Ecology

Study area and samplingSmall mammals (murid rodents and shrews) were captured using mouse-type snap traps in Tatarstan, Russian Federation (Fig. 1, Table S1). Area type (urban or rural), vegetation (forest or field) and distance from trapping points to the nearest human settlement were recorded. The distinction between forest and field was made based on the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s criteria23,24. Each administrative division in the Tatarstan was defined to be urban or rural by the Federal Service of State Statistics of Russian Federation25. Based on these criteria, Kazan city and Naberezhnye Chelny city were classified as urban districts and Vysokogorsky district, Yelabuzhsky district, Laishevsky district, Mamadyshsky district, Nizhnekamsky district, Pestrechinsky district and Tukayevsky district were classified as rural districts. Small mammals were captured during the spring and fall periods of 2016 and 2017. Fifty traps were placed in a line every 5 m in one place. Traps were baited and left for one night. Animal suffering was minimized as snap traps cause rapid death in murid rodents and shrews. Each captured small mammal’s species, age, and sex were morphologically identified using a reference guide26, and the animals were then stored at − 20 °C until their brains were isolated.EthicsAll experiments were performed in compliance with relevant Russian and Japanese and institutional laws and guidelines and were approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and the Animal Research Committee of Gifu University (Permit Nos. MU 3.1.1029-01, and 17060, respectively). Study was carried out in compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org).DNA extraction and PCRBrain tissue samples were prepared as described previously12. Brain samples stored at − 20 °C were transferred to a − 86 °C deep freezer. Each deep-frozen whole brain sample was homogenized in 1 ml of a 0.9% saline solution. Total DNA was extracted from the brain tissues of each small mammal using a Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), following the manufacturer’s instructions. Nested PCR was performed with the Takara PCR Amplification Kit (Takara Bio Inc., Foster City, California, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The primer sets and PCR conditions used to detect the B1 gene from T. gondii were those described previously12.MappingSpatial referencing of the sampling sites was conducted using global positioning system navigation with a Garmin eTrex 10 device. Visualization of cartographic data and measurements of the distances from the trapping points to the nearest human settlements were performed using QGIS 3.12 software27. Geodetic coordinates were projected into planar rectangular coordinates in the Universal Transverse Mercator projection on the WGS-84 ellipsoid (Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 39N). The overview map of the European part of Russia was made in the Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. Map coordinates are represented as geodetic coordinates (WGS-84, degrees and minutes north latitude and east longitude). To visualize thematic objects (administrative boundaries, forests, agricultural lands, and water bodies), a set of vector data layers, NextGIS (Russia), was purchased from OpenStreetMap and contributors, 2021 (https://data.nextgis.com). Data license: ODbL.Dataset and statistical analysesMultivariate logistic regression was performed using the R statistical software package (version 3.6.3)28 to assess the trapping point area (urban or rural), vegetation (forest or field), small mammal species type (alien or non-alien species), age (0–2 months-old juveniles, 3–6 months-old adults or ≧ 6 months old), sex (male or female) and distance from trapping points to the nearest human settlements as risk factors for PCR positivity. According to previous reports2,13,16,17,18, four species, Mi. arvalis, A. flavicollis, A. agrarius, A. uralensis, and three species, My. glareolus, S. araneus and D. nitedula are considered alien and non-alien species, respectively. Quantitative data were replaced with 0 or 1 dummy variables, and age data were replaced by 0, 1 and 2 for juveniles, adults and elders, respectively. Multicollinearity of the explanatory variables was evaluated using Spearman’s coefficient29 calculated using dplyr, FSA and psych packages30,31,32. None of the Spearman’s coefficients were  > 0.6. To find the best fit model, a forward selection procedure was used. Predictive performance and model fitting were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the curve (AUC) and corrected Akaike’s information criterion (AICc) with Akaike weight (Wi). AICc and Wi were calculated using the MuMIN package33, and the AUC was calculated using the R pROC package34. P-values of  More

The micro-CT results from Arthrorhynchus agree perfectly with the previously known light microscope and transmission electron microscope images2. This emphasizes that microtomography is a good technique to visualize the type of fungal attachment to the host and especially the penetration of the cuticle, apart from the study of thallus in amber fossils17. As Jensen et al. (2019) demonstrated the presence of a haustorium in Arthrorhynchus using scanning electron microscopy, we are confident that the lack of penetration and haustorium in Rickia found by micro-CT is real. This is also in agreement with results from the scanning electron microscopical investigation of the attachment sites of R. gigas, which exhibits no indication of penetration and are very similar to those of R. wasmannii previously shown18.Despite the absence of a haustorium, and hence without any obvious means of obtaining nutrition, Rickia gigas is quite a successful fungus, being often abundant on several species of Afrotropical millipedes of the family Spirostreptidae10. It was originally described from Archispirostreptus gigas, and Tropostreptus (= ‘Spirostreptus’) hamatus20, and was subsequently reported from several other Tropostreptus species19.A further challenge for Laboulbeniales growing on millipedes is that infected millipedes, in some species even adults, may moult, shedding the exuviae with the fungus, as has been observed by us on an undescribed Rickia species on a millipede of the genus Spirobolus (family Spirobolidae).The question of how non-haustoriate Laboulbeniales obtain nutrients has been discussed by several authors18, including staining experiments using fungi of the non-haustoriate genus Laboulbenia on various beetles21. Whereas the surface of the main thallus was almost impenetrable to the dye applied (Nile Blue), the smaller appendages could sometimes be penetrated21. The dye injection into the beetle elytra upon which the fungi were sitting, actually spread from the elytron into the fungus, thus indicating that in spite of the lack of a haustorium, the fungus is able to extract nutrients from the interior of its host21.Such experiments have not been performed on Rickia species, but the possibility that nutrients may pass from the host into the basis of the fungus cannot be excluded. For this genus, or at least R. gigas, there may, however, be an alternative way to obtain nutrients: the small opening in the circular wall by which the thallus is attached to the host may allow nutrients from the surface of the millipede or from the environment to seep into the foot of the fungus. However, further experiments are needed in order to evaluate this hypothesis. Moreover, we should not exclude a potential role of primary and secondary appendages in Laboulbeniales nutrition, as we still do not understand exactly their functional role on the fungus life cycle11.The predominant position of the Laboulbeniales on the host might be related to the absence or presence of a haustorium. Thus, the haustoriate species of the genus Arthrorhynchus are most frequently encountered in large numbers on the arthrodial membranes of the host’s abdomen, although some thalli are found on legs2,22. At the arthrodial membranes the cuticle is more flexible and therefore might be easier to penetrate by a parasite. Furthermore, most tissues providing/storing nutrition (e.g., fat body) are located within the abdomen. In contrast, non-haustoriate fungi as are often located on more stiff and sclerotized body-parts like the genus Rickia on the legs or body-rings of millipedes7,20,23 or the genus Laboulbenia on the elytra of beetles21,24. A reason for this might be that the non-haustoriate forms, which are only superficially attached to the host need a more or less smooth surface for adherence and can easily become detached from a flexible surface, which is movable in itself, like the arthrodial membrane, while the haustoriate forms are firmly anchored within the hosts’ cuticle.Whereas the vast majority of the more than 2000 described species of Laboulbeniales show no sign of host penetration, haustoria have been reported from some other genera18, including Trenomyces parasitizing bird lice25,26, Hesperomyces growing on coccinellid beetles and Herpomyces on cockroaches (formerly a Laboulbeniales and now in the order Herpomycetales10), with pernicious consequences on the hosts’ fitness18,27. Micro-CT studies on these genera could help to understand the host penetration. In order to fully understand how Laboulbeniales obtain nourishment, although other approaches are, also needed—for the time being it remains a mystery how the non-haustoriate Laboulbeniales sustain themselves. More

1.Nathan, R. et al. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 19052–19059 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Sutherland, W. J. et al. Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. J. Ecol. 101, 58–67 (2013).
Google Scholar 
3.Bernstein, R. A. & Gobbel, M. Partitioning of space in communities of ants. J. Anim. Ecol. 48, 931–942 (1979).
Google Scholar 
4.Jenkins, S. H. A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology 61, 740–746 (2018).
Google Scholar 
5.Grémillet, D. et al. Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: A case study based on GPS tracking of Cape gannets from neighbouring colonies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 268, 265–279 (2004).ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Orians, G. H. & Pearson, N. E. On the theory of central place foraging. In Analysis of Ecological Systems (eds Horn, D. J. et al.) 154–177 (The Ohio State University Press, 1979).7.Schoener, T. W. Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding. Am. Nat. 114, 902–914 (1979).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
8.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 
9.Dawo, B., Kalko, E. K. V. & Dietz, M. Spatial organization reflects the social organization in Bechstein’s bats. Ann. Zool. Fennici 50, 356–370 (2013).
Google Scholar 
10.Nordstrom, C. A., Battaile, B. C., Cotté, C. & Trites, A. W. Foraging habitats of lactating northern fur seals are structured by thermocline depths and submesoscale fronts in the eastern Bering Sea. Deep Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 88–89, 78–96 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Bolton, M., Conolly, G., Carroll, M., Wakefield, E. D. & Caldow, R. A review of the occurrence of inter-colony segregation of seabird foraging areas and the implications for marine environmental impact assessment. Ibis (London 1859) 161, 241–259 (2019).
Google Scholar 
12.Cairns, D. K. The regulation of seabird colony size: A hinterland model. Am. Nat. 134, 141–146 (1989).
Google Scholar 
13.Wakefield, E. D. et al. Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science (80-.) 341, 68–70 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Masello, J. F. et al. Diving seabirds share foraging space and time within and among species. Ecosphere 1, art19 (2010).
Google Scholar 
15.Cecere, J. G. et al. Spatial segregation of home ranges between neighbouring colonies in a diurnal raptor. Sci. Rep. 8, 11762 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Ainley, D. G., Ford, R. G., Brown, E. D., Suryan, R. M. & Irons, D. B. Prey resources, competition, and geographic structure of Kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound. Ecology 84, 709–723 (2003).
Google Scholar 
17.Ramos, R. et al. Meta-population feeding grounds of cory’s shearwater in the subtropical Atlantic ocean: Implications for the definition of marine protected areas based on tracking studies. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1284–1298 (2013).
Google Scholar 
18.Dean, B. et al. Simultaneous multi-colony tracking of a pelagic seabird reveals cross-colony utilization of a shared foraging area. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 538, 239–248 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Hunt Jr., G. L. et al. Physical processes, prey abundance, and the foraging ecology of seabirds. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Ornithological Congress, Durban (eds Adams, N. J. & Slotow, R. H.) 2040–2056 (BirdLife South Africa, 1999).20.Weimerskirch, H. Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 54, 211–223 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Benoit-Bird, K. J. et al. Prey patch patterns predict habitat use by top marine predators with diverse foraging strategies. PLoS ONE 8, e53348 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Lydersen, C. et al. The importance of tidewater glaciers for marine mammals and seabirds in Svalbard, Norway. J. Mar. Syst. 129, 452–471 (2014).
Google Scholar 
23.Hamilton, C. D., Lydersen, C., Ims, R. A. & Kovacs, K. M. Coastal habitat use by ringed seals Pusa hispida following a regional sea-ice collapse: Importance of glacial refugia in a changing Arctic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 545, 261–277 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Nishizawa, B. et al. Contrasting assemblages of seabirds in the subglacial meltwater plume and oceanic water of Bowdoin Fjord, northwestern Greenland. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 711–720 (2020).
Google Scholar 
25.Grémillet, D. et al. Arctic warming: Nonlinear impacts of sea-ice and glacier melt on seabird foraging. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1116–1123 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Hamilton, C. D. et al. Contrasting changes in space use induced by climate change in two Arctic marine mammal species. Biol. Lett. 15, 20180834 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Hartley, C. H. & Fisher, J. The marine foods of birds in an inland fjord region in West Spitsbergen: Part 2. Birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 5, 370–389 (1936).
Google Scholar 
28.Everett, A. et al. Subglacial discharge plume behaviour revealed by CTD-instrumented ringed seals. Sci. Rep. 8, 13467 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Carroll, D. et al. Modeling turbulent subglacial meltwater plumes: Implications for fjord-scale buoyancy-driven circulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 45, 2169–2185 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
30.Urbański, J. A. et al. Subglacial discharges create fluctuating foraging hotspots for seabirds in tidewater glacier bays. Sci. Rep. 7, 43999 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Stempniewicz, L. et al. Marine birds and mammals foraging in the rapidly deglaciating Arctic fjord—Numbers, distribution and habitat preferences. Clim. Change 140, 533–548 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Stempniewicz, L. et al. Advection of Atlantic water masses influences seabird community foraging in a high-Arctic fjord. Prog. Oceanogr. 193, 102549 (2021).
