlated quantitative traits. Evolution 62:1437–1449PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Constantz GD (1989) Reproductive biology of poeciliid fishes. In: Meffe GK Jr, Snelson FF (eds.) Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p 33–50Cunha RL, Tenorio MJ, Afonso C, Castilho R, Zardoya R (2008) Replaying the tape: recurring biogeographical patterns in Cape Verde Conus after 12 million years. Mol Ecol 17:885–901PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dale MR, Fortin M-J (2014) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKDarwin CE (1859) The origin of species and the descent of man. The Modern Library, New York, NYDay T, Pritchard J, Schluter D (1994) A comparison of two sticklebacks. Evolution 48:1723–1734PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dayton GH, Saenz D, Baum KA, Langerhans RB, DeWitt TJ (2005) Body shape, burst speed and escape behavior of larval anurans. Oikos 111:582–591
Google Scholar 
DeWitt TJ, Fuentes JI, Ioerger TR, Bishop MP (2021) Rectifying I: three point and continuous fit of the spatial autocorrelation metric, Moran’s I, to ideal form. Landsc Ecol 36:2897–2918
Google Scholar 
DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (2004) Phenotypic variation from single genotypes: a primer. In: DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (eds.) Phenotypic plasticity: functional and conceptual approaches. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 1–9DeWoody J, Avise J (2000) Microsatellite variation in marine, freshwater and anadromous fishes compared with other animals. J Fish Biol 56:461–473CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dobzhansky T (1955) A review of some fundamental concepts and problems of population genetics. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 20:1–15CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJEroukhmanoff F, Hargeby A, Arnberg NN, Hellgren O, Bensch S, Svensson EI (2009) Parallelism and historical contingency during rapid ecotype divergence in an isopod. J Evol Biol 22:1098–1110CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKFranssen NR (2011) Anthropogenic habitat alteration induces rapid morphological divergence in a native stream fish. Evol Appl 4:791–804PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233
Google Scholar 
Futuyma DJ (2021) How does phenotypic plasticity fit into evolutionary theory? In: Pfennig DW (ed) Phenotypic plasticity & evolution. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 349–366Ghalambor CK, Reznick DN, Walker JA (2004) Constraints on adaptive evolution: the functional trade-off between reproduction and fast-start swimming performance in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Am Nat 164:38–50PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Givnish TJ, Knox E, Patterson TB, Hapeman JR, Palmer JB, Sytsma KJ (1996) The Hawaiian lobelioids are monophyletic and underwent a rapid initial radiation roughly 15 million years ago. Am J Bot 83:159
Google Scholar 
Gomes JL, Montiero L (2008) Morphological divergence patterns among populations of Poecilia vivipara (Teleostei Poeciliidae): test of an ecomorphological paradigm Biol J Linn Soc 93:799–812
Google Scholar 
Gompel N, Prud’homme B (2009) The causes of repeated genetic evolution. Dev Biol 332:36–47CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grant PR, Grant BR (2014) 40 years of evolution: Darwin’s finches on Daphne Major Island. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGreenway R, Barts N, Henpita C, Brown AP, Rodriguez LA, Peña CMR et al. (2020) Convergent evolution of conserved mitochondrial pathways underlies repeated adaptation to extreme environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:16424–16430CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hartl DL, Clark AG (1997) Principles of population genetics. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
Google Scholar 
Haynes JL (1993) Annual reestablishment of mosquitofish populations in Nebraska. Copeia 1993:232–235
Google Scholar 
Holsinger KE, Weir BS (2009) Genetics in geographically structured populations: defining, estimating and interpreting FST. Nat Rev Genet 10:639–650CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ingley SJ, Johnson JB (2016) Divergent natural selection promotes immigrant inviability at early and late stages of evolutionary divergence. Evolution 70:600–616PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ingley SJ, Billman EJ, Belk MC, Johnson JB (2014) Morphological divergence driven by predation environment within and between species of Brachyrhaphis fishes. PloS One 9:90274
Google Scholar 
James ME, Wilkinson MJ, Bernal DM, Liu H, North HL, Engelstädter J, et al. (2021) Phenotypic and genotypic parallel evolution in parapatric ecotypes of Senecio. Evolution (In press). Online version of record https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14387Jiang S, Zhu K, Han L, Chen C, Wang M, Wang X (2021) Genetic variation and phylogeographic structure of Laodelphax striatellus in China based on microsatellite markers. J Appl Entomol 145:336–347CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnson JB, Burt DB, DeWitt TJ (2008) Form, function, fitness-pathways to survival. Evolution 62:1243–1251PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kobza RM, Trexler JC, Loftus WF, Perry SA (2004) Community structure of fishes inhabiting aquatic refuges in a threatened Karst wetland and its implications for ecosystem management. Biol Conserv 116:153–165
Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB (2009) Morphology, performance, fitness: functional insight into a post-Pleistocene radiation of mosquitofish. Biol Lett 5:488–491PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB, DeWitt TJ (2004) Shared and unique features of evolutionary diversification. Am Nat 164:335–349PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB, Makowicz AM (2009) Shared and unique features of morphological differentiation between predator regimes in Gambusia caymanensis. J Evol Biol 22:2231–2242CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB, Layman CA, DeWitt TJ (2005) Male genital size reflects a tradeoff between attracting mates and avoiding predators in two live-bearing fish species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7618–7623CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB, Gifford ME, Joseph EO (2007) Ecological speciation in Gambusia fishes. Evolution 61:2056–2074CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langerhans RB, Layman CA, Shokrollahi AM, DeWitt TJ (2004) Predator-driven phenotypic diversification in Gambusia affinis. Evolution 58:2305–2318PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leger EA, Rice KJ (2007) Assessing the speed and predictability of local adaptation in invasive California poppies (Eschscholzia californica). J Evol Biol 20:1090–1103CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJLoera-Pérez J, Hernández-Stefanoni JL, Chiappa-Carrara X (2020) How do spatial and environmental factors affect the fish community structure in seasonally flooded karst systems? Lat Am J Aquat Res 48:268–279
