Ecology

1.Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484–1241484 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Treves, A. & Karanth, K. U. Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1491–1499 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Linnell, J. D. C. & Boitani, L. Building biological realism into wolf management policy: The development of the population approach in Europe. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 23, 80–91 (2011).
Google Scholar 
4.Heurich, M. et al. Illegal hunting as a major driver of the source-sink dynamics of a reintroduced lynx population in Central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 224, 355–365 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Vandel, J.-M., Zimmermann, F. & Breitenmoser, U. Demography of lynx Lynx lynx in the Jura Mountains. Wildl. Biol. 13, 381–392 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Clutton-Brock, T. & Sheldon, B. C. Individuals and populations: The role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 562–573 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.O’Connell, A., Nichols, J. D. & Karanth, K. U. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses. (Springer Tokyo, 2011).8.Noss, A. J. et al. A Camera trapping and radio telemetry study of lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris) in Bolivian Dry Forests. Tapir Cons. 12, 9 (2003).
Google Scholar 
9.Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 11 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Satter, C. B., Augustine, B. C., Harmsen, B. J., Foster, R. J. & Kelly, M. J. Sex‐specific population dynamics of ocelots in Belize using open population spatial capture–recapture. Ecosphere 10, e02792 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Silver, S. C. et al. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38, 148–154 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Zimmermann, F., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Molinari-Jobin, A. & Breitenmoser, U. Optimizing the size of the area surveyed for monitoring a Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) population in the Swiss Alps by means of photographic capture–recapture. Integr. Zool. 8, 232–243 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Royle, J. A., Chandler, R. B., Sollmann, R. & Gardner, B. Spatial Capture–Recapture. (Elsevier, 2014).
Google Scholar 
14.Chandler, R. B. & Clark, J. D. Spatially explicit integrated population models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1351–1360 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Kaczensky, P. et al. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores—Bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine in Europe (EuropeanCommission, 2013).16.Magg, N. et al. Habitat availability is not limiting the distribution of the Bohemian–Bavarian lynx Lynx lynx population. Oryx 50, 742–752 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Müller, J. et al. Protected areas shape the spatial distribution of a European lynx population more than 20 years after reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 177, 210–217 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Bull, J. K. et al. The effect of reintroductions on the genetic variability in Eurasian lynx populations: The cases of Bohemian–Bavarian and Vosges–Palatinian populations. Conserv. Genet. 17, 1229–1234 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Walston, J. et al. Bringing the tiger back from the brink—The six percent solution. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000485 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewski, W. & Okarma, H. Spatial organization and social relations in the Eurasian lynx population in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 42, 289–312 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Bunnefeld, N., Linnell, J. D. C., Odden, J., van Duijn, M. A. J. & Andersen, R. Risk taking by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in a human-dominated landscape: Effects of sex and reproductive status. J. Zool. 270, 31–39 (2006).
Google Scholar 
22.Gaillard, J.-M., Nilsen, E. B., Odden, J., Andrén, H. & Linnell, J. D. C. One size fits all: Eurasian lynx females share a common optimal litter size. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 107–115 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Nilsen, E. B., Linnell, J. D. C., Odden, J., Samelius, G. & Andrén, H. Patterns of variation in reproductive parameters in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 57, 217–223 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F. & Wibisono, H. T. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim. Conserv. 6, 131–139 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Cailleret, M., Heurich, M. & Bugmann, H. Reduction in browsing intensity may not compensate climate change effects on tree species composition in the Bavarian Forest National Park. For. Ecol. Manag. 328, 179–192 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Heurich, M. et al. Country, cover or protection: What shapes the distribution of red deer and roe deer in the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem?. PLoS ONE 10, e0120960 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.van Beeck Calkoen, S. T. S. et al. The blame game: Using eDNA to identify species-specific tree browsing by red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a temperate forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 451, 117483 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Wölfl, M. et al. Distribution and status of lynx in the border region between Czech Republic, Germany and Austria. Acta Theriol. 46, 181–194 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Mináriková, T. et al. Lynx monitoring report for Bohemian–Bavarian–Austrian lynx population for lynx year 2017 (INTERREG Central Europe, 2019).30.Weingarth, K. et al. First estimation of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) abundance and density using digital cameras and capture–recapture techniques in a German national park. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 35, 197–207 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Belotti, E. et al. Patterns of lynx predation at the interface between protected areas and multi-use landscapes in Central Europe. PLoS ONE 10, e0138139 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Tobler, M. W. & Powell, G. V. N. Estimating jaguar densities with camera traps: Problems with current designs and recommendations for future studies. Biol. Conserv. 159, 109–118 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Zimmermann, F., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. & Breitenmoser, U. Natal dispersal of Eurasian lynx ( Lynx lynx ) in Switzerland. J. Zool. 267, 381 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Andrén, H. et al. Survival rates and causes of mortality in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in multi-use landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 131, 23–32 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Gimenez, O. et al. Spatial density estimates of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in the French Jura and Vosges Mountains. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11707–11715 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Pesenti, E. & Zimmermann, F. Density estimations of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in the Swiss Alps. J. Mammal. 94, 73–81 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Weingarth, K. et al. Hide and seek: Extended camera-trap session lengths and autumn provide best parameters for estimating lynx densities in mountainous areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 2935–2952 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Pollock, K. H. A capture–recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J. Wildl. Manag. 46, 752 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Augustine, B. benaug/OpenPopSCR. (2019). https://github.com/benaug/OpenPopSCR.40.Ergon, T. & Gardner, B. Separating mortality and emigration: Modelling space use, dispersal and survival with robust-design spatial capture–recapture data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1327–1336 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Schaub, M. & Royle, J. A. Estimating true instead of apparent survival using spatial Cormack–Jolly–Seber models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1316–1326 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K. & Vines, K. CODA: Convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6, 7–11 (2005).
Google Scholar 
43.Brooks, S. P. & Gelman, A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 434–455 (1998).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
44.Efford, M. secr 4.1—Spatially explicit capture–recapture in R. (2019). https://cran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2019-12-24/web/packages/secr/vignettes/secr-overview.pdf.45.Burnham, K. P. & Overton, W. S. Robust estimation of population size when capture probabilities vary among animals. Ecology 60, 927–936 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R. & Burnham, K. P. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information–Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
47.O’Brien, T. G. Abundance, density and relative abundance: A conceptual framework. In Camera Traps in Animal Ecology (eds O’Connell, A. F. et al.) 71–96 (Springer Japan, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99495-4_6.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
48.Rovero, F. & Zimmermann, F. Camera Trapping for Wildlife Research (Pelagic Publishing Ltd, 2016).
Google Scholar 
49.Augustine, B. C. et al. Sex-specific population dynamics and demography of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus L.) in a patchy environment. Popul. Ecol. 62, 80–90 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Duľa, M. et al. Multi-seasonal systematic camera-trapping reveals fluctuating densities and high turnover rates of Carpathian lynx on the western edge of its native range. Sci. Rep. 11, 9236 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Avgan, B., Zimmermann, F., Güntert, M., Arıkan, F. & Breitenmoser, U. The first density estimation of an isolated Eurasian lynx population in southwest Asia. Wildl. Biol. 20, 217–221 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Mengüllüoğlu, D., Ambarlı, H., Berger, A. & Hofer, H. Foraging ecology of Eurasian lynx populations in southwest Asia: Conservation implications for a diet specialist. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9451–9463 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Heurich, M. et al. Activity patterns of Eurasian lynx are modulated by light regime and individual traits over a wide latitudinal range. PLoS ONE 9, e114143 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Jedrzejewski, W. et al. Population dynamics (1869–1994), demography, and home ranges of the lynx in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland and Belarus). Ecography 19, 122–138 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Gardner, B., Sollmann, R., Kumar, N. S., Jathanna, D. & Karanth, K. U. State space and movement specification in open population spatial capture–recapture models. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10336–10344 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.López-Bao, J. V. et al. Eurasian lynx fitness shows little variation across Scandinavian human-dominated landscapes. Sci. Rep. 9, 8903 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Engleder, T. et al. First breeding record of a 1-year-old female Eurasian lynx. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65, 17 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Heurich, M. et al. Selective predation of a stalking predator on ungulate prey. PLoS ONE 11, e0158449 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Andrén, H. & Liberg, O. Large impact of Eurasian lynx predation on roe deer population dynamics. PLoS ONE 10, e0120570 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Elmhagen, B. & Rushton, S. P. Trophic control of mesopredators in terrestrial ecosystems: Top-down or bottom-up?. Ecol. Lett. 10, 197–206 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Wikenros, C. et al. Fear or food—Abundance of red fox in relation to occurrence of lynx and wolf. Sci. Rep. 7, 9059 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Helldin, J. O., Liberg, O. & Glöersen, G. Lynx (Lynx lynx) killing red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in boreal Sweden? Frequency and population effects. J. Zool. 270, 657–663 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Sollmann, R., Mohamed, A., Samejima, H. & Wilting, A. Risky business or simple solution—Relative abundance indices from camera-trapping. Biol. Conserv. 159, 405–412 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Linnell, J. D. C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N. & Boitani, L. Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation: Relationship between people and nature. Conserv. Biol. 29, 978–985 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