Google Scholar 
33.Dragańska-Deja, K., Błaszczyk, M., Deja, K., Wesławski, J. M. & Rodak, J. Tidewater glaciers as feeding spots for the Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla): A citizen science approach. Polish Polar Res. 41, 69–93 (2020).
Google Scholar 
34.Bertrand, P. et al. Feeding at the front line: interannual variation in the use of glacier fronts by foraging black-legged kittiwakes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 677, 197–208 (2021).35.Walsh, P. M. et al. Seabird Monitoring Handbook for Britain and Ireland. A Compilation of Methods for Survey and Monitoring of Breeding Seabirds (JNCC/RSPB/ITE/Seabird Group, 1995).
Google Scholar 
36.Anker-Nilssen, T. et al. Key-Site Monitoring in Norway 2018, Including Svalbard and Jan Mayen (SEAPOP, 2020).
Google Scholar 
37.Harris, S. M. et al. Personality predicts foraging site fidelity and trip repeatability in a marine predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 68–79 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Coulson, J. C. Sexing black-legged kittiwakes by measurement. Ringing Migr. 24, 233–239 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Paredes, R. et al. Proximity to multiple foraging habitats enhances seabirds’ resilience to local food shortages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 471, 253–269 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Christensen-Dalsgaard, S., May, R. & Lorentsen, S. H. Taking a trip to the shelf: Behavioral decisions are mediated by the proximity to foraging habitats in the black-legged kittiwake. Ecol. Evol. 8, 866–878 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Coulson, J. C. & Macdonald, A. Recent changes in the habits of the Kittiwake. Br. Birds 55, 171–177 (1962).
Google Scholar 
42.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.43.Fleming, C. H. & Calabrese, J. M. A new kernel density estimator for accurate home-range and species-range area estimation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 571–579 (2017).
Google Scholar 
44.Fleming, C. H. et al. Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: A new autocorrelated kernel density estimator. Ecology 96, 1182–1188 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Fleming, C. H. & Calabrese, J. M. ctmm: Continuous-time movement modeling. R package version 0.5.10. https://cran.r-project.org/package=ctmm (2020).46.Dong, X., Fleming, C. H., Noonan, M. J. & Calabrese, J. M. ctmmweb: A Shiny web app for the ctmm movement analysis package. https://github.com/ctmm-initiative/ctmmweb. (2018).47.Fleming, C. H., Noonan, M. J., Medici, E. P. & Calabrese, J. M. Overcoming the challenge of small effective sample sizes in home-range estimation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1679–1689 (2019).
Google Scholar 
48.Noonan, M. J. et al. A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation. Ecol. Monogr. 89, 1–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
49.Fleming, C. H. et al. From fine-scale foraging to home ranges: A semivariance approach to identifying movement modes across spatiotemporal scales. Am. Nat. 183, E154–E167 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Calabrese, J. M., Fleming, C. H. & Gurarie, E. Ctmm: An R package for analyzing animal relocation data as a continuous-time stochastic process. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1124–1132 (2016).
Google Scholar 
51.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
52.Lascelles, B. G. et al. Applying global criteria to tracking data to define important areas for marine conservation. Divers. Distrib. 22, 422–431 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Beal, M. et al. BirdLifeInternational/track2kba: First Release (Version 0.5.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3823902 (2020).54.Winner, K. et al. Statistical inference for home range overlap. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1679–1691 (2018).
Google Scholar 
55.Fieberg, J. & Kochanny, C. O. Quantifying home-range overlap: The importance of the utilization distribution. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1346–1359 (2005).
Google Scholar 
56.Bhattacharyya, A. On a measure of divergence between two multinomial populations. Indian J. Stat. 7, 401–406 (1946).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
57.Bhattacharyya, A. On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distribution. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 35, 99–109 (1943).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
58.Anderson, M. J. & Walsh, D. C. I. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol. Monogr. 83, 557–574 (2013).
Google Scholar 
59.Carneiro, A. P. B. et al. Consistency in migration strategies and habitat preferences of brown skuas over two winters, a decade apart. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 553, 267–281 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Dehnhard, N. et al. High inter-and intraspecific niche overlap among three sympatrically breeding, closely related seabird species: Generalist foraging as an adaptation to a highly variable environment? J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 104–119 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
62.Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
63.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package (2019). R package version 2.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan64.Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E. & Gomez-Rubio, V. Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R 2nd edn. (Springer, 2013).MATH 

Google Scholar 
65.Pebesma, E. & Bivand, R. S. Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5 (2). https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/ (2005).66.Paredes, R. et al. Foraging responses of black-legged kittiwakes to prolonged food-shortages around colonies on the Bering Sea shelf. PLoS ONE 9, e92520 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Hartig, F. Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.3.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2020).68.Legendre, P., Lapointe, F.-J. & Casgrain, P. Modeling brain evolution from behavior: A permutational regression approach. Evolution 48, 1487–1499 (1994).
Google Scholar 
69.Goslee, S. C. & Urban, D. L. The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–19 (2007).
Google Scholar 
70.Bolnick, D. I., Yang, L. H., Fordyce, J. A., Davis, J. M. & Svanbäck, R. Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83, 2936–2941 (2002).
Google Scholar 
71.Zaccarelli, N., Mancinelli, G. & Bolnick, D. I. RInSp: An R package for the analysis of individual specialisation in resource use. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1018–1023 (2013).
Google Scholar 
72.Lewis, S., Sherratt, T. N., Hamer, K. C. & Wanless, S. Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412, 816–819 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Bertrand, A. et al. Broad impacts of fine-scale dynamics on seascape structure from zooplankton to seabirds. Nat. Commun. 5, 5239 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
74.Fauchald, P. Spatial interaction between seabirds and prey: Review and synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 139–151 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
75.MacArthur, R. H. & Pianka, E. R. On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat. 100, 603–609 (1966).
Google Scholar 
76.Schoener, T. W. Theory of feeding strategies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 369–404 (1971).
Google Scholar 
77.Carroll, D. et al. The impact of glacier geometry on meltwater plume structure and submarine melt in Greenland fjords. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9739–9748 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
78.Halbach, L. et al. Tidewater glaciers and bedrock characteristics control the phytoplankton growth environment in a fjord in the Arctic. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 254 (2019).
Google Scholar 
79.Pramanik, A. et al. Hydrology and runoff routing of glacierized drainage basins in the Kongsfjord area, northwest Svalbard. Cryosph. Discuss. [preprint]. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2020-197.Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Hopwood, M. J. et al. Non-linear response of summertime marine productivity to increased meltwater discharge around Greenland. Nat. Commun. 9, 3256 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Arimitsu, M. L., Piatt, J. F. & Mueter, F. Influence of glacier runoff on ecosystem structure in Gulf of Alaska fjords. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 560, 19–40 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
82.Haney, J. Seabird segregation at Gulf Stream frontal eddies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 28, 279–285 (1986).ADS 

Google Scholar 
83.Hyrenbach, K. D., Veit, R. R., Weimerskirch, H. & Hunt, G. L. Jr. Seabird associations with mesoscale eddies: The subtropical Indian Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 324, 271–279 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
84.Cox, S. L. et al. Seabird diving behaviour reveals the functional significance of shelf-sea fronts as foraging hotspots. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160317 (2016).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Schneider, D. C. Seabirds and fronts: A brief overview. Polar Res. 8, 17–21 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Bost, C. A. et al. The importance of oceanographic fronts to marine birds and mammals of the southern oceans. J. Mar. Syst. 78, 363–376 (2009).
Google Scholar 
87.Durazo, R., Harrison, N. M. & Hill, A. E. Seabird observations at a tidal mixing front in the Irish Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 47, 153–164 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
88.Wakefield, E. D., Phillips, R. A. & Matthiopoulos, J. Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: A review. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 165–182 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
89.How, P. et al. Rapidly changing subglacial hydrological pathways at a tidewater glacier revealed through simultaneous observations of water pressure, supraglacial lakes, meltwater plumes and surface velocities. Cryosphere 11, 2691–2710 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
90.Navarro, J. & González-Solís, J. Environmental determinants of foraging strategies in Cory’s shearwaters Calonectris diomedea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 378, 259–267 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
91.Irons, D. B. Foraging area fidelity of individual seabirds in relation to tidal cycles and flock feeding. Ecology 79, 647–655 (1998).
Google Scholar 
92.Piatt, J. F. et al. Predictable hotspots and foraging habitat of the endangered short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) in the North Pacific: Implications for conservation. Deep Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 53, 387–398 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
93.Ward, P. & Zahavi, A. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as “information-centres” for food-finding. Ibis (London 1859) 115, 517–534 (1973).
Google Scholar 
94.Weimerskirch, H., Bertrand, S., Silva, J., Marques, J. C. & Goya, E. Use of social information in seabirds: Compass rafts indicate the heading of food patches. PLoS ONE 5, e9928 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Ainley, D. G. et al. Geographic structure of Adélie penguin populations: Overlap in colony-specific foraging areas. Ecol. Monogr. 74, 159–178 (2004).
Google Scholar 
96.Fretwell, S. D. & Lucas, H. L. J. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1970).
Google Scholar  More

1.Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52, 891 (2002).
Google Scholar 
2.Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Birk, S. et al. Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1060–1068 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.EU Water Framework Directive Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2000).5.Valiente-Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: The extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).
Google Scholar 
6.Powers, R. P. & Jetz, W. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 323–329 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Haddeland, I. et al. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3251–3256 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Stanton, J. C., Shoemaker, K. T., Pearson, R. G. & Akçakaya, H. R. Warning times for species extinctions due to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1066–1077 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Jarić, I., Lennox, R. J., Kalinkat, G., Cvijanović, G. & Radinger, J. Susceptibility of European freshwater fish to climate change: Species profiling based on life-history and environmental characteristics. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 448–458 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Cantú-Salazar, L. & Cruz-Piñón, G. The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 93–113 (2008).
Google Scholar 
12.Kati, V. et al. Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 120, 471–480 (2004).
Google Scholar 
13.Everall, N. C. et al. Comparability of macroinvertebrate biomonitoring indices of river health derived from semi-quantitative and quantitative methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 78, 437–448 (2017).
Google Scholar 
14.Gieswein, A., Hering, D. & Lorenz, A. W. Development and validation of a macroinvertebrate-based biomonitoring tool to assess fine sediment impact in small mountain streams. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1290–1301 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Coates, S., Waugh, A., Anwar, A. & Robson, M. Efficacy of a multi-metric fish index as an analysis tool for the transitional fish component of the Water Framework Directive. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 55, 225–240 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Feld, C. K. & Hering, D. Community structure or function: Effects of environmental stress on benthic macroinvertebrates at different spatial scales. Freshw. Biol. 52, 1380–1399 (2007).
Google Scholar 
17.Dobson, A., Lafferty, K. D., Kuris, A. M., Hechinger, R. F. & Jetz, W. Homage to Linnaeus: How many parasites? How many hosts? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 11482–11489 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Carlson, C. J., Zipfel, C. M., Garnier, R. & Bansal, S. Global estimates of mammalian viral diversity accounting for host sharing. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1070–1075 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Poulin, R. Parasite biodiversity revisited: Frontiers and constraints. Int. J. Parasitol. 44, 581–589 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Thomas, F. et al. Parasites and ecosystem engineering: What roles could they play? Oikos 84, 167 (1999).
Google Scholar 
21.Hudson, P. J., Dobson, A. P. & Lafferty, K. D. Is a healthy ecosystem one that is rich in parasites? Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 381–385 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Lefèvre, T. et al. The ecological significance of manipulative parasites. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 41–48 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Frainer, A., McKie, B. G., Amundsen, P. A., Knudsen, R. & Lafferty, K. D. Parasitism and the biodiversity-functioning relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 260–268 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Lafferty, K. D. & Morris, A. K. Altered behavior of parasitized Killifish increases susceptibility to predation by bird final hosts. Ecology 77, 1390–1397 (1996).
Google Scholar 
25.Mouritsen, K. N. & Poulin, R. Parasitism, community structure and biodiversity in intertidal ecosystems. Parasitology 124, 101–117 (2002).
Google Scholar 
26.Marcogliese, D. J. Parasites: Small players with crucial roles in the ecological theater. EcoHealth 1, 151–164 (2004).
Google Scholar 
27.Lagrue, C. & Poulin, R. Intra- and interspecific competition among helminth parasites: Effects on Coitocaecum parvum life history strategy, size and fecundity. Int. J. Parasitol. 38, 1435–1444 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Rosenkranz, M., Poulin, R. & Selbach, C. Behavioural impacts of trematodes on their snail host: Species-specific effects or generalised response? Ethology 124, 790–795 (2018).
Google Scholar 
29.Lafferty, K. D. et al. Parasites in food webs: The ultimate missing links. Ecol. Lett. 11, 533–546 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Thieltges, D. W. et al. Parasites as prey in aquatic food webs: Implications for predator infection and parasite transmission. Oikos 122, 1473–1482 (2013).