Google Scholar 
Losos JB, Jackman TR, Larson A, de Queiroz K, Rodrı́guez-Schettino L (1998) Contingency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science 279:2115–2118CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Losos JB (2009) Lizards in an evolutionary tree: ecology and adaptive radiation of anoles. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAMaglio VJ, Rosen DE (1969) Changing preference for substrate color by reproductively active mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard)(Poeciliidae, Atheriniformes). American Museum novitates; no. 2397Martin RG(1975) Sexual and aggressive behavior, density and social structure in a natural population of mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis holbrooki. Copeia 1975:445–454
Google Scholar 
Maruyama T, Fuerst PA (1985) Population bottlenecks and nonequilibrium models in population genetics. II. Number of alleles in a small population that was formed by a recent bottleneck. Genetics 111:675–689CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matthews WJ, Marsh-Matthews E (2011) An invasive fish species within its native range: community effects and population dynamics of Gambusia affinis in the central United States. Freshw Biol 56:2609–2619
Google Scholar 
Mays JR, DeWitt TJ, Dharampal P, Andrus FT, Findlay RH (2019) Frequent habitat migration, phenotypic plasticity, and vestigial ecophenotypy revealed by isotope-based natal habitat inference in bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Evol Ecol Res 20. Available from https://evolutionary-ecology.com/abstracts/v20/3235.htmlMilano D, Ruzzante DE, Cussac VE, Macchi PJ, Ferriz RA, Barriga JP et al. (2006) Latitudinal and ecological correlates of morphological variation in Galaxias platei (Pisces, Galaxiidae) in Patagonia. Biol J Linn Soc 87:69–82
Google Scholar 
Moen DS, Morlon H, Wiens JJ (2016) Testing convergence versus history: convergence dominates phenotypic evolution for over 150 million years in frogs. Syst Biol 65:146–160PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moody EK, Lozano-Vilano ML (2018) Predation drives morphological convergence in the Gambusia panuco species group among lotic andlentic habitats. J Evol Biol 31:491–501CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583–590CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nepokroeff M, Sytsma KJ (1996) Systematics and patterns of speciation and colonization in Hawaiian Psychotria and relatives based on phylogenetic analysis of ITS sequence data. Am J Bot 83:181–182
Google Scholar 
Nievergelt CM, Libiger O, Schork NJ (2007) Generalized analysis of molecular variance. PLoS Genet 3:e51PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oke KB, Rolshausen G, LeBlond C, Hendry AP (2017) How parallel is parallel evolution? A comparative analysis in fishes. Am Nat 190:1–16PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ord TJ, Summers TC (2015) Repeated evolution and the impact of evolutionary history on adaptation. BMC Evol Biol 15:1–12
Google Scholar 
Pandey P, Ramegowda V, Senthil-Kumar M (2015) Shared and unique responses of plants to multiple individual stresses and stress combinations: physiological and molecular mechanisms. Front Plant Sci 6:723PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pazmino SD, Kent MI, Ward AJ (2020) Locomotion and habituation to novel experimental environments in a social fish species. Behaviour 1:1–17
Google Scholar 
Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295
Google Scholar 
Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet J-M (1999) Computer note. BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503
Google Scholar 
Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Purcell KM, Lance SL, Jones KLStockwell CA (2011) Ten novel microsatellite markers for the western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Conserv Genet Resour 3:361–363
Google Scholar 
Putman AI, Carbone I (2014) Challenges in analysis and interpretation of microsatellite data for population genetic studies. Ecol Evol 4:4399–4428PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pyke GH (2005) A review of the biology of Gambusia affinis and G. holbrooki. Rev Fish Biol Fish 15:339–365
Google Scholar 
Reed DH, Frankham R (2001) How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? A meta-analysis. Evolution 55:1095–1103CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reznick DN, Shaw FH, Rodd FH, Shaw RG (1997) Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Science 275:1934–1937CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Richards TJ, Walter GM, McGuigan K, Ortiz-Barrientos D (2016) Divergent natural selection drives the evolution of reproductive isolation in an Australian wildflower Evolution 70:1993–2003PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rivera G (2008) Ecomorphological variation in shell shape of the freshwater turtle Pseudemys concinna inhabiting different aquatic flow regimes. Integr Comp Biol 48:769–787PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Robinson BW, Wilson DS (1996) Genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity in a trophically polymorphic population of pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). Evol Ecol 10:631–652
Google Scholar 
Ruehl CB, DeWitt TJ (2005) Trophic plasticity and fine-grained resource variation in populations of western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Evol Ecol Res 7:801–819
Google Scholar 
Ruehl CB, Shervette V, DeWitt TJ (2011) Replicated shape variation between simple and complex habitats in two estuarine fishes. Biol J Linn Soc 103:147–158
Google Scholar 
Santi F, Petry AC, Plath M, Riesch R (2020) Phenotypic differentiation in a heterogeneous environment: morphological and life-history responses to ecological gradients in a livebearing fish. J Zool 310:10–23
Google Scholar 
Schluter D, Clifford EA, Nemethy M, McKinnon JS (2004) Parallel evolution and inheritance of quantitative traits. Am Nat 163:809–822PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKSharpe DM, Langerhans RB, Low-Décarie E, Chapman LJ (2015) Little evidence for morphological change in a resilient endemic species following the introduction of a novel predator. J Evol Biol 28:2054–2067CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Slatkin M (1995) A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics 139:457–462CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spencer CC, Chlan CA, Neigel JE, Scribner KT, Wooten MC, Leberg PL (1999) Polymorphic microsatellite markers in the western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Mol Ecol 8:157–168CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spitze K (1993) Population structure in Daphnia obtusa: quantitative genetic and allozymic variation. Genetics 135:367–374CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thibault RE, Schultz RJ (1978) Reproductive adaptations among viviparous fishes (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae). Evolution 32:320–333PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tobler M, DeWitt TJ, Schlupp I, García de León FJ, Herrmann R, Feulner PG et al. (2008) Toxic hydrogen sulfide and dark caves: phenotypic and genetic divergence across two abiotic environmental gradients in Poecilia mexicana. Evolution 62:2643–2659PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tobler M, Palacios M, Chapman LJ, Mitrofanov I, Bierbach D, Plath M et al. (2011) Evolution in extreme environments: replicated phenotypic differentiation in livebearing fish inhabiting sulfidic springs. Evolution 65:2213–2228PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Van Oosterhout C, Weetman D, Hutchinson WF (2006) Estimation and adjustment of microsatellite null alleles in nonequilibrium populations. Mol Ecol Notes 6:255–256