.readcube-buybox { display: none !important;}

Toxic algae are likely to begin blooming more frequently in Arctic waters as the climate and the ocean warm1.



Access options

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

/* style specs start */
style{display:none!important}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 *{align-content:stretch;align-items:stretch;align-self:auto;animation-delay:0s;animation-direction:normal;animation-duration:0s;animation-fill-mode:none;animation-iteration-count:1;animation-name:none;animation-play-state:running;animation-timing-function:ease;azimuth:center;backface-visibility:visible;background-attachment:scroll;background-blend-mode:normal;background-clip:borderBox;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;background-origin:paddingBox;background-position:0 0;background-repeat:repeat;background-size:auto auto;block-size:auto;border-block-end-color:currentcolor;border-block-end-style:none;border-block-end-width:medium;border-block-start-color:currentcolor;border-block-start-style:none;border-block-start-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-left-radius:0;border-bottom-right-radius:0;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-collapse:separate;border-image-outset:0s;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-inline-end-color:currentcolor;border-inline-end-style:none;border-inline-end-width:medium;border-inline-start-color:currentcolor;border-inline-start-style:none;border-inline-start-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-spacing:0;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-left-radius:0;border-top-right-radius:0;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;bottom:auto;box-decoration-break:slice;box-shadow:none;box-sizing:border-box;break-after:auto;break-before:auto;break-inside:auto;caption-side:top;caret-color:auto;clear:none;clip:auto;clip-path:none;color:initial;column-count:auto;column-fill:balance;column-gap:normal;column-rule-color:currentcolor;column-rule-style:none;column-rule-width:medium;column-span:none;column-width:auto;content:normal;counter-increment:none;counter-reset:none;cursor:auto;display:inline;empty-cells:show;filter:none;flex-basis:auto;flex-direction:row;flex-grow:0;flex-shrink:1;flex-wrap:nowrap;float:none;font-family:initial;font-feature-settings:normal;font-kerning:auto;font-language-override:normal;font-size:medium;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal;font-style:normal;font-synthesis:weight style;font-variant:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-position:normal;font-weight:400;grid-auto-columns:auto;grid-auto-flow:row;grid-auto-rows:auto;grid-column-end:auto;grid-column-gap:0;grid-column-start:auto;grid-row-end:auto;grid-row-gap:0;grid-row-start:auto;grid-template-areas:none;grid-template-columns:none;grid-template-rows:none;height:auto;hyphens:manual;image-orientation:0deg;image-rendering:auto;image-resolution:1dppx;ime-mode:auto;inline-size:auto;isolation:auto;justify-content:flexStart;left:auto;letter-spacing:normal;line-break:auto;line-height:normal;list-style-image:none;list-style-position:outside;list-style-type:disc;margin-block-end:0;margin-block-start:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-inline-end:0;margin-inline-start:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;margin-top:0;mask-clip:borderBox;mask-composite:add;mask-image:none;mask-mode:matchSource;mask-origin:borderBox;mask-position:0% 0%;mask-repeat:repeat;mask-size:auto;mask-type:luminance;max-height:none;max-width:none;min-block-size:0;min-height:0;min-inline-size:0;min-width:0;mix-blend-mode:normal;object-fit:fill;object-position:50% 50%;offset-block-end:auto;offset-block-start:auto;offset-inline-end:auto;offset-inline-start:auto;opacity:1;order:0;orphans:2;outline-color:initial;outline-offset:0;outline-style:none;outline-width:medium;overflow:visible;overflow-wrap:normal;overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:visible;padding-block-end:0;padding-block-start:0;padding-bottom:0;padding-inline-end:0;padding-inline-start:0;padding-left:0;padding-right:0;padding-top:0;page-break-after:auto;page-break-before:auto;page-break-inside:auto;perspective:none;perspective-origin:50% 50%;pointer-events:auto;position:static;quotes:initial;resize:none;right:auto;ruby-align:spaceAround;ruby-merge:separate;ruby-position:over;scroll-behavior:auto;scroll-snap-coordinate:none;scroll-snap-destination:0 0;scroll-snap-points-x:none;scroll-snap-points-y:none;scroll-snap-type:none;shape-image-threshold:0;shape-margin:0;shape-outside:none;tab-size:8;table-layout:auto;text-align:initial;text-align-last:auto;text-combine-upright:none;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:solid;text-emphasis-color:currentcolor;text-emphasis-position:over right;text-emphasis-style:none;text-indent:0;text-justify:auto;text-orientation:mixed;text-overflow:clip;text-rendering:auto;text-shadow:none;text-transform:none;text-underline-position:auto;top:auto;touch-action:auto;transform:none;transform-box:borderBox;transform-origin:50% 50% 0;transform-style:flat;transition-delay:0s;transition-duration:0s;transition-property:all;transition-timing-function:ease;vertical-align:baseline;visibility:visible;white-space:normal;widows:2;width:auto;will-change:auto;word-break:normal;word-spacing:normal;word-wrap:normal;writing-mode:horizontalTb;z-index:auto;-webkit-appearance:none;-moz-appearance:none;-ms-appearance:none;appearance:none;margin:0}.LiveAreaSection-193358632{width:100%}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .login-option-buybox{display:block;width:100%;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-access-options{display:block;font-weight:700;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child)::before{transform:translateY(-50%);content:”;height:1rem;position:absolute;top:50%;left:0;border-left:2px solid #999}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child){padding-left:10px}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li{display:inline-block;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:10px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;flex:1;flex-direction:row-reverse;margin:-30px -15px 0}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .box-inner{width:100%;height:100%}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:1;flex-basis:255px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .subscribe-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:4;flex-basis:300px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:29%;margin-left:29%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .asia-link{color:#069;cursor:pointer;text-decoration:none;font-size:1.05em;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:1.05em6}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:10%;margin-left:10%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:30%;margin-left:30%;font-size:14px;color:#222;opacity:.8px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-buybox{display:block;font-size:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;padding-top:30px;text-align:center}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-from{font-size:14px;padding-right:10px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .issue-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;text-align:center;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:19px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .no-price-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;text-align:center;padding-right:10%;padding-left:10%;padding-bottom:20px;padding-top:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .vat-buybox{display:block;margin-top:5px;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:11px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:15px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:17px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container{display:block;padding-right:20px;padding-left:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container >a:hover,.Button-505204839:hover,.Button-1078489254:hover{text-decoration:none}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-button{background:#fff;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-asia{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:75px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-label-asia,.ButtonLabel-3869432492,.ButtonLabel-3296148077{display:block;color:#fff;font-size:17px;line-height:20px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;cursor:pointer}.Button-505204839,.Button-1078489254{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:10px}.Button-505204839 .readcube-label,.Button-1078489254 .readcube-label{color:#069}
/* style specs end */Subscribe to JournalGet full journal access for 1 year$199.00only $3.90 per issueSubscribeAll prices are NET prices. VAT will be added later in the checkout.Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.Rent or Buy articleGet time limited or full article access on ReadCube.from$8.99Rent or BuyAll prices are NET prices.