Google Scholar 
31.Thieltges, D. W., Jensen, K. T. & Poulin, R. The role of biotic factors in the transmission of free-living endohelminth stages. Parasitology 135, 407–426 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Kuris, A. M. et al. Ecosystem energetic implications of parasite and free-living biomass in three estuaries. Nature 454, 515–518 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Preston, D. L., Orlofske, S. A., Lambden, J. P. & Johnson, P. T. J. Biomass and productivity of trematode parasites in pond ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 509–517 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Soldánová, M., Selbach, C. & Sures, B. The early worm catches the bird? Productivity and patterns of Trichobilharzia szidati cercarial emission from Lymnaea stagnalis. PLoS ONE 11, e0149678 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Vidal-Martínez, V. M., Pech, D., Sures, B., Purucker, S. T. & Poulin, R. Can parasites really reveal environmental impact? Trends Parasitol. 26, 44–51 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Shea, J. et al. The use of parasites as indicators of ecosystem health as compared to insects in freshwater lakes of the Inland Northwest. Ecol. Indic. 13, 184–188 (2012).
Google Scholar 
37.Sures, B., Nachev, M., Selbach, C. & Marcogliese, D. J. Parasite responses to pollution: What we know and where we go in ‘environmental parasitology’. Parasit. Vectors 10, 65 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Esch, G. W. The transmission of digenetic trematodes: Style, elegance, complexity. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 304–312 (2002).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Byers, J. E., Altman, I., Grosse, A. M., Huspeni, T. C. & Maerz, J. C. Using parasitic trematode larvae to quantify an elusive vertebrate host. Conserv. Biol. 25, 85–93 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Moore, C. S., Gittman, R. K., Puckett, B. J., Wellman, E. H. & Blakeslee, A. M. H. If you build it, they will come: Restoration positively influences free-living and parasite diversity in a restored tidal marsh. Food Webs 25, e00167 (2020).
Google Scholar 
41.Dougherty, E. R. et al. Paradigms for parasite conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 724–733 (2016).MathSciNet 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Carlson, C. J. et al. A global parasite conservation plan. Biol. Conserv. 250, 108596 (2020).
Google Scholar 
43.Kwak, M. L., Heath, A. C. G. & Cardoso, P. Methods for the assessment and conservation of threatened animal parasites. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108696 (2020).
Google Scholar 
44.Votýpka, J., Kment, P., Yurchenko, V. & Lukeš, J. Endangered monoxenous trypanosomatid parasites: A lesson from island biogeography. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 3635–3667 (2020).
Google Scholar 
45.Carlson, C. J. et al. Parasite biodiversity faces extinction and redistribution in a changing climate. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602422 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Lafferty, K. D. Biodiversity loss decreases parasite diversity: Theory and patterns. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2814–2827 (2012).
Google Scholar 
47.Cizauskas, C. A. et al. Parasite vulnerability to climate change: An evidence-based functional trait approach. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 160535 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Watson, D. M., Milner, K. V. & Leigh, A. Novel application of species richness estimators to predict the host range of parasites. Int. J. Parasitol. 47, 31–39 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Vannatta, J. T. & Minchella, D. J. Parasites and their impact on ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Parasitol. 34, 452–455 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Jorge, F. & Poulin, R. Poor geographical match between the distributions of host diversity and parasite discovery effort. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20180072 (2018).
Google Scholar 
51.Faltýnková, A. Larval trematodes (Digenea) in molluscs from small water bodies near České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Acta Parasitol. 50, 49–55 (2005).
Google Scholar 
52.Żbikowska, E. Digenea species in chosen populations of freshwater snails in northern and central part of Poland. Wiadomości Parazytol. 53, 301–308 (2007).
Google Scholar 
53.Schwelm, J., Soldánová, M., Vyhlídalová, T., Sures, B. & Selbach, C. Small but diverse: Larval trematode communities in the small freshwater planorbids Gyraulus albus and Segmentina nitida (Gastropoda: Pulmonata) from the Ruhr River, Germany. Parasitol. Res. 117, 241–255 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Selbach, C., Soldánová, M., Feld, C. K., Kostadinova, A. & Sures, B. Hidden parasite diversity in a European freshwater system. Sci. Rep. 10, 2694 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Gibson, D. I. & Bray, R. A. The evolutionary expansion and host-parasite relationships of the Digenea. Int. J. Parasitol. 24, 1213–1226 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Gordy, M. A., Kish, L., Tarrabain, M. & Hanington, P. C. A comprehensive survey of larval digenean trematodes and their snail hosts in central Alberta, Canada. Parasitol. Res. 115, 3867–3880 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Soldánová, M. et al. Molecular analyses reveal high species diversity of trematodes in a sub-Arctic lake. Int. J. Parasitol. 47, 327–345 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Faltýnková, A. & Haas, W. Larval trematodes in freshwater molluscs from the Elbe to Danube rivers (Southeast Germany): Before and today. Parasitol. Res. 99, 572–582 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Faltýnková, A., Našincová, V. & Kablásková, L. Larval trematodes (Digenea) of the great pond snail, Lymnaea stagnalis (L.), (Gastropoda, pulmonata) in Central Europe: A survey of species and key to their identification. Parasite 14, 39–51 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Faltýnková, A., Našincová, V. & Kablásková, L. Larval trematodes (Digenea) of planorbid snails (Gastropoda: Pulmonata) in Central Europe: A survey of species and key to their identification. Syst. Parasitol. 69, 155–178 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Faltýnková, A., Sures, B. & Kostadinova, A. Biodiversity of trematodes in their intermediate mollusc and fish hosts in the freshwater ecosystems of Europe. Syst. Parasitol. 93, 283–293 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Soldánová, M., Selbach, C., Sures, B., Kostadinova, A. & Perez-del-Olmo, A. Larval trematode communities in Radix auricularia and Lymnaea stagnalis in a reservoir system of the Ruhr River. Parasit. Vectors 3, 56 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Kamiya, T., O’Dwyer, K., Nakagawa, S. & Poulin, R. Host diversity drives parasite diversity: Meta-analytical insights into patterns and causal mechanisms. Ecography (Cop.) 37, 689–697 (2014).
Google Scholar 
64.Johnson, P. T. J. & Thieltges, D. W. Diversity, decoys and the dilution effect: How ecological communities affect disease risk. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 961–970 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Lagrue, C. & Poulin, R. Local diversity reduces infection risk across multiple freshwater host-parasite associations. Freshw. Biol. 60, 2445–2454 (2015).
Google Scholar 
66.Song, Z. & Proctor, H. Parasite prevalence in intermediate hosts increases with waterbody age and abundance of final hosts. Oecologia 192, 311–321 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Welsh, J. E., Van Der Meer, J., Brussaard, C. P. D. & Thieltges, D. W. Inventory of organisms interfering with transmission of a marine trematode. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 94, 697–702 (2014).
Google Scholar 
68.Gopko, M., Mironova, E., Pasternak, A., Mikheev, V. & Taskinen, J. Freshwater mussels (Anodonta anatina) reduce transmission of a common fish trematode (eye fluke, Diplostomum pseudospathaceum). Parasitology 144, 1971–1979 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Vielma, S., Lagrue, C., Poulin, R. & Selbach, C. Non-host organisms impact transmission at two different life stages in a marine parasite. Parasitol. Res. 118, 111–117 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Kudlai, O., Stunženas, V. & Tkach, V. The taxonomic identity and phylogenetic relationships of Cercaria pugnax and C. helvetica XII (Digenea: Lecithodendriidae) based on morphological and molecular data. Folia Parasitol. (Praha) 62, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
71.Dunn, R. R., Harris, N. C., Colwell, R. K., Koh, L. P. & Sodhi, N. S. The sixth mass coextinction: Are most endangered species parasites and mutualists? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3037–3045 (2009).
Google Scholar 
72.Selbach, C., Soldánová, M., Georgieva, S., Kostadinova, A. & Sures, B. Integrative taxonomic approach to the cryptic diversity of Diplostomum spp. in lymnaeid snails from Europe with a focus on the ‘Diplostomum mergi’ species complex. Parasit. Vectors 8, 300 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Marcogliese, D. J. Parasites of the superorganism: Are they indicators of ecosystem health? Int. J. Parasitol. 35, 705–716 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.MacKenzie, K., Williams, H. H., Williams, B., McVicar, A. H. & Siddall, R. Parasites as indicators of water quality and the potential use of helminth transmission in marine pollution studies. Adv. Parasitol. 35, 85–144 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Anderson, T. K. & Sukhdeo, M. V. K. Qualitative community stability determines parasite establishment and richness in estuarine marshes. PeerJ 2013, 1–14 (2013).
Google Scholar 
76.Neutel, A. M. Stability in real food webs: Weak links in long loops. Science 296, 1120–1123 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Glöer, P. Süßwassergastropoden Nord- und Mitteleuropas: Mollusca I: Bestimmungsschlüssel, Lebensweise, Verbreitung (ConchBooks, 2002).
Google Scholar 
78.Welter-Schultes, F. European Non-marine Molluscs, a Guide for Species Identification (Planet Poster Editions, 2012).
Google Scholar 
79.Brühne, M. & Scharbert, A. Die Erschließung des Bienener Altrheins für die Rheinfischfauna. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt (2005).80.Hugghins, E. J. Life history of a strigeid trematode, Hysteromorpha triloba (Rudolphi, 1819) Lutz, 1931. II. Sporocyst through adult. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 73, 221 (1954).
Google Scholar 
81.Našincová, V. & Scholz, T. The life cycle of Asymphylodora tincae (Modeer 1790) (Trematoda: Monorchiidae): A unique development in monorchiid trematodes. Parasitol. Res. 80, 192–197 (1994).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Georgieva, S. et al. New cryptic species of the ‘revolutum’ group of Echinostoma (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) revealed by molecular and morphological data. Parasit. Vectors 6, 64 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Grabner, D. S. et al. Invaders, natives and their enemies: Distribution patterns of amphipods and their microsporidian parasites in the Ruhr Metropolis, Germany. Parasit. Vectors 8, 419 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Bush, A. O., Lafferty, K. D., Lotz, J. M. & Shostak, A. W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 83, 575 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Niewiadomska, K. Family Cyathocotylidae Mühling, 1898. In Keys to the Trematoda Vol. 1 (eds Gibson, D. I. et al.) 201–214 (CABI Publishing Wallingford & Natural History Museum, 2002).
Google Scholar 
86.Möhl, K. et al. Biology of Alaria spp. and human exposition risk to Alaria mesocercariae-a review. Parasitol. Res. 105, 1–15 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Brown, R., Soldánová, M., Barrett, J. & Kostadinova, A. Small-scale to large-scale and back: Larval trematodes in Lymnaea stagnalis and Planorbarius corneus in Central Europe. Parasitol. Res. 108, 137–150 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Niewiadomska, K. Family Diplostomidae Poirier, 1886. In Keys to the Trematoda Vol. 1 (eds Gibson, D. I. et al.) 167–196 (CABI Publishing Wallingford & Natural History Museum, 2002).
Google Scholar 
89.Tkach, V. V., Kudlai, O. & Kostadinova, A. Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the Echinostomatoidea Looss, 1899 (Platyhelminthes: Digenea). Int. J. Parasitol. 46, 171–185 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Kostadinova, A. & Gibson, D. A redescription of Uroproctepisthmium bursicola (Creplin, 1837) n. comb. (Digenea: Echinostomatidae), and re-evaluations of the genera Episthmium Lühe, 1909 and Uroproctepisthmium Fischthal & Kuntz, 1976. Syst. Parasitol. 50, 63–67 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Kudlai, O. Biology of Neoacanthoparyphium echinatoides (Trematoda, Echinostomatidae) in north-western Priazov’ye (Ukraine). Vestn. Zool. 23, 102–106 (2009).
Google Scholar 
92.Selbach, C. et al. Morphological and molecular data for larval stages of four species of Petasiger Dietz, 1909 (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) with an updated key to the known cercariae from the Palaearctic. Syst. Parasitol. 89, 153–166 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
93.Bray, R. A. Family Lissorchiidae Magath, 1917. In Keys to the Trematoda Vol. 3 (eds Bray, R. A. et al.) 177–186 (CABI Publishing Wallingford & Natural History Museum, 2008).
Google Scholar 
94.Zikmundová, J., Georgieva, S., Faltýnková, A., Soldánová, M. & Kostadinova, A. Species diversity of Plagiorchis Lühe, 1899 (Digenea: Plagiorchiidae) in lymnaeid snails from freshwater ecosystems in central Europe revealed by molecules and morphology. Syst. Parasitol. 88, 37–54 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
95.Kanarek, G., Zaleśny, G., Sitko, J. & Tkach, V. V. The systematic position and structure of the genus Leyogonimus Ginetsinskaya, 1948 (Platyhelminthes: Digenea) with comments on the taxonomy of the superfamily Microphalloidea Ward, 1901. Acta Parasitol. 62, 617–624 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.Tkach, V. V., Snyder, S. D. & Świderski, Z. On the phylogenetic relationships of some members of Macroderoididae and Ochetosomatidae (Digenea, Plagiorchioidea). Acta Parasitol. 46, 267–275 (2001).