Google Scholar 
Vázquez-Domínguez E, Hernández-Valdés A, Rojas-Santoyo A, Zambrano L (2009) Contrasting genetic structure in two codistributed freshwater fish species of highly seasonal systems. Rev Mex Biodivers 80:181–192
Google Scholar 
Via S, Lande R (1985) Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39:505–522PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Waddington CH (1957) The strategy of the genes. Allen & Unwin, London
Google Scholar 
Walker JA (1997) Ecological morphology of lacustrine threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L. (Gasterosteidae) body shape. Biol J Linn Soc 61:3–50
Google Scholar 
Walker JA, Bell MA (2000) Net evolutionary trajectories of body shape evolution within a microgeographic radiation of threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). J Zool 252:293–302
Google Scholar 
Wang X, Zorraquino V, Kim M, Tsoukalas A, Tagkopoulos I (2018) Predicting the evolution of Escherichia coli by a data-driven approach. Nat Commun 9:1–12
Google Scholar 
Ward RD, Woodwark M, Skibinski DOF (1994) A comparison of genetic diversity levels in marine, freshwater, and anadromous fishes. J Fish Biol 44:213–232
Google Scholar 
Waters JM, McCulloch GA (2021) Reinventing the wheel? Reassessing the roles of gene flow, sorting and convergence in repeated evolution. Mol Ecol 30:4162–4172PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zambrano L, Vázquez-Domínguez E, García-Bedoya D, Loftus WF, Trexler JC (2006) Fish community structure in freshwater karstic water bodies of the Sian Ka’an Reserve in the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico. Ichthyol Explor Freshw 17:193–206Zane L, Nelson WS, Jones AG, Avise JC (1999) Microsatellite assessment of multiple paternity in natural populations of a live-bearing fish, Gambusia holbrooki. J Evol Biol 12:61–69
Google Scholar  More

1.Jarau, S. & Hrncir, M. Food Exploitation by Social Insects: Ecological, Behavioral, and Theoretical Approaches. (CRC Press, 2009).2.Detrain, C. & Deneubourg, J.-L. Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in ants and honeybees. Adv. Insect Physiol. 35, 123–173 (2008) (Elsevier).
Google Scholar 
3.Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. The Ants (Harvard University Press, 1990).
Google Scholar 
4.Beckers, R., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Goss, S. Modulation of trail laying in the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and its role in the collective selection of a food source. J. Insect Behav. 6, 751–759 (1993).
Google Scholar 
5.Detrain, C. & Prieur, J. Sensitivity and feeding efficiency of the black garden ant Lasius niger to sugar resources. J. Insect Physiol. 64, 74–80 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Jackson, D. E. & Châline, N. Modulation of pheromone trail strength with food quality in Pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonic. Animal Behav. 74, 463–470 (2007).
Google Scholar 
7.Sumpter, D. J. T. & Beekman, M. From nonlinearity to optimality: Pheromone trail foraging by ants. Anim. Behav. 66, 273–280 (2003).
Google Scholar 
8.Cerdá, X., Angulo, E., Boulay, R. & Lenoir, A. Individual and collective foraging decisions: A field study of worker recruitment in the gypsy ant Aphaenogaster senilis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 551–562 (2009).
Google Scholar 
9.Detrain, C. & Deneubourg, J.-L. Scavenging by Pheidole pallidula key for understanding decision-making systems in ants. Anim. Behav. 53, 537–547 (1997).
Google Scholar 
10.Mailleux, A.-C., Deneubourg, J. L. & Detrain, C. How do ants assess food volume?. Anim. Behav. 59, 1061–1069 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Breed, M. D., Fewell, J. H., Moore, A. J. & Williams, K. R. Graded recruitment in a ponerine ant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20, 407–411 (1987).
Google Scholar 
12.Cammaerts, M.-C. & Cammaerts, R. Food recruitment strategies of the ants Myrmica sabuleti and Myrmica ruginodis. Behav. Proc. 5, 251–270 (1980).CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Portha, S., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Detrain, C. Self-organized asymmetries in ant foraging: A functional response to food type and colony needs. Behav. Ecol. 13, 776–781 (2002).
Google Scholar 
14.Devigne, C. & Detrain, C. How does food distance influence foraging in the ant Lasius niger: The importance of home-range marking. Insect. Soc. 53, 46–55 (2006).
Google Scholar 
15.Fewell, J. H. Directional fidelity as a foraging constraint in the western harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Oecologia 82, 45–51 (1990).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Howard, D. F. & Tschinkel, W. R. The effect of colony size and starvation on food flow in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 7, 293–300 (1980).
Google Scholar 
17.Mailleux, A.-C., Devigne, C., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Detrain, C. Impact of starvation on Lasius niger’ exploration. Ethology 116, 248–256 (2010).
Google Scholar 
18.Portha, S., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Detrain, C. How food type and brood influence foraging decisions of Lasius niger scouts. Anim. Behav. 68, 115–122 (2004).
Google Scholar 
19.Deneubourg, J.-L., Goss, S., Pasteels, J. M. & Beckers, R. Collective decision making through food recruitment. Insectes Soc. 37, 258–267 (1990).
Google Scholar 
20.Czaczkes, T. J., Salmane, A. K., Klampfleuthner, F. A. M. & Heinze, J. Private information alone can trigger trapping of ant colonies in local feeding optima. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 744–751 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Collett, T. S. & Collett, M. Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 542–552 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
22.Azevedo, D. L. O., Medeiros, J. C. & Araújo, A. Adjustments in the time, distance and direction of foraging in Dinoponera quadriceps Workers. J. Insect. Behav. 27, 177–191 (2014).
Google Scholar 
23.Beverly, B. D., McLendon, H., Nacu, S., Holmes, S. & Gordon, D. M. How site fidelity leads to individual differences in the foraging activity of harvester ants. Behav. Ecol. 20, 633–638 (2009).