Additional access options:

Log in

Learn about institutional subscriptions

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02715-z

References1.Anderson, D. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107387118 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Download references

Subjects

Ecology

Latest on:

Ecology

Spatiotemporal origin of soil water taken up by vegetation
Article 06 OCT 21

Fund natural-history museums, not de-extinction
Correspondence 05 OCT 21

Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests
News 30 SEP 21

Jobs

Research Fellow/Postdoc

TUM CREATE Ltd
Singapore, Singapore

Postdoctoral Scientist (Immunogenetics)

The Pirbright Institute
Pirbright, United Kingdom

PhD Student (gn) Neuroimmunology

University Hospital of Muenster (UKM), WWU
Münster, Germany

Summer Fleming Scholar Internship

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation (OMRF)
Oklahoma City, United States More

Inverted paradoxNeutral theory can reproduce properties of terrestrial biodiversity observed at local (e.g., an island) or metacommunity (i.e., a set of interacting communities linked by dispersal of species) scales, particularly ranked species abundance curves (i.e., histograms of species abundance ordered along the x-axis from most to least common) [14]. Central to neutral theory is the interplay between ‘stochastic exclusion’ and either immigration or speciation. Stochastic exclusion is the reduction in biodiversity caused by random deaths and abundance-dependent replacement and, if not countered by other processes, ultimately leads to only a single remaining species [14]. Immigration of species into a local community or speciation within the metacommunity offset stochastic exclusion and maintain biodiversity [14]. This relationship is illustrated in Fig. 1 by simulated time-series of phytoplankton diversity for three populations at steady-state with 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 total individuals and an initial condition of 10,000 species each (Fig. 1) (Methods). Subjection of these populations to 50% random mortality per generation and replacement in proportion to the relative abundance of remaining species results in an eventual rate of decrease in diversity that is equivalent across population sizes (Fig. 1; dashed black lines), eventually yielding the expected final equilibrium of a single species. When a small rate of immigration is added to this simulation (here, 0.03% or 0.3% per generation), complete stochastic exclusion is replaced by steady-state diversities that vary in direct proportion to population size and immigration rate (Fig. 1; colored dashed and dotted lines). Similar considerations led Hubbell [14] to earlier propose in his “Unified Neutral Theory” a fundamental biodiversity number, θ, controlling both species richness and relative abundance:$$theta ,=, 2Jupsilon$$
(1)
where J is the total number of individuals in the community and υ the rate of immigration (local) or speciation (metacommunity).Fig. 1: Phytoplankton biodiversity following purely stochastic processes.Red, blue, and green = phytoplankton populations (J) of 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 individuals, respectively (Methods). Colored solid lines = species richness in the absence of immigration (υ). Colored dashed and dotted lines = species richness for υ values of 0.03% and 0.3% per generation. Black dashed line = mean rate of decline for the primary phase of stochastic exclusion (slope of this line is the same for all three populations). Blue and green downturned triangles = threshold for the two larger populations where diversity begins to decline rapidly because a sufficient number of species have been reduced to an abundance where extinction within a generation becomes likely.Full size imageIn addition to illustrating the balance between stochastic exclusion and immigration into a local phytoplankton community, Fig. 1 shows that significant decreases in species richness only ensue after a subpopulation of species within a community has been sufficiently decimated in number that their remaining individuals might be lost through random mortality within a generation. In our simulations, this threshold is demarked by the downturn in species richness for the populations of 100,000 and 1,000,000 individuals (Fig. 1; blue and green triangles). The significance of stochastic exclusion is thus dependent on the relation between extant species number and size of the physically-homogenized community. With respect to the latter property, typical horizontal eddy diffusion values for the upper ocean are O(103 m2 s−1), implying that the length scale for mixing in 1 day is O(1000 m). Typical number concentrations for phytoplankton of different species in the ocean range from More