Google Scholar 
97.Roy, C. L. & St-Louis, V. Spatio-temporal variation in prevalence and intensity of trematodes responsible for waterfowl die-offs in faucet snail-infested waterbodies of Minnesota, USA. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 6, 162–176 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Kostadinova, A. Family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899. In Keys to the Trematoda Vol. 2 (eds Jones, A. et al.) 9–64 (CABI Publishing Wallingford & Natural History Museum, 2005).
Google Scholar 
99.Niewiadomska, K. Family Strigeidae Railliet, 1919. In Keys to the Trematoda Vol. 1 (eds Gibson, D. I. et al.) 231–241 (CABI Publishing & Natural History Museum, 2002).
Google Scholar  More

1.Hutchinson, G. E. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 22, 415–427 (1957).
Google Scholar 
2.Wethey, D. S. Biogeography, competition, and microclimate: The barnacle Chthamalus fragilis in New England. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 872–880 (2002).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Heikkinen, R. K., Luoto, M., Virkkala, R., Pearson, R. G. & Körber, J.-H. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 754–763 (2007).
Google Scholar 
4.Bøhn, T. & Amundsen, P.-A. The competitive edge of an invading specialist. Ecology 82, 2150–2163 (2001).
Google Scholar 
5.Barger, C. P. & Kitaysky, A. S. Isotopic segregation between sympatric seabird species increases with nutritional stress. Biol. Lett. 8, 442–445 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Gosselink, T. E., Deelen, T. R. V., Warner, R. E. & Joselyn, M. G. Temporal habitat partitioning and spatial use of coyotes and red foxes in East-Central Illinois. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 90 (2003).
Google Scholar 
7.Odden, M., Wegge, P. & Fredriksen, T. Do tigers displace leopards? If so why?. Ecol. Res. 25, 875–881 (2010).
Google Scholar 
8.Pickett, E. P. et al. Spatial niche partitioning may promote coexistence of Pygoscelis penguins as climate-induced sympatry occurs. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9764–9778 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Navarro, J. et al. Ecological segregation in space, time and trophic niche of sympatric planktivorous petrels. PLoS ONE 8, e62897 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Reif, J., Reifová, R., Skoracka, A. & Kuczyński, L. Competition-driven niche segregation on a landscape scale: Evidence for escaping from syntopy towards allotopy in two coexisting sibling passerine species. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 774–789 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Trego, C. T., Merriam, E. R. & Petty, J. T. Non-native trout limit native brook trout access to space and thermal refugia in a restored large-river system. Restor. Ecol. 27, 892–900 (2019).
Google Scholar 
12.Durant, S. M. Competition refuges and coexistence: An example from Serengeti carnivores. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 370–386 (1998).
Google Scholar 
13.Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
14.Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
15.Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 11982–11987 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Alexander, J. M., Diez, J. M. & Levine, J. M. Novel competitors shape species’ responses to climate change. Nature 525, 515–518 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Elmhagen, B. et al. Homage to Hersteinsson and Macdonald: Climate warming and resource subsidies cause red fox range expansion and Arctic fox decline. Polar Res. 36, 3 (2017).
Google Scholar 
18.IPCC. Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014).19.Spielhagen, R. F. et al. Enhanced modern heat transfer to the Arctic by warm Atlantic water. Science 331, 450–453 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Fossheim, M. et al. Recent warming leads to a rapid borealization of fish communities in the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 673–677 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Descamps, S. et al. Climate change impacts on wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago: Svalbard Norway. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 490–502 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
22.Descamps, S., Strøm, H. & Steen, H. Decline of an arctic top predator: Synchrony in colony size fluctuations, risk of extinction and the subpolar gyre. Oecologia 173, 1271–1282 (2013).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Garðarsson, A., Guðmundsson, G. A. & Lilliendahl, K. Svartfugl í íslenskum fuglabjörgum 2006–2008. Bliki 33, 35–46 (2019).
Google Scholar 
24.Merkel, F. et al. Declining trends in the majority of Greenland’s thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) colonies 1981–2011. Polar Biol. 37, 1061–1071 (2014).
Google Scholar 
25.Fauchald, P. et al. The status and trends of seabirds breeding in Norway and Svalbard. 84 (2015).26.Williams, A. J. Site preferences and interspecific competition among guillemots Uria aalge (L.) and Uria lomvia (L.) on Bear Island. Ornis Scand. 5, 113 (1974).
Google Scholar 
27.Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim. Behav. 83(1), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.031 (2012).28.Luque, S. P. An Introduction to the diveMove Package. 56 (2007).29.Luque, S. P. & Fried, R. Recursive filtering for zero offset correction of diving depth time series with GNU R Package diveMove. PLoS ONE 6, e15850 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
30.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. (Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org, 2018).31.Fieberg, J. & Kochanny, C. O. Quantifying home-range overlap: The importance of the Utilization Distribution. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1346–1359 (2005).
Google Scholar 
32.Calenge, C. The package adehabitat for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).
Google Scholar 
33.Geange, S. W., Pledger, S., Burns, K. C. & Shima, J. S. A unified analysis of niche overlap incorporating data of different types. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 175–184 (2011).
Google Scholar 
34.Lewis, S., Sherratt, T. N., Hamer, K. C. & Wanless, S. Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412, 816–819 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
35.Linnebjerg, J. F. et al. Sympatric breeding auks shift between dietary and spatial resource partitioning across the annual cycle. PLoS ONE 8, e72987 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.McFarlane Tranquilla, L. A. et al. Multiple-colony winter habitat use by murres Uria spp. in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean: Implications for marine risk assessment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 472, 287–303 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Pratte, I., Robertson, G. & Mallory, M. Four sympatrically nesting auks show clear resource segregation in their foraging environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 572, 243–254 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
38.Kokubun, N. et al. Foraging segregation of two congeneric diving seabird species breeding on St. George Island, Bering Sea. Biogeosciences 13, 2579–2591 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Barger, C. P., Young, R. C., Will, A., Ito, M. & Kitaysky, A. S. Resource partitioning between sympatric seabird species increases during chick-rearing. Ecosphere 7, e01447 (2016).
Google Scholar 
40.Huffeldt, N. P. & Merkel, F. R. Sex-specific, inverted rhythms of breeding-site attendance in an Arctic seabird. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160289 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Kappes, M. A. et al. Reproductive constraints influence habitat accessibility, segregation, and preference of sympatric albatross species. Mov. Ecol. 3, 34 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Benvenuti, S., Bonadonna, F., Dall’Antonia, L. & Gudmundsson, G. A. Foraging flights of breeding thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) as revealed by bird-borne direction recorders. Auk 115, 57–66 (1998).
Google Scholar 
43.Hunt, G. L., Bakken, V. & Mehlum, F. Marine birds in the Marginal Ice Zone of the Barents Sea in late winter and spring. Arctic 49, 53–61 (1996).
Google Scholar 
44.Hein, C., Öhlund, G. & Englund, G. Future distribution of Arctic Char Salvelinus alpinus in Sweden under climate change: Effects of temperature, lake size and species interactions. Ambio 41(Suppl 3), 303–312 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Mehlum, F., Watanuki, Y. & Takahashi, A. Diving behaviour and foraging habitats of Brünnich’s guillemots (Uria lomvia) breeding in the High-Arctic. J. Zool. 255, 413–423 (2001).
Google Scholar 
46.Frederiksen, M. et al. Seabird baseline studies in Baffin Bay, 2008–2013. Colony-based fieldwork at Kippaku and Apparsuit, NW Greenland. Report No. 110. (Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Roskilde, Denmark., 2014).47.Spagnolo, M. & Clark, C. D. A geomorphological overview of glacial landforms on the Icelandic continental shelf. J. Maps 5, 37–52 (2009).
Google Scholar 
48.Meier, W. N. et al. Arctic sea ice in transformation: A review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and human activity. Rev. Geophys. 52, 185–217 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
49.Gaston, A. J., Smith, P. A. & Provencher, J. F. Discontinuous change in ice cover in Hudson Bay in the 1990s and some consequences for marine birds and their prey. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 69, 1218–1225 (2012).
Google Scholar 
50.Grémillet, D. et al. Arctic warming: nonlinear impacts of sea-ice and glacier melt on seabird foraging. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1116–1123 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Valdimarsson, H., Astthorsson, O. S. & Palsson, J. Hydrographic variability in Icelandic waters during recent decades and related changes in distribution of some fish species. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 69, 816–825 (2012).
Google Scholar  More

Mathematical model 1—the relationship among the bodyweight of the initial WSSV-infected shrimp, number of deaths, and death time distributionThe experimental data show the time course of death for the infected shrimp satisfies the Laplacian distribution (Supplementary Tables 2–4). The relationship of the bodyweight of the initial infected shrimp number of deaths and death time distribution could be expressed by a mathematical model and the establishment of the mathematical model as shown below.Suppose that one dead shrimp could infect (n) healthy shrimp at the same day. These (n) infected shrimp do not die simultaneously but on different days (time course). The value of (n) is related to the weight of the dead shrimps—larger dead shrimp can infect more healthy shrimps of the same body weight. Our experimental results (Supplementary Tables 2–4) show the death time course for these (n) infected shrimp satisfies the Laplacian distribution, as follows:$$begin{array}{c}pleft(tright)=left{begin{array}{c}{b{{exp}}}left(-frac{left|t-aright|}{{c}_{1}}right),tle a\ {b{{exp}}}left(-frac{left|t-aright|}{{c}_{2}}right),t > aend{array}right.end{array}$$
(1)
where (a) is the peak time of number of dead shrimps, (b) is the maximal death percentage, ({c}_{1}) is related to the mortality increases of the infected shrimps, ({c}_{2}) is related to the mortality decreases of the infected shrimp, (p(t)) is the percentage of infected shrimp that die at time (t). The open bracket “{“ in formula (1) means the function is represented by two parallel expressions as described previously.Based on the Supplementary Tables 2–4, we can determine the value of (a), (b), ({c}_{1}), and ({c}_{2}) by the least square estimation method. As different weight corresponds to different distribution of death time, we can compute the relationship of weight of death shrimps with corresponding (a), (b), ({c}_{1}), and ({c}_{2}) (Supplementary Table 25).We found the relationship of (w) with (a), or (b), or ({c}_{1}) or ({c}_{2}) is quadratic (Eq. 2), with the data in Supplementary Table 25, we have$$begin{array}{c}left{begin{array}{c} a= -0.0918{w}^{2}+0.8772w+3.3449\ b=0.0029{w}^{2}-0.0369w+0.5849;;\ {c}_{1}=-0.0186{w}^{2}+0.1739w+0.7063\ {c}_{2}=0.0002{w}^{2}+0.0108w+1.0827;;,end{array}right.end{array}$$
(2)
Using Model 1, we can predict the effects of different body weights of dead WSSV-infected shrimp through the ingestion pathway of WSSV-infected dead shrimp on the WSSV transmission rate.Mathematical model 2—the dynamic changes of healthy, infected, and dead shrimp during WSSV transmissionWe derived and established Model 2 to simulate the WSS transmission dynamics in cultured shrimp. Using Model 2, we predicted the dynamic changes of three states (healthy, infected, and dead shrimps) in cultured shrimp as influenced by the WSS epidemic with the following:Now we can develop a model for the spread and break out of WSS. For any given weight (w) of shrimps, let ({s}_{h}(t)), ({s}_{i}(t)), and ({s}_{d}(t)) be the number of healthy shrimp, infected shrimp and dead shrimp respectively at time (t). Let (I(t)), (d(t)) be the number of daily infected shrimp, daily dead shrimp, respectively, at time (t).According to infection process, the decrement of healthy shrimp is caused by their infection, therefore we have (frac{d{s}_{h}}{{dt}}=-I(t)). The quantity change of infected shrimp includes the infection of healthy shrimp and the death of infected shrimp, we have (frac{d{s}_{i}}{{dt}}=I(t)-d(t)). The increment of dead shrimp is caused by the death of the infected shrimp; thus we have (frac{d{s}_{d}}{{dt}}=d(t)). We obtain the following system of ordinary differential equations:$$left{begin{array}{c}frac{d{s}_{h}}{{dt}}=-Ileft(tright)hfill\ ,frac{d{s}_{i}}{{dt}}=Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)\ frac{d{s}_{d}}{{dt}}=d(t)hfillend{array}right.$$
(3)
where ({s}_{h}left(0right)={s}_{{h}_{0}}), ({s}_{i}left(0right)={s}_{{i}_{0}}), ({s}_{d}left(0right)={s}_{{d}_{0}}) are as the initial value, at (t=0).In the above system of ordinary differential equations, quantity (I(t)) can be expressed as follows$$begin{array}{c}Ileft(tright)={min }left{n{s}_{d}left(tright),{s}_{h}left(tright)-alpha {s}_{{h}_{0}}right}end{array},$$
(4)
(d(t)) can be expressed as$$begin{array}{c}dleft(tright)={int }_{0}^{T}{min }left{n{s}_{d}left(t-tau right),{s}_{h}left(t-tau right)-alpha {s}_{{h}_{0}}right}pleft(tau right)dtau end{array}$$
(5)