Google Scholar 
24.Fourcassié, V. & Traniello, J. F. A. Food searching behaviour in the ant Formica schaufussi (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): Response of naive foragers to protein and carbohydrate food. Anim. Behav. 48, 69–79 (1994).
Google Scholar 
25.Aron, S., Beckers, R., Deneubourg, J. L. & Pasteels, J. M. Memory and chemical communication in the orientation of two mass-recruiting ant species. Ins. Soc. 40, 369–380 (1993).
Google Scholar 
26.Lehue, M., Detrain, C. & Collignon, B. Nest entrances, spatial fidelity, and foraging patterns in the red ant Myrmica rubra: A field and theoretical study. Insects 11, 317 (2020).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Bolek, S., Wittlinger, M. & Wolf, H. What counts for ants? How return behaviour and food search of Cataglyphis ants are modified by variations in food quantity and experience. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 3218–3222 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Detrain, C., Natan, C. & Deneubourg, J. L. The influence of the physical environment on the self-organised foraging patterns of ants. Naturwissenschaften 88, 171–174 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Traniello, J. F. A., Fujita, M. S. & Bowen, R. V. Ant foraging behavior: Ambient temperature influences prey selection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 15, 65–68 (1984).
Google Scholar 
30.Nonacs, P. & Dill, L. M. Mortality risk versus food quality trade-offs in ants: Patch use over time. Ecol. Entomol. 16, 73–80 (1991).
Google Scholar 
31.Tanner, C. J. Individual experience-based foraging can generate community territorial structure for competing ant species. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 591–603 (2009).
Google Scholar 
32.Brown, M. J. F. & Gordon, D. M. How resources and encounters affect the distribution of foraging activity in a seed-harvesting ant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47, 195–203 (2000).
Google Scholar 
33.Fourcassié, V., Schmitt, T. & Detrain, C. Impact of interference competition on exploration and food exploitation in the ant Lasius niger. Psyche J. Entomol. 2012, 1–8 (2012).
Google Scholar 
34.Mehdiabadi, N. & Gilbert, L. Colony-level impacts of parasitoid flies on fire ants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 269, 1695–1699 (2002).35.Feener, D. H. Competition between ant species: Outcome controlled by parasitic flies. Science 214, 815–817 (1981).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Schmid-Hempel, P. Parasites in Social Insects (Princeton University Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
37.Cremer, S., Armitage, S. A. O. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Social immunity. Curr. Biol. 17, 693–702 (2007).
Google Scholar 
38.Zhukovskaya, M., Yanagawa, A. & Forschler, B. Grooming behavior as a mechanism of insect disease defense. Insects 4, 609–630 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Ortius-Lechner, D., Maile, R., Morgan, E. D. & Boomsma, J. J. Metapleural gland secretion of the leaf-cutter ant Acromyrmex octospinosus: New compounds and their functional significance. J. Chem. Ecol. 26, 1667–1683 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Ballari, S., Farji-Brener, A. G. & Tadey, M. Waste management in the leaf-cutting ant Acromyrmex lobicornis: Division of labour, aggressive behaviour, and location of external refuse dumps. J. Insect Behav. 20, 87–98 (2007).
Google Scholar 
41.Leclerc, J.-B. & Detrain, C. Impact of colony size on survival and sanitary strategies in fungus-infected ant colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 1–10 (2018).42.Pereira, H., Jossart, M. & Detrain, C. Waste management by ants: The enhancing role of larvae. Anim. Behav. 168, 187–198 (2020).
Google Scholar 
43.Diez, L., Urbain, L., Lejeune, P. & Detrain, C. Emergency measures: Adaptive response to pathogen intrusion in the ant nest. Behav. Proc. 116, 80–86 (2015).
Google Scholar 
44.López-Riquelme, G. O. & Fanjul-Moles, M. L. The funeral ways of social insects. Social strategies for corpse disposal. Trends Entomol. 9, 71–129 (2013).45.Heinze, J. & Walter, B. Moribund ants leave their nests to die in social isolation. Curr. Biol. 20, 249–252 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Leclerc, J.-B. & Detrain, C. Loss of attraction for social cues leads to fungal-infected Myrmica rubra ants withdrawing from the nest. Anim. Behav. 129, 133–141 (2017).
Google Scholar 
47.Fouks, B. & Lattorff, H. M. G. Recognition and avoidance of contaminated flowers by foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). PLoS ONE 6, e26328 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Pereira, H. & Detrain, C. Pathogen avoidance and prey discrimination in ants. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 191705 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Pereira, H. & Detrain, C. Prophylactic avoidance of hazardous prey by the ant host Myrmica rubra. Insects 11, 444 (2020).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Tranter, C., LeFevre, L., Evison, S. E. F. & Hughes, W. O. H. Threat detection: Contextual recognition and response to parasites by ants. ISBE 26, 396–405 (2015).
Google Scholar 
51.Marikovsky, P. I. On some features of behavior of the ants Formica rufa L. infected with fungous disease. Insectes Soc. 9, 173–179 (1962).
Google Scholar 
52.Lehue, M., Detrain, C. & Collignon, B. Nest entrances, spatial fidelity, and foraging patterns in the red ant Myrmica rubra: A field and theoretical study. Insects 11, 317 (2020).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Diez, L., Deneubourg, J.-L., Hoebeke, L. & Detrain, C. Orientation in corpse-carrying ants: Memory or chemical cues?. Anim. Behav. 81, 1171–1176 (2011).
Google Scholar 
54.Brütsch, T., Felden, A., Reber, A. & Chapuisat, M. Ant queens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) are attracted to fungal pathogens during the initial stage of colony founding. Myrmecol. News 20, 71–76 (2014).
Google Scholar 
55.Pontieri, L., Vojvodic, S., Graham, R., Pedersen, J. S. & Linksvayer, T. A. Ant colonies prefer infected over uninfected nest sites. PLoS ONE 9, e111961 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Leclerc, J.-B., Silva, J. P. & Detrain, C. Impact of soil contamination on the growth and shape of ant nests. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 180267 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Loreto, R. G. & Hughes, D. P. Disease dynamics in ants. Adv. Genet. 94, 287–306 (2016) (Elsevier).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Angelone, S. & Bidochka, M. J. Diversity and abundance of entomopathogenic fungi at ant colonies. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 156, 73–76 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Evans, H. C., Groden, E. & Bischoff, J. F. New fungal pathogens of the red ant, Myrmica rubra, from the UK and implications for ant invasions in the USA. J. Funbiol. 114, 451–466 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Bos, N., Kankaanpää-Kukkonen, V., Freitak, D., Stucki, D. & Sundström, L. Comparison of twelve ant species and their susceptibility to fungal infection. Insects 10, 271 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Theis, F. J., Ugelvig, L. V., Marr, C. & Cremer, S. Opposing effects of allogrooming on disease transmission in ant societies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140108–20140108 (2015).