Study sitesWe conducted this study in three protected areas in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo: Danum Valley Conservation Area (DVCA), the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS), and Tabin Wildlife Reserve (TWR) (Fig. 4). The minimum and maximum daily temperatures and annual precipitation among the three study sites did not differ significantly (annual temperature: 22–33 ℃, annual precipitation 2400–3100 mm; Mitchell37; Matsuda et al.39; South East Asia Rainforest Research Partnership Unpublished data. https://www.searrp.org/) although there is no recent precise climate data of TWR.Figure 4Location of the three study sites in Borneo.Full size imageThe DVCA (4° 50′–5° 05′ N, 117° 30′–117° 48′ E) is a Class I Protection Forest Reserve established by the Sabah state government in 1996 and managed by the Sabah Foundation (Yayasan Sabah Group) covering 438 km2. Approximately 90% of the area is comprised of mature lowland evergreen dipterocarp forests34. The study area is an old-growth forest surrounding the Borneo Rainforest Lodge (5° 01′ N, 117° 44′ E), a tourist lodging facility.The LKWS (5° 10′–5° 50′ N, 117° 40′–118° 30′ E), is located along the Kinabatangan River, which is the longest river flowing to the east coast, reaching 560 km inland and with a catchment area of 16,800 km2. Designated as a wildlife sanctuary and gazetted in 2005, the LKWS consists of ten forest blocks totaling 270 km2, comprised of seasonal and tidal swamp forests, permanent freshwater swamps, mangrove forests, and lowland dipterocarp forests35,36. The southern area of the Menanggul River is extensively covered by secondary forest. However, the northern area has been deforested for oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) plantations, except for a protected zone along the river. The TWR (5° 05′–5° 22′ N, 118° 30′–118° 55′ E) is located approximately 50 km northeast of Lahad Datu, eastern Sabah, and covers approximately 1225 km2.The TWR is exclusively surrounded by large oil palm plantations. Most parts of the TWR were heavily logged in the 1970s and the 1980s, leaving mainly regenerating mixed dipterocarp tropical rainforests dominated by pioneer species such as Neolamarckia cadamba and Macaranga bancana37,38. The study area was near the Sabah Wildlife Department base camp located on the western boundary of the TWR (5° 11′ N, 118° 30′ E). The study area includes heavily logged secondary forests and a small patchy old forest (0.74 km2).Data collectionWe set up 15, 30, and 28 infrared-triggered sensor cameras (Bushnell, Trophy Cam TM) in the DVCA (July 2010–August 2011 and May 2014–December 2016), LKWS (July 2010–December 2014) and TWR (May 2010–June 2012), respectively. As a result, the cumulative number of camera operation days in DVCA, LKWS, and TWR were 14,134, 18,265, and 4980, for a total of 37,379 days. Although it was impossible to record the animals during certain months because of adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, flooding, battery failure, other malfunctions mainly caused by insects nesting inside the cameras, or logistical problems, the cameras remained continuously activated. Due to these reasons, camera operating days differed among the cameras in each site. In this study, we used photos of animals, and we did not handle animals directly. All cameras were placed at heights of 30–50 cm above the forest floor and were tied to tree trunks using fabric belts to reduce damage to the trees.Because the terrain and level of regulations to conduct this study differed by the study site, we employed different layouts of camera stations at each study site. In the DVCA, T. K. and three trained assistants placed 15 cameras along six forest trails totaling 9000 m, which were established and maintained by the tourist lodging facility. Because it was prohibited to establish new trails and to place cameras at sites where tourism activity would be disturbed in the study area; therefore, the trails that were longer than 1 km and relatively easily accessible were selected as camera locations to maintain consistency of trail characteristics. Cameras were placed on each trail at 50 m intervals, alternating right and left to avoid bias of photo-capture frequency caused by terrain differences. Each station was at least 25 m away from each other on the different trails (Fig. 5a). The operating days differed among the 15 cameras, i.e., mean = 942.2; SD = 152.0; range = 682–1229.Figure 5Maps of camera locations at each study site. (a) Trails and camera stations at DVCA; (b1) trails and camera stations and (b2) trail locations at LKWS; (c) a trail and camera stations at TWR.Full size imageIn the LKWS, I. M. and two trained assistants had planned to install 30 cameras, but a maximum of only 27 cameras were in operation during the study period in the LKWS, probably owing to malfunctions caused by high humidity and rain in the tropical rainforest. All cameras were placed on the trails in the riverine forest along the Menanggul River. As part of a project on the primates of the riverine forests along the Menanggul River and to assist their observation and tracking in the swampy habitat in the LKWS39, trails 200–500 m long and 1 m wide were established at 500 m intervals on both sides of the river. Of the 16 trails, we selected ten trails that were all 500 m long and placed three cameras at the points from the riverbank to the inland forest in each trail, that is, 10 m, 250 m and 500 m from the riverbank (Fig. 5b1); cameras were set up 50 m away from the trails (Fig. 5b2). Consequently, the number of operating days differed among 30 cameras, i.e., mean = 608.8; SD = 531.4; range = 28–1315.In the TWR, M. N. and A. M placed 28 and three cameras on camera stations created by overlaying a 750 × 500 m grid in May and August 2010, respectively. Cameras were placed at each grid point at 250 m intervals (Fig. 5c). The operating days differed significantly among the 28 cameras, that is, mean = 177.9; SD = 123.2; range = 26–539.Temporal activity analysisWe defined non-independent photo capture events as consecutive photos of the same or different individuals of the same species taken within a 30-min interval and removed these photos from the analysis. We plotted the activity patterns of each species using a von Mises kernel40,41 using the package activity42 in R version 4.0.243. We estimated the activity level of animals with more than ten independent photo-capture events as indicated in the previous studies26,44. For our analysis, we pooled the images from all study sites if the photo number of a species was less than 10 in any study locations. If that was not the case, we used the package activity42 to compare species activity levels across the three research sites using a Wald test with Bonferroni correction for multiple pairwise comparisons. When there were significant differences, we separately estimated activity levels by the study sites. When there were no significant differences among the sites, we pooled the photo numbers to estimate activity levels.We divided a day into three periods: nighttime (19:00–04:59 h local time (GMT + 8)); daytime (07:00–16:59 h); and twilight (05:00–06:59 h and 17:00–18:59 h). During the study period, twilight hours essentially corresponded to 1 h between sunset and sunrise, at 5:54–6:25 and 17:50–18:25 in DVCA, 5:51–6:23 and 17:47–18:25 in LKWS, and 5:50–6:21 and 17:46–18:22 in TWR (data from https://www.timeanddate.com). After converting the time data of each photo-capture event into radians, we fitted a circular kernel density distribution estimated by 10,000 bootstrap resampling to radian time data, and we estimated the percentage of active time in each period. We then categorized the activity patterns of photo-captured carnivore species into four categories: nocturnal (active at night); crepuscular (active during twilight periods); diurnal (active during daytime); and cathemeral (active in all periods). We defined the activity pattern of the species as showing a statistically higher proportion of photo-captures at nighttime, daytime, and twilight periods than at other periods, such as nocturnal, diurnal, and crepuscular, respectively. When photo-capture proportions showed no differences among the three periods, we defined the activity pattern as cathemeral. For species with substantial sample size (50  More