where (n) is the number of healthy shrimp infected by one dead shrimp on the first day. (p(tau )) is the death percentage of the (n) infected shrimp on the (tau) days, (T) is the longest survival time of infected shrimp.Now we explain how to set up the formulas (I(t)) and (d(t)). In the expression of (I(t)), (n{s}_{d}(t)) is the number of daily infected shrimp at time (t). But as the number of healthy shrimp decreases, there may not be as many as (n{s}_{d}(t)) healthy shrimp to be infected. Therefore, (I(t)) is the minimum of (n{s}_{d}(t)) and ({s}_{h}left(tright)-alpha {s}_{{h}_{0}}), where (alpha (0 , < , alpha, < , 1)) represents the percentage of healthy shrimp that may have resistance to viruses, (d(t)) is the number of shrimps infected from (0) to (t) die at time (t). We use this integral to express the number of shrimp die at time (t).To evaluate the performance of the model 2, we compare the simulated scenario and the biological experimental settings. Our experiments show the quantity change of dead shrimps and live shrimps with respect to time, which is consistent with the result of simulation (Supplementary Fig. 4).Mathematical model 3—use fish to control WSSWe established Model 3 for the prevention and control of WSS using fish. In Model 3, two parameters need to be determined before this model can be applied for evaluating the fish’s capability of WSS prevention and control. The two parameters are, (1) fish-feeding quantity of dead shrimp, and (2) fish-feeding ratio of dead shrimp over healthy shrimp. We obtained 1 kg grass carp’s feeding quantity of different body weights of shrimp and the feeding selectivity through experiments. The mathematical reasoning of Model 3 is as follows:To block the transmission of WSS, we apply fish to eat dead shrimp and infected shrimp. Let ({e}_{h}(t)), ({e}_{i}(t)), and ({e}_{d}(t)), respectively be the number of healthy shrimp, infected shrimp and dead shrimp eaten by fish daily at time (t), (f(t)) is the number of fish.The decrement of healthy shrimp is related to the number of infected healthy shrimp and the number of shrimp eaten by fish, as expressed in (frac{d{s}_{h}}{{dt}}=-I(t)-{e}_{h}(t)). Similarly, the dynamics of the infected shrimp is related to the number of infected healthy shrimp, the death number of infected shrimp, and the number of infected shrimp eaten by fish, as expressed in (frac{d{s}_{i}}{{dt}}=I(t)-d(t)-{e}_{i}(t)). The dynamics of dead shrimp is related to the death number of infected shrimp, and eaten by fish, as expressed in (frac{d{s}_{d}}{{dt}}=d(t)-{e}_{d}(t)). Combining the above formulae, we can write the model as follows:$$left{begin{array}{c}frac{d{s}_{h}}{{dt}}=-Ileft(tright)-{e}_{h}left(tright)quadhfill\ ,frac{d{s}_{i}}{{dt}}=Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)-{e}_{i}left(tright)hfill\ frac{d{s}_{d}}{{dt}}=d(t)-{e}_{d}(t)hfillend{array}right.$$ (6) where ({s}_{h}left(0right)={s}_{{h}_{0}}), ({s}_{i}left(0right)={s}_{{i}_{0}}), ({s}_{d}left(0right)={s}_{{d}_{0}}) are as the initial value at (t=0). In the above model, (I(t)), (d(t)), ({e}_{h}(t)), ({e}_{i}(t)), and ({e}_{d}(t)) are respectively given as follows:$$left{begin{array}{c};, Ileft(tright)={min }left{n{s}_{d}left(tright),{s}_{h}left(tright)-alpha {s}_{{h}_{0}}right}hfill\ ;dleft(tright)={int }_{0}^{t}{min }left{n{s}_{d}left(t-tau right),{s}_{h}left(t-tau right)-alpha {s}_{{h}_{0}}right}pleft(tau right){exp }left{{int }_{t-tau }^{t}{{{{{rm{ln}}}}}}rleft(uright){du}right}dtau hfill\ {e}_{d}left(tright)={min }left{fleft(tright)cdot mcdot beta ,{s}_{d}left(tright)+dleft(tright)right}hfill\ ,{e}_{i}left(tright)={min }left{left(fleft(tright)cdot m-{e}_{d}left(tright)right)frac{{s}_{i}left(tright)+Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)}{{s}_{i}left(tright)+{s}_{h}left(tright)-dleft(tright)},{s}_{i}left(tright)+Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)right}hfill\ {e}_{h}left(tright)={min }left{fleft(tright)cdot m-{e}_{d}left(tright)-{e}_{i}left(tright),{s}_{h}left(tright)-Ileft(tright)right}hfill\ ;,rleft(tright)=1-frac{{e}_{i}left(tright)}{{s}_{i}left(tright)+Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)}hfillend{array}right.$$ (7) where, (I(t)) is the same as in Eq. (4); for (d(t)), different from Eq. (5) is that we add an exponential item ({exp }left{{int }_{t-tau }^{t}{{{{{rm{ln}}}}}}rleft(uright){du}right}) to account for the infected shrimp that may be eaten by fish during the past (t) days. As for ({e}_{d}(t)) shown in Eq. (6), (m) is for that each fish eats (m) shrimps while (beta) accounts for a percentage of dead shrimp in (m) shrimp. In ({e}_{i}(t)), we introduce (frac{{s}_{i}left(tright)+Ileft(tright)-dleft(tright)}{{s}_{i}left(tright)+{s}_{h}left(tright)-dleft(tright)}) for the percentage of infected shrimp in live shrimp. ({e}_{h}(t)) accounts for the number of healthy shrimp eaten by fish. (r(t)) represents the percentage of infected shrimp not being eaten by fish. We performed the effects of 1 kg grass carps on shrimp with four different body weights. The simulated data agreed with the experimental results (Fig. 2c).The relationship among the bodyweight of one initial WSSV-infected shrimp, number of deaths, and death time distributionThree groups of 430 shrimp with a bodyweight of 1.98 ± 0.03, 6.13 ± 0.16, and 7.95 ± 0.13 g, respectively, were used. In each group, 30 shrimp were randomly selected and subjected to a two-step WSSV PCR assay. All the tested shrimp showed negative in the assay. The remaining 400 shrimps were divided equally and introduced to three experimental and one control ponds. All 12 aquariums (220 cm × 60 cm × 80 cm) were set up with a water volume of 0.5 m3 and a salinity of 8‰. Shrimp were quarantined for seven days before the experiment started. One piece of dead WSSV-infected shrimp was then introduced to each of the experimental aquariums. In addition, one piece of frozen dead shrimp (WSSV-free) was introduced to the control aquarium. Shrimp were fed once a day with artificial feed that is 2% of their body weight. Shrimp feces were timely removed, and 50% of the water in the aquarium was exchanged every day. To prevent healthy shrimps from eating the moribund shrimp but not the initial dead WSSV-infected shrimp, shrimp were observed every 10 min to identify and remove moribund shrimp from the second day of the experiment. Moribund shrimp were identified as the ones having pleopod activity, but no response to glass rod agitation. The experiment was continued until three days after the appearance of the last moribund shrimp in each aquarium. Five pieces each of moribund and survived shrimps in each aquarium were subjected to a one-step WSSV PCR assay. All moribund shrimps showed WSSV-positive, while survived shrimps showed WSSV-negative. A mathematical model (Model 1) describing the relationship among the bodyweight of one initial WSSV-infected shrimp, number of deaths, and death time distribution was established based on the experimental results.The dynamic changes of live, infected, and dead shrimps during WSSV transmissionTo determine the changes in numbers of live and dead shrimp during WSSV transmission, 9 cement ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and salinity of 8‰. Regarding the stocking quantity of 7.5 × 105/ha in shrimp farming production, 750 healthy shrimp with an average body weight of 7.9 g were cultured in each of the nine ponds.To prepare the WSSV acute-infected shrimp, healthy shrimp were starved for 3 days, and then fed with parts of dead WSSV-infected shrimp that are 20% of their body weights twice a day. Five shrimp were randomly selected and subjected to a one-step WSSV PCR assay. If the tested shrimp showed WSSV positive in the assay. The rest of the shrimp in the aquarium was used as the WSSV acute-infected shrimp in the following experiments.Healthy shrimp were quarantined for seven days before the experiment started. Thirty WSSV acute-infected shrimp were then introduced in each pond. Shrimps were fed once a day with artificial feed that is 2% of their body weight. The numbers of survived shrimp were counted in three ponds on the 2nd, 4th, 8th day after WSSV infection, respectively. Five dead shrimps in each pond were subjected to a one-step WSSV PCR assay, showing WSSV-positive. Based on model 1, we established a mathematical model (Model 2) to describe the dynamic changes of healthy, infected, and dead shrimps during WSSV transmission.The dead shrimp ingestion rate of fishTo determine the dead shrimp ingestion rate of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus). Three cement ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and a salinity of 5‰. Three grass carps with an average body weight of 0.5 kg, 1 kg, and 1.5 kg were released in each of the three ponds, respectively. The fish were raised for four days and then fed with dead shrimps with an average weight of 5.3 g. In addition, to determine the dead shrimp ingestion rate of African sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Four cement ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and salinity of 3‰. One African sharptooth catfish with bodyweight of 0.262, 0.496, 0.731, and 1.502 kg was released in each of the four ponds, respectively. The fish were raised for four days and then fed with dead shrimps with an average body weight of 6.2 g. Finally, to determine the dead shrimp ingestion rate of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Three cement ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with water volume of 5 m3 and a salinity of 5‰. One red drum with a bodyweight of 0.590, 0.654, and 0.732 kg was released in each of the three ponds, respectively. The fish were raised for four days and then fed with dead shrimps with an average body weight of 3.9 g.During the five days of the experiment, dead shrimp that were not ingested by fish were exchanged with new dead shrimps every day. Additionally, the total body weight of dead shrimp ingested by fishes was calculated by subtracting the total body weight of dead shrimp that remained in the pond from the total body weight of dead shrimp put in the pond. The shrimp ingestion rate of fish is quantified by the daily ingestion rate (total body weight of ingested shrimps per day/total body weight of fishes). The daily ingestion rate of fish was calculated for 5 days.The healthy shrimp ingestion rate of fishTo determine the healthy shrimp ingestion rate of grass carp, three experimental ponds and one control pond (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and salinity of 5‰. In total, 750 healthy shrimp with an average body weight of 5.3 g were cultured in each pond. One grass carp weighting 0.956, 1.013, and 1.050 kg was released in each of the experiment ponds, respectively. No fish was released in the control pond. Every two days, 50% of the water in each pond was changed. Live shrimp that remained in each pond were counted and weighted after 10 days of the experiment.To determine the healthy shrimp ingestion rate of African sharptooth catfish, one experimental pond and one control pond (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and salinity of 3‰. In total, 750 healthy shrimp with an average body weight of 2.2 g were cultured in each pond. One African sharptooth fish weighting 1.050 kg was released in the experiment pond. No fish was released in the control pond. Every 2 days, 50% of the water in each pond was changed. Live shrimp that remained in each pond were counted and weighted after 10 days of the experiment.To determine the healthy shrimp ingestion rate of red drum, three experimental ponds and one control pond (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm) were set up with a water volume of 5 m3 and salinity of 5‰. In total, 750 healthy shrimp with an average body weight of 2.7 g were introduced in each pond. One red drum weighting 0.519, 0.554, and 0.595 kg was released in each of the experiment ponds, respectively. No fish was released in the control pond. Every two days, 50% of the water in each pond was changed. Live shrimp that remained in each pond were counted and weighted after 10 days of the experiment.The feeding selectivity of fish on dead, infected, and healthy shrimpsTo determine the feeding selectivity of grass carp on dead, infected, and healthy shrimp, one aquarium (220 cm × 60 cm × 80 cm) was set up with a water volume of 0.5 m3 and a salinity of 5‰. Grass carp weighting 1.58 kg was cultured in the aquarium for four days before the experiment started. The diseased shrimp infected with WSSV died within two days, which makes it hard to distinguish the initial dead shrimp from the ones that were died from diseased shrimp. The diseased shrimp had reduced activity, and the activity of shrimp was reduced after the endopods and exopods were removed. Thus, shrimp with endopods and exopods removed were utilized to resemble WSSV-infected shrimp. Thirty pieces each of dead, WSSV-infected (endopods and exopods removed), and healthy shrimps were introduced in the aquarium. The mean weight of shrimp used in the experiment is 3.5 g.To determine the feeding selectivity of African sharptooth catfish on dead, infected, and healthy shrimps, one aquarium (220 cm × 60 cm × 80 cm) was set up with a water volume of 0.5 m3 and salinity of 3‰. African sharptooth catfish with body weight of 1.03 kg was cultured in the aquarium for four days before the experiment started. Thirty pieces each of dead, WSSV-infected (endopods and exopods removed), and healthy shrimps were introduced in the aquarium. The mean weight of shrimps used in the experiment is 8.4 g.During the 9 days of the experiment, the dead, infected (endopods and exopods removed), and healthy shrimp that remained in the aquarium were counted and weighed every day. New shrimps were added to ensure there are 30 pieces each of dead, infected (endopods and exopods removed), and healthy shrimp in the aquarium. The daily total body weight of shrimp that were ingested by fish in each pond was calculated by subtracting the total body weight of shrimp that remained in the pond from the total weight of shrimp put in the pond. The shrimp ingestion rate of fish is quantified by the daily ingestion rate (total body weight of ingested shrimp per day/bodyweight of fish).The suitable bodyweight of grass carp for controlling WSSTo determine the suitable bodyweight of grass carp for controlling WSS, four experimental groups and two control groups were set up. Each group consisted of three ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm). In total, 600 healthy and 3 WSSV-infected shrimp with an average body weight of 5 g were cultured in each pond of experimental groups. One grass carp with a bodyweight of 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 kg was released in the ponds of each experimental group, respectively. In the positive control group, 600 healthy and 3 WSSV-infected shrimp with an average body weight of 5.0 g were cultured in each of the three ponds without introducing grass carp. In the negative control group, 600 healthy shrimp with an average body weight of 5.0 g were cocultured with one grass carp weighting 1.0 kg in each of the three ponds. The numbers of live shrimp were counted after ten days of the experiment. If there were dead shrimp in the ponds, they were subjected to a one-step WSSV PCR assay. All dead shrimps showed positive for WSSV infection.The suitable bodyweight of African sharptooth catfish for controlling WSSTo determine the suitable bodyweight of African sharptooth catfish for controlling WSS, four experimental groups and two control groups were set up. Each group consisted of three ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm). In total, 600 healthy and WSSV carrying shrimp and 3 WSSV-infected shrimp with an average body weight of 1.5 g were cultured in each pond of experimental groups. The WSSV carrying shrimp were determined as the ones that showed positive in a two-step WSSV assay. One African sharptooth catfish with a bodyweight of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.5 kg was released in the ponds of each experimental group, respectively. In the positive control group, 600 healthy and 3 WSSV-infected shrimp with an average body weight of 1.5 g were cultured in each of the three ponds without introducing African sharptooth catfish. In the negative control group, 600 healthy shrimps with an average body weight of 1.5 g were cocultured with one African sharptooth catfish weighting 1.0 kg in each pond. The numbers of live shrimp were counted after ten days of the