Google Scholar 
62.Okuno, M., Tsuji, K., Sato, H. & Fujisaki, K. Plasticity of grooming behavior against entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in the ant Lasius japonicus. J. Ethol. 30, 23–27 (2012).
Google Scholar 
63.Pereira, R. M. & Stimac, J. L. Transmission of Beauveria bassiana within nests of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the laboratory. Environ. Entomol. 21, 1427–1432 (1992).
Google Scholar 
64.Hughes, W. O. H., Thomsen, L., Eilenberg, J. & Boomsma, J. J. Diversity of entomopathogenic fungi near leaf-cutting ant nests in a Neotropical forest, with particular reference to Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 85, 46–53 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Novak, S. & Cremer, S. Fungal disease dynamics in insect societies: Optimal killing rates and the ambivalent effect of high social interaction rates. J. Theor. Biol. 372, 54–64 (2015).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
66.Qiu, H., Lu, L., Shi, Q. & He, Y. Fungus exposed Solenopsis invicta ants benefit from grooming. J. Insect. Behav. 27, 678–691 (2014).
Google Scholar 
67.Reber, A., Purcell, J., Buechel, S. D., Buri, P. & Chapuisat, M. The expression and impact of antifungal grooming in ants. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 954–964 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Sadd, B. M. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Insect immunity shows specificity in protection upon secondary pathogen exposure. Curr. Biol. 16, 1206–1210 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Traniello, J. F. A., Rosengaus, R. B. & Savoie, K. The development of immunity in a social insect: Evidence for the group facilitation of disease resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 6838–6842 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Konrad, M. et al. Social transfer of pathogenic fungus promotes active immunisation in ant colonies. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001300 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Ugelvig, L. V. & Cremer, S. Social prophylaxis: Group interaction promotes collective immunity in ant colonies. Curr. Biol. 17, 1967–1971 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Bordoni, A. et al. No evidence of queen immunisation despite transgenerational immunisation in Crematogaster scutellaris ants. J. Insect Physiol. 120, 103998 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Reber, A. & Chapuisat, M. No evidence for immune priming in ants exposed to a fungal pathogen. PLoS ONE 7, e35372 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Groden, E., Drummond, F. A., Garnas, J. & Franceour, A. Distribution of an invasive ant, Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Maine. J. Econ. Entomol. 98, 1774–1784 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Radchenko, A. & Elmes, G. W. Myrmica Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Old World (Natura optima dux Foundation, 2010).
Google Scholar 
76.Hänel, H. The life cycle of the insect pathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in the termite Nasutitermes exitiosus. Mycopathologia 80, 137–145 (1982).
Google Scholar 
77.Leclerc, J.-B. & Detrain, C. Ants detect but do not discriminate diseased workers within their nest. Sci. Nat. 103, 1–12 (2016).78.Lacey, L. A. Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology (Academic Press imprint of Elsevier Science, 2012).
Google Scholar 
79.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).80.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar 
81.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
82.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
83.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Soft. 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/JSS.V082.I13 (2017).84.Lenth, R. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R-package version 1.4.8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2020).85.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
86.Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R-package version 3.2-3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival (2020) More

1.Melbourne, B. A. & Hastings, A. Highly variable spread rates in replicated biological invasions: Fundamental limits to predictability. Science 325, 1536–1539 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Lewis, M. A., Petrovskii, S. V. & Potts, J. R. The Mathematics Behind Biological Invasions (Springer, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar 
3.Phillips, B. L. Evolutionary processes make invasion speed difficult to predict. Biol. Invasions 17, 1949–1960 (2015).
Google Scholar 
4.Peischl, S., Kirkpatrick, M. & Excoffier, L. Expansion load and the evolutionary dynamics of a species range. Am. Nat. 185, E81–E93 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Burton, O. J., Travis, J. M. J. & Phillips, B. L. Trade-offs and the evolution of life-histories during range expansion. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1210–1220 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Phillips, B. L. & Perkins, T. A. Spatial sorting as the spatial analogue of natural selection. Theor. Ecol. 12, 155–163 (2019).
Google Scholar 
7.Deforet, M., Carmona-Fontaine, C., Korolev, K. S. & Xavier, J. B. Evolution at the edge of expanding populations. Am. Nat. 194, 291–305 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Travis, J. M. J. & Dytham, C. Dispersal evolution during invasions. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 1119–1129 (2002).
Google Scholar 
9.Bouin, E. et al. Invasion fronts with variable motility: Phenotype selection, spatial sorting and wave acceleration. C. R. Math. 350, 761–766 (2012).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
10.Shine, R., Brown, G. P. & Phillips, B. L. An evolutionary process that assembles phenotypes through space rather than through time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5708–5711 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Williams, J. L., Kendall, B. E. & Levine, J. M. Rapid evolution accelerates plant population spread in fragmented experimental landscapes. Science 353, 482–485 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Weiss-Lehman, C., Hufbauer, R. A. & Melbourne, B. A. Rapid trait evolution drives increased speed and variance in experimental range expansions. Nat. Commun. 8, 14303 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Ochocki, B. M. & Miller, T. E. Rapid evolution of dispersal ability makes biological invasions faster and more variable. Nat. Commun. 8, 14315 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. The cane toad’s (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 1413–1419 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. Evolutionarily accelerated invasions: The rate of dispersal evolves upwards during the range advance of cane toads. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2595–2601 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Chuang, A. & Peterson, C. R. Expanding population edges: Theories, traits, and trade-offs. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 494–512 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P., Travis, J. M. & Shine, R. Reid’s paradox revisited: The evolution of dispersal kernels during range expansion. Am. Nat. 172, S34–S48 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Alford, R. A., Brown, G. P., Schwarzkopf, L., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Comparisons through time and space suggest rapid evolution of dispersal behaviour in an invasive species. Wildl. Res. 36, 23–28 (2009).