1.Thomson, M. R. A. Geological and palaeoenvironmental history of the Scotia Sea region as a basis for biological interpretation. Deep Sea Res. II 51, 1467–1487 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Maldonado, A. et al. A model of oceanic development by ridge jumping: Opening of the Scotia Sea. Glob. Planet. Change 123, 152–173 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Crame, J. A. Key stages in the evolution of the Antarctic marine fauna. J. Biogeogr. 45, 986–994 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Scher, H. D. & Martin, E. E. Timing and climatic consequences of the opening of the Drake Passage. Science 312, 428–430 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Eagles, G., Livermore, R. & Morris, P. Small basins in the Scotia Sea: the Eocene Drake passage gateway. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 242, 343–353 (2006).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.De Conto, R. M. & Pollard, D. Rapid Cenozoic glaciation of Antarctica induced by declining atmospheric CO2. Nature 421, 245–249 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Anderson, J. B. et al. Progressive Cenozoic cooling and the demise of Antarctica’s last refugium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 108, 11356–11360 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Arntz, W. E. Magellan-Antarctic: ecosystems that drifted apart. Summary review. Sci. Mar. 3(Suppl. 1), 503–511 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E. & Billups, K. Trends, rhythms, and Aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Dalziel, I. W. D. et al. A potential barrier to deep Antarctic circumpolar flow until the Late Miocene?. Geology 41, 947–950 (2013).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Anderson, J. B. et al. Ross Sea paleo-ice sheet drainage and deglacial history during and since the LGM. Quat. Sci. Rev. 100, 31–54 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Klages, J. P. et al. Limited grounding-line advance onto the West Antarctic continental shelf in the easternmost Amundsen Sea Embayment during the last glacial period. PLoS ONE 12, e0181593 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Thatje, S., Hillenbrand, C. D. & Larter, R. On the origin of Antarctic marine benthic community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 534–540 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Fraser, C., Terauds, A., Smellie, J. L., Convey, P. & Chown, S. L. Geothermal activity helps life survive glacial cycles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 111, 5634–5639 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Lau, S. C. Y., Wilson, N. G., Silva, C. N. S. & Strugnell, J. M. Detecting glacial refugia in the Southern Ocean. Ecography 43, 1639–1656 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Naish, T. et al. Obliquity-paced Pliocene West Antarctic ice sheet oscillations. Nature 458, 322–328 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Clarke, A., Crame, J. A., Stromberg, J.-O. & Barker, P. F. The Southern Ocean benthic fauna and climate change: A historical perspective [and discussion]. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 338, 299–309 (1992).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
18.Clarke, A. & Crame, J. A. Evolutionary dynamics at high latitudes: speciation and extinction in polar marine faunas. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3655–3666 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Barnes, D. K. A. & Conlan, K. E. Disturbance, colonization and development of Antarctic benthic communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 11–38 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Crame, J. A. An evolutionary perspective on marine faunal connections between southernmost South America and Antarctica. Sci. Mar. 63(Suppl 1), 1–14 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Aronson, R. B. & Blake, D. B. Global climate change and the origin of modern benthic communities in Antarctica. Am. Zool. 41, 27–39 (2001).
Google Scholar 
22.Clarke, A., Aronson, R. B., Crame, A., Gili, J. M. & Blake, D. B. Evolution and diversity of the benthic fauna of the Southern Ocean continental shelf. Antarct. Sci. 16, 559–568 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Aronson, R. B. et al. Climate change and trophic response of the Antarctic Bottom Fauna. PLoS ONE 4, e4385 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Brandt, A. et al. First insights into the biodiversity and biogeography of the Southern Ocean deep sea. Nature 447, 307–311 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Orsi, A. H., Whitworth, T. W. & Nowlin, W. D. On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep-Sea Res. I(42), 641–673 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Mikhalevich, V. I. The general aspects of the distribution of Antarctic foraminifera. Micropaleontology 50, 179–194 (2004).
Google Scholar 
27.Gooday, A. J., Rothe, N., Bowser, S. S. & Pawlowski, J. Benthic foraminifera. Biogeographic atlas of the Southern Ocean (ed. De Broyer, C. et al.) 74–82 (SCAR Publications, 2014).28.Heron-Allen, E. & Earland, A. Foraminifera. Part I. The ice-free area of the Falkland Islands and adjacent seas. Discov. Rep. 4, 291–460 (1932).
Google Scholar 
29.Earland, A. Foraminifera, Part II, South Georgia. Discov. Rep. 7, 27–138 (1933).
Google Scholar 
30.Herb, R. Distribution of recent benthonic foraminifer in the Drake Passage. AGU Antarct. Res. Ser. 17, 251–300 (1971).
Google Scholar 
31.Thompson, L. Distribution of living benthic foraminifera, Isla de los Estados, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. J. Foraminiferal Res. 8, 241–257 (1978).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
32.Dejardin, R. et al. “Live” stained) benthic foraminiferal living depths, stable isotopes, and taxonomy offshore South Georgia, Southern Ocean: Implications for calcification depths. J. Micropalaeontol. 37, 25–71 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
33.Arellano, F., Quezada, L. & Olave, C. Familia Cassidulinidae (Protozoa: Foraminiferida) en canales y fiordos patagónicos chilenos. An. Inst. Patagon. 39, 47–65 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Hald, M. & Korsun, S. Distribution of modern benthic foraminifera from fjords of Svalbard, European Artic. J. Foraminiferal Res. 27, 101–122 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Majewski, W., Bart, P. J. & McGlannan, A. J. Foraminiferal assemblages from ice-proximal paleo-settings in the Whales Deep Basin, eastern Ross Sea, Antarctica. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 493, 64–81 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Majewski, W., Prothro, L. O., Simkins, L. M., Demianiuk, E. J. & Anderson, J. B. Foraminiferal patterns in deglacial sediment in the western Ross Sea, Antarctica: Life near grounding lines. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 35, 003716 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Majewski, W. & Anderson, J. B. Holocene foraminiferal assemblages from Firth of Tay, Antarctic Peninsula: Paleoclimate implications. Mar. Micropaleontol. 73, 135–147 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
38.Kilfeather, A. A. et al. Ice-stream retreat and ice-shelf history in Marguerite Trough, Antarctic Peninsula: Sedimentological and foraminiferal signatures. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 123, 997–1015 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Hillenbrand, C. D. et al. West antarctic ice sheet retreat driven by Holocene warm water incursions. Nature 547, 43–48 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Leckie, R. M. & Webb, P. N. Late Paleogene and early Neogene foraminifers of deep sea drilling project site 270, Ross Sea, Antarctica. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Leg 90 (ed. Kennett, J. P. et al.) 1093–1118 (US Government Printing Office, 1986).41.Coccioni, R. & Galeotti, S. Foraminiferal biostratigraphy and paleoecology of the CIROS-1 core from McMurdo Sound (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Terra Antartica 4, 103–117 (1997).
Google Scholar 
42.Webb, P.-N. & Strong, C. P. Recycled Pliocene foraminifera from the CRP-1 Quaternary succession. Terra Antartica 5, 473–478 (1998).
Google Scholar 
43.Patterson, M. O. & Ishman, S. E. Neogene benthic foraminiferal assemblages and paleoenvironmetal record for McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Geosphere 8, 1331–1341 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Gaździcki, A. & Webb, P. N. Foraminifera from the Pecten Conglomerate (Pliocene) of Cockburn Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Palaeontol. Pol. 55, 147–174 (1996).
Google Scholar 