experiment. If there were dead shrimps in the ponds, they were subjected to a one-step WSSV PCR assay. All dead shrimps showed positive for WSSV infection.The capacity of grass carp for controlling WSSTo determine the capacity of grass carp for controlling WSS, the number of WSSV-infected shrimp that could be ingested by one grass carp weighting 1 kg was evaluated. Four groups of shrimp with different body weights (1.3 ± 0.1, 2.5 ± 0.2, 5.0 ± 0.3, 7.8 ± 0.5 g) were cocultured with 1-kg grass carp in the ponds.In 1.3 ± 0.1 g group, 750 healthy shrimp were cultured in each of the nine cement ponds (315 cm × 315 cm × 120 cm). Healthy shrimps were cultured with 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21 pieces of WSSV-infected shrimp in each of the seven experimental ponds, respectively. One grass carp weighting 1 kg was released in each of the seven ponds. Healthy shrimp were cultured with 3 WSSV-infected shrimps in one pond as a positive control. Additionally, healthy shrimps were cultured without WSSV-infected shrimp nor grass carp in one pond as a negative control. In 2.5 ± 0.2 g group, 750 healthy shrimp were cultured with 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 pieces of WSSV-infected shrimp in each of the seven experimental ponds, respectively. One grass carp weighting 1 kg was released in each of the seven ponds. Healthy shrimp were cultured with 10 WSSV-infected shrimp in one pond as a positive control. Additionally, healthy shrimps were cultured without WSSV-infected shrimp nor grass carp in one pond as a negative control. In 5.0 ± 0.3 g group, 750 healthy shrimp were cultivated with 50, 70, 90, 110, 120, 130, and 140 pieces of WSSV-infected shrimp in each of the seven experimental ponds, respectively. One grass carp weighting 1 kg was released in each of the seven ponds. Healthy shrimp were cultured with 50 WSSV-infected shrimps in one pond as a positive control. Additionally, healthy shrimps were cultured without WSSV-infected shrimps nor grass carp in one pond as a negative control. In 7.8 ± 0.5 g group, 750 healthy shrimp were cultured with 30, 40, 50, or 60 pieces of WSSV-infected shrimps in four experimental ponds, respectively. One grass carp weighting 1 kg was released in each of the four ponds. Healthy shrimp were cultured with 30 WSSV-infected shrimps in one pond as a positive control. In addition, healthy shrimps were cultured without WSSV-infected shrimps nor grass carp in one pond as a negative control.In all the ponds, shrimp were fed with artificial feed that is 2% of their body weight. And 50% of the water was changed every day. The numbers of the remaining live shrimp were counted after 15 days of the experiment. A mathematical model (Model 3) was established based on the relationship of healthy shrimp, infected shrimp, dead shrimp, and fish.Determine the numbers of grass carp and African sharptooth catfish required for controlling WSS in L. vanmamei cultivationThe number of grass carp required for controlling WSS in shrimp production was determined in Pinggang Aquaculture Base, Yangjiang, China in 2010. Forty ponds (0.34 ± 0.04 ha/pond) were divided into eight groups; each group consisted of 5 ponds. We cultured 675,000/ha of shrimp in the ponds. Shrimp were cultured for 20 days before 45, 150, 225, 300, 450, 600, 750/ha of grass carp with an average body weight of 1.0 kg were released in the ponds of group 2 to group 8. Shrimp were cultured without fish in the ponds of group 1. These 40 ponds were managed by using the same farming method. If the WSS outbreak occurred, shrimps were harvested immediately; if not, shrimps were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.The number of African sharptooth catfish required for controlling WSS in shrimp production was determined in Pinggang Aquaculture Base, Yangjiang, China in 2010. Thirty-five ponds (0.37 ± 0.06 ha/pond) were divided into seven groups; each group consisted of 5 ponds. We cultured 675,000/ha of shrimp in the ponds. Shrimp were cultured for 10 days before 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, 900/ha of African sharptooth catfish with an average body weight of 1.0 kg were released in the ponds of group 2 to group 7. Shrimp were cultured without fish in the ponds of group 1. These 35 ponds were managed by using the same farming method. If the WSS outbreak occurred, shrimps were harvested immediately; if not, shrimps were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.Validation of coculturing shrimp and grass carp for controlling WSS in L. vanmamei farmingIn 2011, the polyculture system of coculturing L. vanmamei and grass carps was validated at a farm in Maoming, Guangdong Province, China (Farm 1). Forty-six farm ponds (17.33 ha) were divided into zone A and zone B. Zone A consisted of 18 ponds with a total area of 6.03 ha, and zone B consisted of 28 ponds with a total area of 11.30 ha. The stocking quantity of shrimp in the ponds of zone A is 900,000/ha. Shrimp were cultured in the ponds for 20 days before releasing grass carps with an average body weight of 1.0 kg. The stocking quantity of fish is 317–450/ha. Shrimp were cultured without fish in the ponds of zone B, and the stocking quantity of shrimp is 900,000/ha. In 2012, we switched zones A and B, cultivating shrimp with grass carp in zone B but without fish in zone A. The stocking quantities of shrimp and fish were the same as in 2011. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimps were harvested immediately; if not, shrimps were harvested after 110 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.Validation of coculturing shrimp and African sharptooth catfish for controlling WSS in L. vanmamei farmingIn 2011, the polyculture system of coculturing L. vanmamei and African sharptooth catfish was validated at a farm in Qinzhou, Guangxi Province, China (Farm 2). Ninety-five farm ponds (88.2 ha) were divided into zone A and zone B. Zone A consisted of 38 ponds with a total area of 21.2 ha, and zone B consisted of 57 ponds with a total area of 67.0 ha. The stocking quantity of shrimp in the ponds of zone A is 750,000/ha. Shrimp were cultured in the ponds for 10 days before releasing African sharptooth catfish with an average body weight of 0.5 kg. The stocking quantity of fish is 525–750/ha. Shrimp were cultured without fish in the ponds of zone B, and the stocking quantity of shrimp is 750,000/ha. In 2012, we split zone B into zones B1 and B2. Shrimp were cultivated with catfish in 38 ponds of zone A and 25 ponds (27.00 ha) of zone B1, while shrimp were cultivated without fish in 32 ponds (40.00 ha) of zone B2. The stocking quantities of shrimp and fish were the same as in 2011. If WSS outbreak occurred, shrimps were harvested immediately; if not, shrimps were harvested after 110 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.Long-term validation of coculturing shrimp and fish for controlling WSS in L. vanmamei cultivationWe tested the effectiveness of using fish for controlling WSS in shrimp production at a farm in Maoming, Guangdong Province, China (Farm 1) from 2013 to 2019. In 2013, shrimp were co-cultured with African sharptooth catfish of body weight ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 kg in 13 ponds (3.73 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 878,788/ha to 1,230,769/ha. And shrimp were co-cultured with grass carp of body weight ranges from 0.7 kg to 1.0 kg and African sharptooth catfish of body weight ranges from 0.5 kg to 0.6 kg in 10 ponds (3.7 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 909,091/ha to 1,212,121/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 11 ponds (3.63 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 878,788/ha to 969,697/ha. If WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2014, shrimp were cocultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 kg in 8 ponds (2.76 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 833,333/ha to 1,060,606/ha. And shrimp were co-cultured with grass carp of body weight ranges from 0.7 to 1.0 kg and African sharptooth catfish of body weight ranges from 0.5 to 0.6 kg in 12 ponds (4.03 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 825,000/ha to 1,060,606/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 5 ponds. The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds was 1,060,606/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2015, shrimp were co-cultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 kg in 19 ponds (7.4 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 746,269 to 1,538,462/ha. In addition, shrimp were cultured without fish in 10 ponds (3.8 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 750,000 to 909,091/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2016, shrimp were co-cultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 kg in 19 ponds (8.11 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 488,372/ha to 636,364/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 8 ponds (2.84 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 543,478/ha to 636,364/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2017, shrimp were cocultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 kg in 6 ponds (1.56 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds was 961,538/ha. And shrimps were co-cultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 kg to 1.0 kg and African sharptooth catfish of body weight ranges from 0.5 to 0.6 kg in 12 ponds (3.96 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 848,485/ha to 909,091/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 9 ponds (2.76 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 848,485/ha to 961,538/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2018, shrimp were cocultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7g to 1.0 kg in 22 ponds (9.24 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 454,545/ha to 869,565/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 9 ponds (3.36 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 695,652/ha to 861,111/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.In 2019, shrimp were cocultured with grass carp of body weight ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 kg in 30 ponds (11.31 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 652,174/ha to 1,000,000/ha. Additionally, shrimp were cultured without fish in 10 ponds (3.57 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds ranges from 666,667/ha to 1,000,000/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 110 days of cultivation.Validation of coculturing shrimp and brown-marbled grouper for controlling WSS in P. monodon farmingIn 2013, the polyculture system of coculturing P. monodon and brown-marbled grouper was validated at a farm in Changjiang, Hainan Province, China (Farm 3). We cultured 6 × 105/ha of non-SPF shrimp in 6 ponds (1.60 ha) for 30 days and then introduced 600~750/ha of brown-marbled grouper with an average body weight of 0.1 kg. Shrimp were also cultured without fish in 3 ponds (0.8 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds is 6 × 105/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 150 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.In 2014, we cultured 6 × 105/ha of non-SPF shrimp in 6 ponds (1.60 ha) for 30 days and then introduced 600–750/ha of brown-marbled grouper with an average body weight of 0.1 kg. Shrimps were also cultured without fish in 3 ponds (0.8 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds is 6 × 105/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 150 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.Validation of coculturing shrimp and branded gobies for controlling WSS in M. japonica farmingIn 2013, the polyculture system of coculturing M. japonica and branded gobies was validated at a farm in Qingdao, Shandong Province, China (Farm 4). We cultured 1.5 × 105/ha of non-SPF shrimp in 10 ponds (13.40 ha) for 30 days and then introduced 750~900/ha of branded gobies with an average body weight of 0.05 kg. Shrimp were also cultured without fish in 5 ponds (6.70 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds is 1.5 × 105/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 100 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.In 2014, we cultured 1.5 × 105/ha of non-SPF shrimp in 10 ponds (13.40 ha) for 30 days and then introduced 750~900/ha of branded gobies with an average body weight of 0.1 kg. Shrimp were also cultured without fish in 5 ponds (6.70 ha). The stocking quantity of shrimp in these ponds is 1.5 × 105/ha. If a WSS outbreak occurred, shrimp were harvested immediately; if not, shrimp were harvested after 100 days of cultivation, and yields were measured.Promotion of the polyculture system at a farmers’ association in Nansha, ChinaWhen we promoted the polyculture system at the farmers’ association in 2015, only 6 farmers decided to adopt the system, as most of the farmers worried that fish would ingest healthy shrimp. Each of the 6 farmers introduced 225,000, 360,000, and 360,000 P.monodon postlarva to his/her earthen pond (3 ha) on March 28, May 8, and June 15, respectively. And 1350 grass carps with an average body weight of 1 kg were released in the ponds on April 30. These farmers harvested shrimp from May to November, and grass carp on December 14. The yields of shrimp and fish of these six ponds were recoded. The other farmers in the association introduced 225,000 and 360,000 of P.monodon postlarva to their ponds (3 ha) on March 28 and May 8, respectively. WSS outbreaks occur in their ponds from May 15 to May 23. Therefore, these farmers only harvested shrimp in May. Six ponds were randomly selected, and the yields of these ponds were recorded.Promotion of the polyculture system at a farmers’ association in Tanghai, ChinaFarmers at the farmers’ association used to culture 1500/ha of F. chinensis in earthen pond (5 ha) before the promotion of the polyculture system in 2015. The yields of 10 randomly selected ponds in 2014 were recorded. In 2015, farmers at the association started to culture 8,000/ha of F. chinensis in their ponds. The shrimp were cultured 20 days before 800/ha of branded gobies with an average body weight of 0.05 kg were released in the ponds. Branded gobies were cultivated for 15 days before introducing to the ponds. Shrimps were harvested after 120 days of cultivation. The yields of ten randomly selected ponds were recorded.Statistics and reproducibilityAlpha levels of 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant throughout the study. Three replicates were set up for each experiment to confirm the reproducibility of the data. All data are reported as the mean ± standard errors.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

1.Brazil. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service https://www.fas.usda.gov/regions/brazil (2019).2.Planilha do PIB do Agronegócio Brasileiro de 1996 a 2018 (Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada, 2018); https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br/pib-do-agronegocio-brasileiro.aspx3.Boletim da Safra de Grãos. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos (2020).4.Projeções do Agronegócio: Brasil 2017/18 a 2027/28 Projeções de Longo Prazo (Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, 2018).5.Atlas Irrigação: Uso da Água na Agricultura Irrigada (Agência Nacional de Águas, 2017).6.Costa, M. H. et al. Climate risks to Amazon agriculture suggest a rationale to conserve local ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 584–590 (2019).