Google Scholar 
19.Lindström, T., Brown, G. P., Sisson, S. A., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Rapid shifts in dispersal behavior on an expanding range edge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13452–13456 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. The straight and narrow path: The evolution of straight-line dispersal at a cane toad invasion front. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141385 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.DeVore, J., Ducatez, S. & Shine, R. Spatial ecology of cane toads (Rhinella marina) in their native range: A study from French Guiana. Sci. Rep. 11, 11817 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Brattstrom, B. H. Homing in the giant toad, Bufo marinus. Herpetologica 18, 176–180 (1962).
Google Scholar 
23.Zug, G. R. & Zug, P. B. The marine toad Bufo marinus: A natural history resumé of native populations. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 284, 1–58 (1979).
Google Scholar 
24.Bayliss, P. The ecology of post-metamorphic Bufo marinus in central Amazonian savanna, Brazil. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (The University of Queensland, 1995).25.Turvey, N. Cane Toads: A Tale of Sugar, Politics and Flawed Science (Sydney University Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
26.Carpenter, C. C. & Gillingham, J. C. Water hole fidelity in the marine toad, Bufo marinus. J. Herpetol. 21, 158–161 (1987).
Google Scholar 
27.Ward-Fear, G., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Toads on lava: Spatial ecology and habitat use of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 11, e0151700 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Hastings, A. Can spatial variation alone lead to selection for dispersal? Theor. Popul. Biol. 24, 244–251 (1983).MATH 

Google Scholar 
29.Möbius, W., et al. The collective effect of finite-sized inhomogeneities on the spatial spread of populations in two dimensions. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.05332 (2019).30.Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. A toad more traveled: The heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am. Nat. 171, E134–E148 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Macgregor, L. F., Greenlees, M., de Bruyn, M. & Shine, R. An invasion in slow motion: The spread of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) into cooler climates in southern Australia. Biol. Invasions 23(11), 3565–3581 (2021).
Google Scholar 
32.Perkins, A. T., Phillips, B. L., Baskett, M. L. & Hastings, A. Evolution of dispersal and life history interact to drive accelerating spread of an invasive species. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1079–1087 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Seabrook, W. Range expansion of the introduced cane toad Bufo marinus in New South Wales. Aust. Zool. 27, 58–62 (1991).
Google Scholar 
34.Kearney, M. R. et al. Modelling species distributions without using species distributions: The cane toad in Australia under current and future climates. Ecography 31, 423–434 (2008).
Google Scholar 
35.McCann, S. M., Kosmala, G. K., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Physiological plasticity in a successful invader: Rapid acclimation to cold occurs only in cool-climate populations of cane toads (Rhinella marina). Conserv. Physiol. 6, cox072 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R. A. Nomadic movement in tropical toads. Oikos 96, 492–506 (2002).
Google Scholar 
37.Seebacher, F. & Alford, R. A. Movement and microhabitat use of a terrestrial amphibian (Bufo marinus) on a tropical island: Seasonal variation and environmental correlates. J. Herpetol. 33, 208–214 (1999).
Google Scholar 
38.Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P., Greenlees, M., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Rapid expansion of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) invasion front in tropical Australia. Austral Ecol. 32, 169–176 (2007).
Google Scholar 
39.Tingley, R. & Shine, R. Desiccation risk drives the spatial ecology of an invasive anuran (Rhinella marina) in the Australian semi-desert. PLoS ONE 6, e25979 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Toad on the road: Use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 133, 88–94 (2006).
Google Scholar 
41.Pettit, L. J., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Is the enhanced dispersal rate seen at invasion fronts a behaviourally plastic response to encountering novel ecological conditions? Biol. Lett. 12, 20160539 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Jessop, T. S. et al. Exploring mechanisms and origins of reduced dispersal in island Komodo Dragons. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181829 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Mayr, E. Animal Species and Evolution (Harvard University Press, 1963).
Google Scholar 
44.Duckworth, R. A. The role of behavior in evolution: A search for mechanism. Evol. Ecol. 23, 513–531 (2009).
Google Scholar 
45.Muñoz, M. M. & Losos, J. B. Thermoregulatory behavior simultaneously promotes and forestalls evolution in a tropical lizard. Am. Nat. 191, E15–E26 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Carroll, S. P. et al. And the beak shall inherit–evolution in response to invasion. Ecol. Lett. 8, 944–951 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Stuart, Y. E. et al. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science 346, 463–466 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Acevedo, A. A., Lampo, M. & Cipriani, R. The cane or marine toad, Rhinella marina (Anura, Bufonidae): Two genetically and morphologically distinct species. Zootaxa 4103, 574–586 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Reilly, S. M. et al. Conquering the world in leaps and bounds: Hopping locomotion in toads is actually bounding. Funct. Ecol. 29, 1308–1316 (2015).
Google Scholar 
50.Griffis-Kyle, K. L., Kyle, S. & Jungels, J. Use of breeding sites by arid-land toads in rangelands: Landscape-level factors. Southwest. Nat. 56, 251–255 (2011).
Google Scholar 
51.Sinsch, U. Movement ecology of amphibians: From individual migratory behaviour to spatially structured populations in heterogeneous landscapes. Can. J. Zool. 92, 491–502 (2014).
Google Scholar 
52.Cayuela, H. et al. Determinants and consequences of dispersal in vertebrates with complex life cycles: A review of pond-breeding amphibians. Q. Rev. Biol. 95, 1–36 (2020).
Google Scholar 
53.Child, T., Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. The spatial ecology of cane toads (Bufo marinus) in tropical Australia: Why do metamorph toads stay near the water? Austral Ecol. 33, 630–640 (2008).
Google Scholar 
54.Pettit, L., Ducatez, S., DeVore, J. L., Ward-Fear, G. & Shine, R. Diurnal activity in cane toads (Rhinella marina) is geographically widespread. Sci. Rep. 10, 5723 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Shine, R., Ward-Fear, G. & Brown, G. P. A famous failure: Why were cane toads an ineffective biocontrol in Australia? Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e296 (2020).