45.Gaździcki, A. & Majewski, W. Foraminifera from the Eocene La Meseta Formation of Isla Marambio (Seymour Island), Antarctic Peninsula. Antarct. Sci. 24, 408–416 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Caramés, A. & Concheyro, A. Late cenozoic foraminifera from diamictites of Cape Lamb, Vega Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Ameghiniana 50, 114–135 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Majewski, W. & Gaździcki, A. Shallow water benthic foraminifera from the Polonez Cove Formation (lower Oligocene) of King George Island, West Antarctica. Mar. Micropaleontol. 111, 1–14 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Quilty, P. G. Reworked Paleocene and Eocene Foraminifera, Mac. Robertson Shelf, East Antarctica paleoenvironmental implications. J. Foraminiferal Res. 31, 369–384 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Quilty, P. G. Foraminifera from late Pliocene sediments of Heidemann Valley, Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica. J. Foraminiferal Res. 40, 193–205 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Majewski, W., Tatur, A., Witkowski, J. & Gaździcki, A. Rich shallow-water benthic ecosystem in Late Miocene East Antarctica (Fisher Bench Fm, Prince Charles Mountains). Mar. Micropaleontol. 133, 40–49 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Pawlowski, J., Holzmann, M. & Tyszka, J. New supraordinal classification of Foraminifera: Molecules meet morphology. Mar. Micropaleontol. 100, 1–10 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Pawlowski, J. & Holzmann, M. A plea for DNA barcoding of foraminifera. Mar. Biodivers. 44, 213–221 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Roberts, A. et al. A New integrated approach to taxonomy: The fusion of molecular and morphological systematics with type material in Benthic Foraminifera. PLoS ONE 11, e0158754 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Holzmann, M. & Pawlowski, J. An updated classification of rotaliid foraminifera based on ribosomal DNA phylogeny. Mar. Micropaleontol. 132, 18–34 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.Majewski, W. & Pawlowski, J. Morphologic and molecular diversity of the foraminiferal genus Globocassidulina in Admiralty Bay, West Antarctica. Antarct. Sci. 22, 271–281 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Majewski, W., Bowser, S. S. & Pawlowski, J. Widespread intra-specific genetic homogeneity of coastal Antarctic benthic foraminifera. Polar Biol. 38, 1–12 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Majda, A. et al. Variable dispersal histories across the Drake Passage: The case of coastal benthic Foraminifera. Mar. Micropaleontol. 140, 81–94 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Gschwend, F., Majda, A., Majewski, W. & Pawlowski, J. Psammophaga fuegia sp. nov., a new monothalamid foraminifer from the Beagle Channel, South America. Acta Protozool. 55, 101–110 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Pawlowski, J. Introduction to the molecular systematics of foraminifera. Micropaleontology 46(Suppl 1), 1–12 (2000).
Google Scholar 
60.Gouy, M., Guindon, S. & Gascuel, O. SeaView version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 221–224 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Puillandre, N., Lambert, A., Brouillet, S. & Achaz, G. ABGD, Automatic barcode gap discovery for primary species delimitation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1864–1877 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Fujisawa, T. & Barraclough, T. G. Delimiting species using single-locus data and the generalized mixed yule coalescent (GMYC) Approach: A revised method and evaluation on simulated datasets. Syst. Biol. 62, 707–724 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Zhang, J., Kapli, P., Pavlidis, P. & Stamatakis, A. A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29, 2869–2876 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Kapli, P. et al. Multi-rate Poisson tree processes for single-locus species delimitation under maximum likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo. Bioinformatics 33, 1630–1638 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006650 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Ezard, T., Fujisawa, T. & Barraclough, T. G. SPLITS: SPecies’ LImits by Threshold Statistics. R package version 1.0-18/r45, http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/splits/ (2009).67.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna). http://www.R-project.org/ (2020).68.Stamatakis, A. RAxML Version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hall, T. A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. PopART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Bandelt, H., Forster, P. & Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 37–48 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Tajima, F. Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123, 585–595 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Fu, Y. X. New statistical tests of neutrality for DNA samples from a population. Genetics 143, 557–570 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Rozas, J. et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 3299–3302 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Heled, J. & Drummond, A. Bayesian inference of population size history from multiple loci. BMC Evol. Biol. 8, 289 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
76.Schweizer, M., Pawlowski, J., Kouwenhoven, T. J., Guiard, J. & van der Zwaan, G. J. Molecular phylogeny of Rotaliida (Foraminifera) based on complete small subunit rDNA sequences. Mar. Micropaleontol. 66, 233–246 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
77.Schweizer, M., Pawlowski, J., Kouwenhoven, T. & Van Der Zwaan, B. Molecular phylogeny of common Cibicidids and related rotaliida (Foraminifera) based on small subunit rDNA sequences. J. Foraminiferal Res. 39, 300–315 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Schweizer, M. Evolution and molecular phylogeny of Cibicides and Uvigerina (Rotaliid, Foraminifera). Geol. Ultraiectina 261, 1–167 (2006).
Google Scholar 
79.Bouckaert, R. R. & Drummond, A. J. bModelTest: Bayesian phylogenetic site model averaging and model comparison. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 42 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarisation in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Loeblich, A. R. & Tappan, H. Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987).
Google Scholar 
82.D’haenens, S., Bornemann, A., Stassen, P. & Speijer, R. Multiple early Eocene benthic foraminiferal assemblages and δ13C fluctuations at DSDP Site 401 (Bay of Biscay: NE Atlantic). Mar. Micropaleontol. 88–89, 15–35 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
83.Cushman, J. A. & Stone, B. Foraminifera from the Eocene, Chacra Formation, of Peru. Cont. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 25, 49–58 (1949).
Google Scholar 
84.Arreguin-Rodriguez, G. J., Thomas, E., Dhaenens, S., Speijer, R. P. & Alegret, L. Early eocene deep-sea benthic foraminiferal faunas: Recovery from the paleocene eocene thermal maximum extinction in a greenhouse world. PLoS ONE 13, e0193167 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
85.Proto Decima, F. & Ferasin, F. Nuove specie di foraminiferi nell’Eocene del Monte Ceva (Colli Euganei). Riv. Ital. Paleont. Strat. 60, 247–252 (1954).
Google Scholar 
86.Cushman, J. A. A rich foraminiferal fauna from the Cocoa Sand of Alabama. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. Spec. Pub. 16, 1–40 (1946).
Google Scholar 
87.Heron-Allen, E. & Earland, A. Protozoa, Part 2. Foraminifera. Nat. Hist. Rep. Br. Antarct. Exp. 6, 25–268 (1922).
Google Scholar 
88.Shevenell, A. E., Kennett, J. P. & Lea, D. W. Middle Miocene ice sheet dynamics, deep-sea temperatures, and carbon cycling: A Southern Ocean perspective. Geochem. Geophys. Geosy. 9, Q02006 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
89.Lawver, L. A. & Gahagan, L. M. Evolution of Cenozoic seaways in the circum-Antarctic region. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 198, 11–37 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Lewis, A. R. et al. Mid-Miocene cooling and the extinction of tundra in continental Antarctica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10676–10680 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
91.Verducci, M. et al. The Middle Miocene climatic transition in the Southern Ocean: Evidence of paleoclimatic and hydrographic changes at Kerguelen plateau from planktonic foraminifers and stable isotopes. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 280, 371–386 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Majewski, W. & Bohaty, S. Surface−water cooling and salinity decrease during the Middle Miocene Climate Transition at Southern Ocean ODP Site 747 (Kerguelen Plateau). Mar. Micropaleontol. 74, 1–14 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
93.Cheng, C. H. C. & Detrich, H. W. Molecular ecophysiology of Antarctic notothenioid fishes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 2215–2232 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Barco, A., Schiaparelli, S., Houart, R. & Oliverio, M. Cenozoic evolution of Muricidae (Mollusca, Neogastropoda) in the Southern Ocean, with the description of a new subfamily. Zool. Scr. 41, 596–616 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
95.González-Wevar, C. A., Nakano, T., Canete, J. I. & Poulin, E. Molecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of Nacella (Patellogastropoda: Nacellidae) in the Southern Ocean. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 56, 115–124 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.González-Wevar, C. A. et al. Following the Antarctic Circumpolar Current: Patterns and processes in the biogeography of the limpet Nacella (Mollusca: Patellogastropoda) across the Southern Ocean. J. Biogeogr. 44, 861–874 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.González-Wevar, C. A. et al. Cryptic speciation in Southern Ocean Aequiyoldia eightsii (Jay, 1839): Mio-Pliocene trans-Drake separation and diversification. Prog. Oceanogr. 174, 44–54 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