Google Scholar 
7.Fu, R. et al. Increased dry-season length over southern Amazonia in recent decades and its implication for future climate projection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18110–18115 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Spera, S. A., Galford, G. L., Coe, M. T., Macedo, M. N. & Mustard, J. F. Land-use change affects water recycling in Brazil’s last agricultural frontier. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3405–3413 (2016).
Google Scholar 
9.Abrahão, G. M. & Costa, M. H. Evolution of rain and photoperiod limitations on the soybean growing season in Brazil: the rise (and possible fall) of double-cropping systems. Agric. Meteorol. 256–257, 32–45 (2018).
Google Scholar 
10.Silvério, D. V. et al. Agricultural expansion dominates climate changes in southeastern Amazonia: the overlooked non-GHG forcing. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 104015 (2015).
Google Scholar 
11.Barkhordarian, A., Saatchi, S. S., Behrangi, A., Loikith, P. C. & Mechoso, C. R. A recent systematic increase in vapor pressure deficit over tropical South America. Sci. Rep. 9, 15331 (2019).
Google Scholar 
12.Barkhordarian, A., von Storch, H., Zorita, E., Loikith, P. C. & Mechoso, C. R. Observed warming over northern South America has an anthropogenic origin. Clim. Dyn. 51, 1901–1914 (2018).
Google Scholar 
13.Leite‐Filho, A. T., Costa, M. H. & Fu, R. The southern Amazon rainy season: the role of deforestation and its interactions with large‐scale mechanisms. Int. J. Climatol. 40, 2328–2341 (2020).
Google Scholar 
14.FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC15.Presidência da República Secretaria-Geral Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos (Ministério da Agricultura, 2015).16.Rashid, M. A. et al. Impact of heat-wave at high and low VPD on photosynthetic components of wheat and their recovery. Environ. Exp. Bot. 147, 138–146 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Lobell, D. B. et al. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the U.S. Midwest. Science 344, 516–519 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Fletcher, A. L., Sinclair, T. R. & Allen, L. H. Transpiration responses to vapor pressure deficit in well watered ‘slow-wilting’ and commercial soybean. Environ. Exp. Bot. 61, 145–151 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Bunce, J. A. Comparative responses of leaf conductance to humidity in single attached leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 32, 629–634 (1981).
Google Scholar 
20.Kiniry, J. et al. Radiation-use efficiency response to vapor pressure deficit for maize and sorghum. Field Crops Res. 56, 265–270 (1998).
Google Scholar 
21.Spera, S. A. et al. Recent cropping frequency, expansion, and abandonment in Mato Grosso, Brazil had selective land characteristics. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 064010 (2014).
Google Scholar 
22.Dias, L. C. P., Pimenta, F. M., Santos, A. B., Costa, M. H. & Ladle, R. J. Patterns of land use, extensification, and intensification of Brazilian agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2887–2903 (2016).
Google Scholar 
23.Cohn, A. S., Vanwey, L. K., Spera, S. A. & Mustard, J. F. Cropping frequency and area response to climate variability can exceed yield response. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 601–604 (2016).
Google Scholar 
24.Morton, D. C. et al. Reevaluating suitability estimates based on dynamics of cropland expansion in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Environ. Change 37, 92–101 (2016).
Google Scholar 
25.Duursma, R. A. et al. The peaked response of transpiration rate to vapour pressure deficit in field conditions can be explained by the temperature optimum of photosynthesis. Agric. Meteorol. 189–190, 2–10 (2014).
Google Scholar 
26.Spera, S. A., Winter, J. M. & Partridge, T. F. Brazilian maize yields negatively affected by climate after land clearing. Nat. Sustain. 3, 845–852 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Cirino, P. H., Féres, J. G., Braga, M. J. & Reis, E. Assessing the impacts of ENSO-related weather effects on the Brazilian agriculture. Proc. Econ. Financ. 24, 146–155 (2015).
Google Scholar 
28.Pereira, P. A. A., Martha, G. B., Santana, C. A. & Alves, E. The development of Brazilian agriculture: future technological challenges and opportunities. Agric. Food Secur. 1, 4 (2012).
Google Scholar 
29.Marengo, J. A. & Bernasconi, M. Regional differences in aridity/drought conditions over Northeast Brazil: present state and future projections. Climatic Change 129, 103–115 (2015).
Google Scholar 
30.Naylor, R. L. Energy and resource constraints on intensive agricultural production. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 21, 99–123 (1996).
Google Scholar 
31.Getirana, A. Extreme water deficit in Brazil detected from space. J. Hydrometeorol. 17, 591–599 (2016).
Google Scholar 
32.Lathuillière, M. J., Coe, M. T. & Johnson, M. S. A review of green- and blue-water resources and their trade-offs for future agricultural production in the Amazon Basin: what could irrigated agriculture mean for Amazonia? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 2179–2194 (2016).
Google Scholar 
33.Dobrovolski, R. & Rattis, L. Water collapse in Brazil: the danger of relying on what you neglect. Nat. Conserv. 13, 80–83 (2015).
Google Scholar 
34.da Silva, A. L. et al. Water appropriation on the agricultural frontier in western Bahia and its contribution to streamflow reduction: revisiting the debate in the Brazilian Cerrado. Water 13, 1054 (2021).
Google Scholar 
35.Pousa, R. et al. Climate change and intense irrigation growth in western Bahia, Brazil: the urgent need for hydroclimatic monitoring. Water 11, 933 (2019).
Google Scholar 
36.Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. Limits on yields in the corn belt. Science 344, 484–485 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.de Bossoreille de Ribou, S., Douam, F., Hamant, O., Frohlich, M. W. & Negrutiu, I. Plant science and agricultural productivity: why are we hitting the yield ceiling? Plant Sci. 210, 159–176 (2013).
Google Scholar 
38.Long, S. P. & Ort, D. R. More than taking the heat: crops and global change. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 13, 240–247 (2010).
Google Scholar 
39.Pommer, C. V. & Barbosa, W. The impact of breeding on fruit production in warm climates of Brazil. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 31, 612–634 (2009).
Google Scholar 
40.Lenka, N. K. et al. Carbon dioxide and temperature elevation effects on crop evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in soybean as affected by different nitrogen levels. Agric. Water Manag. 230, 105936 (2020).
Google Scholar 
41.Soares, W. R., Marengo, J. A. & Nobre, C. A. Assessment of warming projections and probabilities for Brazil in Climate Change Risks in Brazil (eds Nobre, C. et al.) 7–30 (Springer, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92881-4_242.Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19656–19657 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. Reply to Hausfather and Peters: RCP8.5 is neither problematic nor misleading. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 27793–27794 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Sistematização das Informações sobre Recursos Naturais—Mapa de Biomas do Brasil (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2006); https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/cartas-e-mapas/informacoes-ambientais/15842-biomas.html?=&t=downloads45.Base Cartográfica Continua Do Brasil, Escala 1:250.000—BC250 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2019); https://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/cartas_e_mapas/bases_cartograficas_continuas/bc250/versao2019/informacoes_tecnicas/Documentacao_bc250_v2019.pdf46.Campos, J., de, O. & Chaves, H. M. L. Tendências e variabilidades nas séries históricas de precipitação mensal e anual no bioma Cerrado no período 1977–2010. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 35, 157–169 (2020).
Google Scholar 
47.Debortoli, N. S. et al. Rainfall patterns in the southern Amazon: a chronological perspective (1971–2010). Climatic Change 132, 251–264 (2015).
Google Scholar 
48.Oliveira, P. T. S. et al. Trends in water balance components across the Brazilian Cerrado. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7100–7114 (2014).
Google Scholar 
49.Panisset, J. S. et al. Contrasting patterns of the extreme drought episodes of 2005, 2010 and 2015 in the Amazon Basin. Int. J. Climatol. 38, 1096–1104 (2018).
Google Scholar 
50.Cai, W. et al. Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 111–116 (2014).
Google Scholar 
51.Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 33130 (2016).
Google Scholar 
52.Marengo, J. A. & Espinoza, J. C. Extreme seasonal droughts and floods in Amazonia: causes, trends and impacts. Int. J. Climatol. 36, 1033–1050 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Funk, C. et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data 2, 150066 (2015).
Google Scholar 
54.Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Sci. Data 5, 170191 (2018).
Google Scholar 
55.Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).
Google Scholar 
56.Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).
Google Scholar 
57.R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).58.Challinor, A. J. & Wheeler, T. R. Crop yield reduction in the tropics under climate change: processes and uncertainties. Agric. Meteorol. 148, 343–356 (2008).
Google Scholar 
59.Bates, D. et al. lme4. R package version (2012).60.Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.0.0 (2009).61.Arvor, D., Dubreuil, V., Ronchail, J., Simões, M. & Funatsu, B. M. Spatial patterns of rainfall regimes related to levels of double cropping agriculture systems in Mato Grosso (Brazil). Int. J. Climatol. 34, 2622–2633 (2014).
Google Scholar 
62.Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).
Google Scholar 
63.Brill, F., Passuni Pineda, S., Espichán Cuya, B. & Kreibich, H. A data-mining approach towards damage modelling for El Niño events in Peru. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 11, 1966–1990 (2020).
Google Scholar 
64.Rattis, L. ludmilarattis/effect-of-climate-on–agriculture: Rattis_etal_NCC_2021. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/badge/latestdoi/271879616 (2021).65.Malhi, Y. et al. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20610–20615 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Castanho, A. D. A. et al. Potential shifts in the aboveground biomass and physiognomy of a seasonally dry tropical forest in a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034053 (2020).