Google Scholar 
56.Shine, R., Everitt, C., Woods, D. & Pearson, D. J. An evaluation of methods used to cull invasive cane toads in tropical Australia. J. Pest Sci. 91, 1081–1091 (2018).
Google Scholar 
57.Silvester, R., Greenlees, M., Shine, R. & Oldroyd, B. Behavioural tactics used by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) to exploit apiaries in Australia. Austral Ecol. 44, 237–244 (2019).
Google Scholar 
58.Finnerty, P. B., Shine, R. & Brown, G. P. The costs of parasite infection: Effects of removing lungworms on performance, growth and survival of free-ranging cane toads. Funct. Ecol. 32, 402–415 (2018).
Google Scholar 
59.Pettit, L., Greenlees, M. & Shine, R. The impact of transportation and translocation on dispersal behaviour in the invasive cane toad. Oecologia 184, 411–422 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Kraus, F. Alien Reptiles and Amphibians: A Scientific Compendium and Analysis (Springer, 2008).
Google Scholar 
61.McCann, S., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. On the fringe of the invasion: The ecological impact of cane toads in marginally suitable habitats. Biol. Invasions 19, 2729–2737 (2017).
Google Scholar 
62.S. Kaiser et al., unpubl. Data.63.Finnerty, P., Shine, R. & Brown, G. P. Survival of the faeces: Does a nematode lungworm adaptively manipulate the behaviour of its cane toad host? Ecol. Evol. 8, 4606–4618 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Brown, G. P., Kelehear, C., Pizzatto, L. & Shine, R. The impact of lungworm parasites on rates of dispersal of their anuran host, the invasive cane toad. Biol. Invasions 18, 103–114 (2016).
Google Scholar 
65.G. Ward-Fear et al., unpubl. Data. More

1.Walther, G. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Part A (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
Google Scholar 
3.Smith, V. H. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. A global problem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 10, 126–139 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Kefford, B. & Schäfer, R. Salt in freshwaters: Causes, effects and prospects—introduction to the theme issue. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20 (2019).
Google Scholar 
5.Bernhardt, E. S., Rosi, E. J. & Gessner, M. O. Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 84–90 (2017).
Google Scholar 
6.Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Díaz, S. et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES (2019).8.Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgrò, C. M. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470, 479–485 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.DeWitt, T. J., Sih, A. & Wilson, D. S. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 77–81 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Gienapp, P., Teplitsky, C., Alho, J. S., Mills, J. A. & Merilä, J. Climate change and evolution: Disentangling environmental and genetic responses. Mol. Ecol. 17, 167–178 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Fox, R. J., Donelson, J. M., Schunter, C., Ravasi, T. & Gaitán-Espitia, J. D. Beyond buying time: The role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20 (2019).
Google Scholar 
13.Salamin, N., Wüest, R. O., Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W. & Pearman, P. B. Assessing rapid evolution in a changing environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 692–698 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Hairston, N. G., Ellner, S. P., Geber, M. A., Yoshida, T. & Fox, J. A. Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1114–1127 (2005).
Google Scholar 
15.Govaert, L., Pantel, J. H. & De Meester, L. Eco-evolutionary partitioning metrics: Assessing the importance of ecological and evolutionary contributions to population and community change. Ecol. Lett. 19, 839–853 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Diamond, S. E. & Martin, R. A. The interplay between plasticity and evolution in response to human-induced environmental change. F1000Research 5, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
17.Barraclough, T. G. How do species interactions affect evolutionary dynamics across whole communities?. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 25–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
18.De Meester, L. et al. Analysing eco-evolutionary dynamics—The challenging complexity of the real world. Funct. Ecol. 33, 43–59 (2019).
Google Scholar 
19.Kleynhans, E. J., Otto, S. P., Reich, P. B. & Vellend, M. Adaptation to elevated CO2 in different biodiversity contexts. Nat. Commun. 7, 20 (2016).
Google Scholar 
20.Walther, G. R. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2019–2024 (2010).
Google Scholar 
21.Kooyers, N. J., James, B. & Blackman, B. K. Competition drives trait evolution and character displacement between Mimulus species along an environmental gradient. Evolution (N.Y.) 71, 1205–1221 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Lawrence, D. et al. Species interactions alter evolutionary responses to a novel environment. PLoS Biol. 10, 20 (2012).
Google Scholar 
23.terHorst, C. P., Lennon, J. T. & Lau, J. A. The relative importance of rapid evolution for plant-microbe interactions depends on ecological context. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20 (2014).
Google Scholar 
24.Lau, J. A., Shaw, R. G., Reich, P. B. & Tiffin, P. Indirect effects drive evolutionary responses to global change. New Phytol. 201, 335–343 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Yoshida, T., Jones, L. E., Ellner, S. P., Fussmann, G. F. & Hairston, N. G. Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424, 303–306 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Hart, S. P., Turcotte, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Effects of rapid evolution on species coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 2112–2117 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Grainger, T. N., Rudman, S. M., Schmidt, P. & Levine, J. M. Competitive history shapes rapid evolution in a seasonal climate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e22015772118 (2021).
Google Scholar 
28.McGrady-Steed, J., Harris, P. M. & Morin, P. J. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature 390, 162–165 (1997).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Altermatt, F. et al. Big answers from small worlds: A user’s guide for protist microcosms as a model system in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 218–231 (2015).
Google Scholar 
30.Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R. & Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6506–6511 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Stoecker, D. & Pierson, J. Predation on protozoa: Its importance to zooplankton revisited. J. Plankton Res. 41, 367–373 (2019).
Google Scholar 
32.Berninger, U.-G., Finlay, B. J. & Kuuppo-Leinikki, P. Protozoan control of bacterial abundances in freshwater. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 139–147 (1991).ADS 

Google Scholar 
33.Williams, W. D. Anthropogenic salinisation of inland waters. Hydrobiologia 466, 329–337 (2001).
Google Scholar 
34.Herbert, E. R. et al. A global perspective on wetland salinization: Ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere 6, 1–43 (2015).
Google Scholar 
35.Neubauer, S. C. & Craft, C. B. Global change and tidal freshwater wetlands: Scenarios and impacts. Tidal Freshw. Wetl. 20, 20 (2009).