98.Strugnell, J. M., Rogers, A. D., Prodohl, P. A., Collins, M. A. & Allcock, A. L. The thermohaline expressway: The Southern Ocean as a centre of origin for deep-sea octopuses. Cladistics 24, 853–860 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Feakins, S., Warny, S. & Lee, J. E. Hydrologic cycling over Antarctica during the middle Miocene warming. Nat. Geosci. 5, 557–560 (2012).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
100.Malumián, N. Foraminíferos bentónicos de la localidad tipo de la Formación La Despedida (Eoceno, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego) Part I: Textulariina y Miliolina. Ameghiniana 25, 341–356 (1989).
Google Scholar 
101.Scarpa, R. & Malumián, N. Foraminíferos del Oligoceno inferior de los Andes Fueguinos, Argentina: Su significado tectónico-ambiental. Ameghiniana 45, 361–376 (2008).
Google Scholar 
102.Galeotti, S., Cita, M. B. & Coccioni, R. Foraminiferal biostratigraphy and palaeoecology from two intervals of the CRP2/2A drilhole. Terra Antartica 7, 473–478 (2000).
Google Scholar 
103.Malumián, N. & El Olivero, E. B. Grupo Cabo Domingo, Tierra del Fuego: Bioestratigrafía, paleoambientes y acontecimientos del Eoceno-Mioceno marino. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. 61, 139–160 (2006).
Google Scholar 
104.Li, B., Yoon, H. I. & Park, B. K. Foraminiferal assemblages and CaCO3 dissolution since the last deglaciation in the Maxwell Bay King George Island, Antarctica. Mar. Geol. 169, 239–257 (2000).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
105.Majewski, W. Benthic foraminiferal communities: Distribution and ecology in Admiralty Bay, King George Island, West Antarctica. Pol. Polar Res. 26, 159–214 (2005).
Google Scholar 
106.Corliss, B. Size variation in the deep-sea benthonic foraminifer Globocassidulina subglobosa (Brady) in the Southeast Indian Ocean. J. Foraminiferal Res. 9, 50–60 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Wright, J. D. & Miller, K. G. Southern ocean influences on late eocene to miocene deepwater circulation. Antarct. Res. Ser. 60, 1–25 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Colleoni, F. et al. Past continental shelf evolution increased Antarctic ice sheet sensitivity to climatic conditions. Sci. Rep. 8, 11323 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
109.Strugnell, J. M. et al. The Southern ocean: Source and sink?. Deep-Sea Res. II 58, 196–204 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
110.Verheye, M. L., Backeljau, T. & d’Udekem d’Acoz, C. Locked in the icehouse: Evolution of an endemic Epimeria (Amphipoda, Crustacea) species flock on the Antarctic shelf. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 114, 14–33 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
111.Galeotti, S. & Coccioni, R. Foraminiferal analysis of the Miocenc CRP-l core (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Terra Antartica 5, 521–526 (1998).
Google Scholar 
112.Pillet, L., Fontaine, D. & Pawlowski, J. Intra-genomic ribosomal RNA polymorphism and morphological variation in Elphidium macellum suggests inter-specific hybridization in Foraminifera. PLoS ONE 7, e32373 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
113.Darling, J. Interspecific hybridization and mitochondrial introgression in invasive Carcinus shore crabs. PLoS ONE 6, e17828 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
114.Dietz, L. et al. Regional differentiation and extensive hybridization between mitochondrial clades of the Southern Ocean giant sea spider Colossendeis megalonyx. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140424 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
115.Ruiz, M. B., Taverna, A., Servetto, N., Sahade, R. & Held, C. Hidden diversity in Antarctica: Molecular and morphological evidence of two different species within one of the most conspicuous ascidian species. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8127–8143 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Fraser, C. I. et al. Antarctica’s ecological isolation will be broken by storm-driven dispersal and warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 704–708 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
117.Avila, C. et al. Invasive marine species discovered on non–native kelp rafts in the warmest Antarctic island. Sci. Rep. 10, 1639 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
118.Alve, E. & Goldstein, S. T. Propagule transport as a key method of dispersal in benthic Foraminifera (Protista). Limnol. Oceanogr. 48, 2163–2170 (2003).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
119.Alve, E. & Goldstein, S. T. Dispersal, survival and delayed growth of benthic foraminiferal propagules. J. Sea Res. 63, 36–51 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
120.Burke, K. D. et al. Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 115, 13288–13293 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
121.Carter, A., Curtis, M. & Schwanenthal, J. Cenozoic tectonic history of the South Georgia microcontinent and potential as a barrier to Pacific-Atlantic through flow. Geology 42, 299–302 (2014).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
122.Clarke, A., Barnes, D. K. A. & Hodgson, D. A. How isolated is Antarctica?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 1–3 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Glorioso, P. D., Piola, A. R. & Leben, R. R. Mesoscale eddies in the Subantarctic Front: Southwest Atlantic. Sci. Mar. 69(Suppl 2), 7–15 (2012).
Google Scholar 
124.Bart, P. J. & Iwai, M. The overdeepening hyphothesis: how erosional modification of the marine-scape during the early Pliocene altered glacial dynamics on the Antarctic Peninsula’s Pacific margin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 335–336, 42–51 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
125.González-Wevar, C. A., Díaz, A., Gerard, K., Caňete, J. I. & Poulin, E. Divergence time estimations and contrasting patterns of genetic diversity between Antarctic and southern South America benthic invertebrates. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 85, 445–456 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Poulin, E., González-Wevar, C., Díaz, A., Gérard, K. & Hüne, M. Divergence between Antarctic and South American marine invertebrates: what molecular biology tells us about the Scotia Arc geodynamics and the intensification of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Glob. Planet. Change. 123, 392–399 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
127.McKay, R. et al. Pleistocene variability of Antarctic ice sheet extent in the Ross embayment. Quat. Sci. Rev. 34, 93–112 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
128.Pollard, D. & DeConto, R. M. Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years. Nature 458, 329–332 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
129.Allcock, A. L. & Strugnell, J. M. Southern Ocean diversity: New paradigms from molecular ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 278, 520–528 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
130.Wilson, N. G., Schrödl, M. & Halanych, K. M. Ocean barriers and glaciation: Evidence for explosive radiation of mitochondrial lineages in the Antarctic sea slug Doris kerguelenensis (Mollusca, Nudibranchia). Mol. Ecol. 18, 965–984 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
131.Arango, C. P., Soler-Membrives, A. & Miller, K. J. Genetic differentiation in the circum-Antarctic sea spider Nymphon australe (Pycnogonida; Nymphonidae). Deep Sea Res. II 58, 212–219 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
132.Fraser, C. I., Nikula, R., Ruzzante, D. E. & Waters, J. M. Poleward bound: Biological impacts of Southern Hemisphere glaciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 462–471 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Darling, K. F., Kucera, M., Pudsey, C. J. & Wade, C. M. Molecular evidence links cryptic diversification in polar planktonic protists to quaternary climate dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101, 7657–7662 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
134.Quilty, P. G. Neogene foraminifers and accessories, ODP Leg 188, Sites 1165, 1166, and 1167, Prydz Bay, Antarctica. Proc. Ocean Drill. Prog. Sci. Results 188, 1–41 (2003).
Google Scholar 
135.Díaz, A. et al. Genetic structure and demographic inference of the regular sea urchin Sterechinus neumayeri (Meissner, 1900) in the Southern Ocean: The role of the last glaciation. PLoS ONE 13, e0197611 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
136.Brey, T., Dahm, C., Gorny, M., Stiller, M. & Arntz, W. E. Do Antarctic benthic invertebrates show extended levels of eurybathy?. Ant. Sci. 8, 3–6 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Dambach, J., Thatje, S., Rödder, D., Basher, Z. & Raupach, M. J. Effects of Late-Cenozoic glaciation on habitat availability in Antarctic benthic shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea). PLoS ONE 7, e4628 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
138.Soler-Membrives, A., Linse, K., Miller, K. J. & Arango, C. P. Genetic signature of Last Glacial Maximum regional refugia in a circum-Antarctic sea spider. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170615 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
139.Holbourn, A., Henderson, A. & McLeod, N. Atlas of Benthic Foraminifera (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).Book 