Google Scholar 
67.Allen, R. G. et al. The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005).68.IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).69.Koutroulis, A. G., Grillakis, M. G., Tsanis, I. K. & Papadimitriou, L. Evaluation of precipitation and temperature simulation performance of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 historical experiments. Clim. Dyn. 47, 1881–1898 (2016).
Google Scholar 
70.Análise Territorial para o Desenvolvimento da Agricultura Irrigada no Brasil (Ministério da Integração Nacional, 2014). More

1.O’Connor. Whale Watching Worldwide: Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Economic Benefits. A special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare Yarmouth, USA. Prepared by Economists at Large. www.ecolarge.com (2009). Accessed 15 Apr 2021.2.Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sumaila, U. R., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. The global potential for whale watching. Mar. Policy 34, 1273–1278 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Parsons, E. C. M. The negative impacts of whale-watching. J. Mar. Biol. 2012, 1–9 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Hoyt, E. & Hvenegaard, G. T. A review of whale-watching and whaling. Coast. Manag. 30, 381–399 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Cunningham, P. A., Huijbens, E. H. & Wearing, S. L. From whaling to whale watching: Examining sustainability and cultural rhetoric. J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 143–161 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Senigaglia, V. et al. Meta-analyses of whale-watching impact studies: Comparisons of cetacean responses to disturbance. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 542, 251–263 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Bejder, L. et al. Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1791–1798 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Lusseau, D., Slooten, L. & Currey, R. J. C. Unsustainable dolphin-watching tourism in Fiordland, New Zealand. Tour. Mar. Environ. 3, 173–178 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Erbe, C. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18, 394–418 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Sprogis, K. R., Videsen, S. & Madsen, P. T. Vessel noise levels drive behavioural responses of humpback whales with implications for whale-watching. Elife 9, 1–17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Au, W. W. L. The Sonar of Dolphins (Springer, 1993).Book 

Google Scholar 
12.Tyack, P. L. & Clark, C. W. Communication and acoustic behavior of dolphins and whales. In Hearing by Whales and Dolphins (eds. Au, W. W. L., Fay, R. R. & Popper, A. N.) 156–224 (Springer, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1150-1_4.13.Lesage, V., Barrette, C., Kingsley, M. C. S. & Sjare, B. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15, 65–84 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Jensen, F. H. et al. Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 161–175 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pirotta, E. et al. Vessel noise affects beaked whale behavior: Results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS One 7, e42535 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Slabbekoorn, H. et al. A noisy spring: The impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 419–427 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Andrew, R. K., Howe, B. M. & Mercer, J. A. Long-time trends in ship traffic noise for four sites off the North American West Coast. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 642–651 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Miksis-Olds, J. L. & Nichols, S. M. Is low frequency ocean sound increasing globally?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139, 501–511 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Payne, R. & Webb, D. Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in Baleen whales. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 188, 110–141 (1971).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Melcón, M. L. et al. Blue whales respond to anthropogenic noise. PLoS One 7, e32681 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Romagosa, M. et al. Underwater ambient noise in a baleen whale migratory habitat off the Azores. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–14 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Aguilar Soto, N. et al. Does intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)?. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 22, 690–699 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Wisniewska, D. M. et al. High rates of vessel noise disrupt foraging in wild harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20172314 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hermannsen, L., Beedholm, K., Tougaard, J. & Madsen, P. T. High frequency components of ship noise in shallow water with a discussion of implications for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136, 1640–1653 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Wladichuk, J., Hannay, D. E., MacGillivray, A. O., Li, Z. & Thornton, S. J. Systematic source level measurements of whale watching vessels and other small boats. J. Ocean Technol. 14, 108–126 (2019).
Google Scholar 
26.Arranz, P., Aguilar de Soto, N., Madsen, P. T. & Sprogis, K. R. Whale-watch vessel noise levels with applications to whale-watching guidelines and conservation. Mar. Policy 134, 104776 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Higham, J., Bejder, L. & Williams, R. Whale-Watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Management (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
28.Montero, R. & Arechavaleta, M. Distribution patterns: Relationships between depths, sea surface temperature, and habitat use of Short-finned pilot whales south-west of Tenerife. Eur. Res. Cetaceans 10, 193–198 (1996).
Google Scholar 
29.Servidio, A. et al. Site fidelity and movement patterns of short-finned pilot whales within the Canary Islands: Evidence for resident and transient populations. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 227–241 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Würsig, B. Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Odontocetes (Springer, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16663-2_23.Book 

Google Scholar 
31.Sequeira, M. et al. Review of whalewatching activities in mainland Portugal, the Azores, Madeira and Canary archipelagos and the Strait of Gibraltar. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. SC61/WW11, 1–40 (2009).
32.IWC whale-watching handbook. https://wwhandbook.iwc.int/es/case-studies/canary-islands-spain#Accessed 15 Apr 2021.33.Hoyt, E. Tourism. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 1010–1014 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00262-4.
34.Kasuya, T. & Matsui, S. Age determination and growth of the short-finned pilot whale off the Pacific coast of Japan. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 35, 57–91 (1984).
Google Scholar 
35.Reddy, M., Kamolnick, T., Skaar, D., Curry, C. & Ridgway, S. Bottlenose dolphins: Energy consumption during pregnancy, lactation, and growth. Int. Mar. Mammal Trainers Assoc. Conf. Proc. 30–37 (1991).36.Srinivasan, M., Swannack, T. M., Grant, W. E., Rajan, J. & Würsig, B. To feed or not to feed? Bioenergetic impacts of fear-driven behaviors in lactating dolphins. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1384–1398 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Marsh, H. & Kasuya, T. Changes in the role of a female pilot whale with age. In Dolphin Societies (eds. Pryor, K. & Norris, K.S.) 281–286 (University of California Press, 1991).38.Augusto, J. F., Frasier, T. R. & Whitehead, H. Characterizing alloparental care in the pilot whale (Globicephala melas) population that summers off Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 440–456 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Quick, N., Scott-hayward, L., Sadykova, D., Nowacek, D. & Read, A. Effects of a scientific echo sounder on the behavior of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 716–726 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Würsig, B. & Jefferson, T. A. Methods of photo-identification for small cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission (1990).41.Greenhow, D. R., Brodsky, M. C., Lingenfelser, R. G. & Mann, D. A. Hearing threshold measurements of five stranded short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 531–536 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Tougaard, J. & Beedholm, K. Practical implementation of auditory time and frequency weighting in marine bioacoustics. Appl. Acoust. 145, 137–143 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pérez, J. M., Jensen, F. H., Rojano-Doñate, L. & Aguilar de Soto, N. Different modes of acoustic communication in deep-diving short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 33, 59–79 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Pacini, A. F. et al. Audiogram of a formerly stranded long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) measured using auditory evoked potentials. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 3138–3143 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Christiansen, F., Rojano-Doñate, L., Madsen, P. T. & Bejder, L. Noise levels of multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles with implications for potential underwater impacts on marine mammals. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–9 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Christiansen, F., Nielsen, M. L. K., Charlton, C., Bejder, L. & Madsen, P. T. Southern right whales show no behavioral response to low noise levels from a nearby unmanned aerial vehicle. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 36, 953–963 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Giles, A. B. et al. Responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) to small drones. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31, 677–684 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Nielsen, M. L. K., Sprogis, K. R., Bejder, L., Madsen, P. T. & Christiansen, F. Behavioural development in southern right whale calves. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 629, 219–234 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Hofmann, B., Scheer, M. & Behr, I. P. Underwater behaviors of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) off Tenerife. Mammalia 68, 221–224 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Lockyer, C. All creatures great and smaller: A study in cetacean life history energetics. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 87, 1035–1045 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Hin, V., Harwood, J. & de Roos, A. M. Bio-energetic modeling of medium-sized cetaceans shows high sensitivity to disturbance in seasons of low resource supply. Ecol. Appl. 29, 1–19 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Christiansen, F., Rasmussen, M. H. & Lusseau, D. Inferring energy expenditure from respiration rates in minke whales to measure the effects of whale watching boat interactions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 459, 96–104 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Mann, J., Connor, R. C., Tyack, P. L. & Whitehead, H. Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales (The University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Google Scholar 
54.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2018).56.National Marine Fisheries Service. Technical guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal hearing underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55. (2016).57.Heimlich-Boran, J. R. Social Organisation of the Short-finned Pilot Whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus, with Special Reference to the Comparative Social Ecology of Delphinids (University of Cambridge, 1993).
Google Scholar 
58.Hastie, G. D., Wilson, B., Tufft, L. H. & Thompson, P. M. Bottlenose dolphins increase breathing synchrony in response to boat traffic. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 19, 74–084 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Williams, R. & Noren, D. P. Swimming speed, respiration rate, and estimated cost of transport in adult killer whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 25, 327–350 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Senigaglia, V. & Whitehead, H. Synchronous breathing by pilot whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 28, 213–219 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Aguilar Soto, N. et al. Cheetahs of the deep sea: Deep foraging sprints in short-finned pilot whales off Tenerife (Canary Islands). J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 936–947 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Ariza, A. et al. Vertical distribution, composition and migratory patterns of acoustic scattering layers in the Canary Islands. J. Mar. Syst. 157, 82–91 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Owen, K., Andrews, R. D., Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S. & Webster, D. L. Lunar cycles influence the diving behavior and habitat use of short-finned pilot whales around the main Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 629, 193–206 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Kasuya, T. & Marsh, H. Life history and reproductive biology of the short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus, off the Pacific coast of Japan. Rep. Int. Whal. Commun. Spec. Iss. 6, 259–310 (1984).
Google Scholar 
65.Barton, E. et al. The transition zone of the canary current upwelling region. Prog. Ocean. 41, 455–504 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Olson, P. A. Pilot Whales: Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 3rd ed (eds. Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Kovacs, K. M.) 701–705 (Academic Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00194-1.67.Puig-Lozano, R. et al. Retrospective study of fishery interactions in stranded cetaceans, Canary Islands. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 1–15 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Almunia, J., Delponti, P. & Rosa, F. Using automatic identification system (AIS) data to estimate whale watching effort. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 827 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Schlundt, C. E. et al. Auditory evoked potentials in two short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 1111–1116 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Visser, F. et al. Risso’s dolphins alter daily resting pattern in response to whale watching at the Azores. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 27, 366–381 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Constantine, R., Brunton, D. H. & Dennis, T. Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biol. Conserv. 117, 299–307 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Stensland, E. & Berggren, P. Behavioural changes in female Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in response to boat-based tourism. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 332, 225–234 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Jensen, F. H., Perez, J. M., Johnson, M., Soto, N. A. & Madsen, P. T. Calling under pressure: Short-finned pilot whales make social calls during deep foraging dives. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3017–3025 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Kiszka, J. J., Caputo, M., Méndez-Fernandez, P. & Fielding, R. Feeding ecology of elusive Caribbean killer whales inferred from bayesian stable isotope mixing models and whalers’ ecological knowledge. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Whitehead, H. Babysitting, dive synchrony, and indications of alloparental care in sperm whales. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 237–244 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Konrad, C. M. Kinship in Sperm Whale Society: Effects on Association, Alloparental Care and Vocalization (Dalhousie University, 2017).
Google Scholar 
77.Leung, E. S., Vergara, V. & Barrett-Lennard, L. G. Allonursing in captive belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). Zoo Biol. 29, 633–637 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Houston, A. I. & Carbone, C. The optimal allocation of time during the diving cycle. Behav. Ecol. 3, 255–265 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Thompson, D. & Fedak, M. A. How long should a dive last? A simple model of foraging decisions by breath-hold divers in a patchy environment. Anim. Behav. 61, 287–296 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Aoki, K., Sato, K., Isojunno, S., Narazaki, T. & Miller, P. J. O. High diving metabolic rate indicated by high-speed transit to depth in negatively buoyant long-finned pilot whales. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 3802–3811 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.New, L. F. et al. The modelling and assessment of whale-watching impacts. Ocean Coast. Manag. 115, 10–16 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Parsons, M. J. G., Duncan, A. J., Parsons, S. K. & Erbe, C. Reducing vessel noise: An example of a solar-electric passenger ferry. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147, 3575–3583 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Dale, S. J., Hebner, R. E. & Sulligoi, G. Electric ship technologies. Proc. IEEE 103, 2225–2228 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Anwar, S., Zia, M. Y. I., Rashid, M., De Rubens, G. Z. & Enevoldsen, P. Towards ferry electrification in the maritime sector. Energies 13, 1–22 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
85.Filby, N. E., Christiansen, F., Scarpaci, C. & Stockin, K. A. Effects of swim-with-dolphin tourism on the behaviour of a threatened species, the Burrunan dolphin Tursiops Australis. Endanger. Species Res. 32, 479–490 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Sprogis, K. R., Bejder, L., Hanf, D. & Christiansen, F. Behavioural responses of migrating humpback whales to swim-with-whale activities in the Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 522, 151254 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More