Google Scholar 
36.Osmond, M. M. & de Mazancourt, C. How competition affects evolutionary rescue. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20 (2013).
Google Scholar 
37.terHorst, C. P. et al. Evolution in a community context: Trait responses to multiple species interactions. Am. Nat. 191, 368–380 (2018).
Google Scholar 
38.Donelson, J. M. et al. Understanding interactions between plasticity, adaptation and range shifts in response to marine environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20 (2019).
Google Scholar 
39.Vanvelk, H., Govaert, L., van den Berg, E. M., Brans, K. I. & De Meester, L. Interspecific differences, plastic, and evolutionary responses to a heat wave in three co-occurring Daphnia species. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11675 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Svensson, F., Norberg, J. & Snoeijs, P. Diatom cell size, Coloniality and motility: Trade-Offs between temperature, Salinity and nutrient supply with climate change. PLoS One 9, 25 (2014).
Google Scholar 
41.Karp-Boss, L. & Boss, E. The elongated, the squat and the spherical: Selective pressures for phytoplankton shape. In Aquatic Microbial Ecology and Biogeochemistry: A Dual Perspective (eds Glibert, P. & Kana, T.) 25–34 (Springer, 2016).
Google Scholar 
42.Finley, H. E. Toleration of fresh water Protozoa to increased salinity. Ecology 11, 337–347 (1930).
Google Scholar 
43.Chen, H. & Jiang, J. G. Osmotic responses of Dunaliella to the changes of salinity. J. Cell. Physiol. 219, 251–258 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Shetty, P., Gitau, M. M. & Maróti, G. Salinity stress responses and adaptation mechanisms in eukaryotic green microalgae. Cells 8, 1–16 (2019).
Google Scholar 
45.terHorst, C. P. Evolution in response to direct and indirect ecological effects in pitcher plant inquiline communities. Am. Nat. 176, 675–685 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Stoks, R., Govaert, L., Pauwels, K., Jansen, B. & De Meester, L. Resurrecting complexity: The interplay of plasticity and rapid evolution in the multiple trait response to strong changes in predation pressure in the water flea Daphnia magna. Ecol. Lett. 19, 180–190 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Hendry, A. P. Key questions on the role of phenotypic plasticity in eco-evolutionary dynamics. J. Hered. 107, 25–41 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Henn, J. J. et al. Intraspecific trait variation and phenotypic plasticity mediate alpine plant species response to climate change. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–11 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
49.Johansson, J. Evolutionary responses to environmental changes:How does competition affect adaptation?. Evolution (N. Y.) 62, 421–435 (2008).
Google Scholar 
50.Li, S. J. et al. Microbial communities evolve faster in extreme environments. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 
51.Terhorst, C. P. Experimental evolution of protozoan traits in response to interspecific competition. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 36–46 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Carrara, F., Giometto, A., Seymour, M., Rinaldo, A. & Altermatt, F. Inferring species interactions in ecological communities: A comparison of methods at different levels of complexity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 895–906 (2015).
Google Scholar 
53.Lorts, C. M. & Lasky, J. R. Competition × drought interactions change phenotypic plasticity and the direction of selection on Arabidopsis traits. New Phytol. 227, 1060–1072 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Hoffmann, A. A. & Hercus, M. J. Environmental stress as an evolutionary force. Bioscience 50, 217–226 (2000).
Google Scholar 
55.Klironomos, J. H. et al. Abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2 overestimates community response in a model plant-soil system. Nature 433, 621–624 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
57.Finlay, B. J., Esteban, G. F., Olmo, J. L. & Tyler, P. A. Global distribution of free-living microbial species. Ecography (Cop.) 22, 138–144 (1999).
Google Scholar 
58.Fox, J. W. & McGrady-Steed, J. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 749–756 (2002).
Google Scholar 
59.Haddad, N. M. et al. Species’ traits predict the effects of disturbance and productivity on diversity. Ecol. Lett. 11, 348–356 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Fronhofer, E. A. & Altermatt, F. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks during experimental range expansions. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–9 (2015).
Google Scholar 
61.Sonneborn, T. M. Chapter 12 methods in paramecium research. Methods Cell Biol. 4, 241–339 (1970).
Google Scholar 
62.Berger, H. & Foissner, W. Illustrated guide and ecological notes to ciliate species (Protozoa, Ciliophora) in running waters, lakes, and sewage plants. Handb. Angew. Limnol. Grundlagen-Gewässerbelastung-Restaurierung-Aquatische ökotoxikologie-Bewertung-Gewässerschutz 20, 1–60 (2014).
Google Scholar 
63.Cassidy-Hanley, D. M. Tetrahymena in the laboratory: Strain resources, methods for culture, maintenance, and storage. Methods Cell Biol. 109, 237–276 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Sonzogni, W. C., Richardson, W., Rodgers, P. & Monteith, T. J. Chloride pollution of the Great Lakes. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 55, 513–521 (1983).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Lind, L. et al. Salty fertile lakes: How salinization and eutrophication alter the structure of freshwater communities. Ecosphere 9, 25 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
66.Falconer, D. S. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (Longman Group Ltd, 1981).
Google Scholar 
67.Pennekamp, F., Schtickzelle, N. & Petchey, O. L. BEMOVI, software for extracting behavior and morphology from videos, illustrated with analyses of microbes. Ecol. Evol. 5, 2584–2595 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Pennekamp, F. et al. Dynamic species classification of microorganisms across time, abiotic and biotic environments—a sliding window approach. PLoS One 12, e0176682 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-6. Retrieved in July 7. (2014).70.Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).
Google Scholar 
71.Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, Version 1.43.6. 1–75 (2019).72.Fronhofer, E. A., Gut, S. & Altermatt, F. Evolution of density-dependent movement during experimental range expansions. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 2165–2176 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Ellner, S. P., Geber, M. A. & Hairston, N. G. Does rapid evolution matter? Measuring the rate of contemporary evolution and its impacts on ecological dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 14, 603–614 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Govaert, L. Eco-evolutionary partitioning metrics: A practical guide for biologists. Belgian J. Zool. 148, 167–202 (2018).
Google Scholar  More