Google Scholar 
140.Gooday, A. J. & Jorissen, F. J. Benthic foraminiferal biogeography: Controls on global distribution patterns in deep-water settings. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 237–262 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
141.Melis, R. & Salvi, G. Late Quaternary foraminiferal assemblages from western Ross Sea (Antarctica) in relation to the main glacial and marine lithofacies. Mar. Micropaleontol. 70, 39–53 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
142.Majewski, W., Wellner, J. S. & Anderson, J. B. Environmental connotations of benthic foraminiferal assemblages from coastal West Antarctica. Mar. Micropaleontol. 124, 1–15 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
143.Majewski, W., Stolarski, J. & Bart, P. J. Two rare pustulose/sponose morphotypes of benthic foraminifera from eastern Ross Sea. J. Foraminiferal Res. 49, 405–422 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
144.Davies, B. J. et al. The evolution of the Patagonian Ice Sheet from 35 ka to the present day (PATICE). Earth Sci. Rev. 204, 103152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
145.González-Wevar, C. A. et al. Phylogeography in Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns, 1848) along two biogeographical provinces in the Chilean coast. PLoS ONE 10, e0131289 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
146.Ocaranza-Barrera, P., González Wevar, C. A., Guillemin, M.-L., Rosenfeld, S. & Mansilla, A. Molecular divergence between Iridaea cordata (Turner) Bory de Saint-Vincent from the Antarctic Peninsula and the Magellan Region. J. Appl. Phycol. 31, 939–949 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
147.Yasuhara, M., Tittensor, D. P., Hillebrand, H. & Worm, B. Combining marine macroecology and palaeoecology in understanding biodiversity: Microfossils as a model. Biol. Rev. 92, 199–215 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
148.Yasuhara, M. et al. Time machine biology: Cross-timescale integration of ecology, evolution, and oceanography. Oceanography 33, 16–28 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
149.Meredith, M. P. & King, J. C. Rapid climate change in the ocean west of the Antarctic Peninsula during the second half of the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L19604 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
150.Convey, P. & Peck, L. S. Antarctic environmental change and biological responses. Sci. Adv. 11, 0888 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
151.Ingels, J. et al. Possible effects of global environmental changes on Antarctic benthis: A synthesis across five major taxa. Ecol. Evol. 2, 453–485 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Krebs, C. J. Of lemmings and snowshoe hares: the ecology of northern Canada. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 278, 481–489 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Oli, M. K. Population cycles in voles and lemmings: state of the science and future directions. Mammal Rev. 49, 226–239 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Tallian, A. et al. Competition between apex predators? Brown bears decrease wolf kill rate on two continents. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 284, 20162368 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Henden, J.-A., Ims, R. A., Yoccoz, N. G., Hellström, P. & Angerbjörn, A. Strength of asymmetric competition between predators in food webs ruled by fluctuating prey: the case of foxes in tundra. Oikos 119, 27–34 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 350–355 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Griffen, B. D. Detecting emergent effects of multiple predator species. Oecologia 148, 702–709 (2006).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Jones, H. P. et al. Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Conserv. Biol. 22, 16–26 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Dowding, J. E. & Murphy, E. C. The impact of predation by introduced mammals on endemic shorebirds in New Zealand: a conservation perspective. Biol. Conserv. 99, 47–64 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Pascal, M., Lorvelec, O., Bretagnolle, V. & Culioli, J.-M. Improving the breeding success of a colonial seabird: a cost-benefit comparison of the eradication and control of its rat predator. Endangered Species Res. 4, 267–276 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ruffino, L. et al. Invasive rats and seabirds after 2,000 years of an unwanted coexistence on Mediterranean islands. Biol. Invasions 11, 1631–1651 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Harper, G. A. Detecting predation of a burrow-nesting seabird by two introduced predators, using stable isotopes, dietary analysis and experimental removals. Wildl. Res. 34, 443–453 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Gaze, P. The response of a colony of sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) and flesh-footed shearwater (P. carneipes) to the cessation of harvesting and the eradication of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). N. Z. J. Zool. 27, 375–379 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Dowding, J. E. & Murphy, E. C. Ecology of ship rats (Rattus rattus) in a kauri (Agathis australis) forest in Northland, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol., 19–27 (1994).14.Major, H., Bond, A., Jones, I. & Eggleston, C. Stability of a seabird population in the presence of an introduced predator. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 8 (2013).15.Bond, A. L. & Eggleston, C. J. Application of a non-invasive indexing method for introduced Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Biodiversity Conserv. 24, 2551–2563 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Major, H. L., Jones, I. L., Byrd, G. V. & Williams, J. C. Assessing the effects of introduced Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) on survival and productivity of Least Auklets (Aethia pusilla). Auk 123, 681–694 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Eaton, M. et al. Birds of conservation concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746 (2015).
Google Scholar 
18.JNCC. Manx shearwater (Puffinus puffinus). https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/manx-shearwater-puffinus-puffinus/ (2021).19.Bell, E. et al. The ground-based eradication of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) from the Isle of Canna, Inner Hebrides, Scotland. In Island Invasives: Eradication and Management (eds Veitch C. R. et al.) 269–274 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2011).20.Luxmoore, R., Swann, R. & Bell, E. Canna seabird recovery project: 10 years on. In Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge (eds Veitch C. R. et al.) 576–579 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2019).21.Mavor, R. A., Parsons, M., Heubeck, M. & Schmitt, S. Seabird numbers and breeding success in Britain and Ireland, 2004. (Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK Nature Conservation, No. 29), 2005).22.Ratcliffe, N., Mitchell, I., Varnham, K., Verboven, N. & Higson, P. How to prioritize rat management for the benefit of petrels: a case study of the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Ibis 151, 699–708 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Duron, Q., Shiels, A. B. & Vidal, E. Control of invasive rats on islands and priorities for future action. Conserv. Biol. 31, 761–771 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Watt, L. & Sargent, I. Management Plan for Rum National Nature Reserve 2016–2026 (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2018).25.Lloyd, C., Tasker, M. L. & Partridge, K. The status of seabirds in Britain and Ireland. (A&C Black, 2010).26.Harris, M. Breeding biology of the Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus. Ibis 108, 17–33 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Thompson, K. R. The ecology of the Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus on Rhum, west Scotland, Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow (1987).28.Perrins, C., Harris, M. & Britton, C. Survival of Manx shearwaters Puffinus puffinus. Ibis 115, 535–548 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Ball, M. Rhum: the natural history of an island. (Edinburgh University Press, 1987).30.Virtanen, R., Edwards, G. R. & Crawley, M. J. Red deer management and vegetation on the Isle of Rum. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 572–583 (2002).31.Corbet, G. Origin of the British insular races of small mammals and of the ‘Lusitanian’ fauna. Nature 191, 1037–1040 (1961).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Berry, R. History in the evolution of Apodemus sylvaticus (Mammalia) at one edge of its range. J. Zool. 159, 311–328 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Meehan, A. P. Rats and mice: Their biology and control. (Rentokil Ltd, 1984).34.Carlisle, S. B. Rum rats: ecology and behaviour, Ph.D. thesis, Anglia Ruskin University (2019).35.Berry, R., Evans, I. & Sennitt, B. The relationships and ecology of Apodemus sylvaticus from the Small Isles of the Inner Hebrides, Scotland. J. Zool. 152, 333–346 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.SNH. Rum SSSI Citation, https://apps.snh.gov.uk/sitelink-api/v1/sites/1396/documents/1 (2010).37.Ambagis, J. A comparison of census and monitoring techniques for Leach’s storm petrel. Waterbirds 27, 211–215 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bicknell, T. W., Reid, J. B. & Votier, S. C. Probable predation of Leach’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa eggs by St Kilda Field Mice Apodemus sylvaticus hirtensis. Bird Study 56, 419–422 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rodríguez, B., De León, L., Martín, A., Alonso, J. & Nogales, M. Status and distribution of breeding seabirds in the northern islets of Lanzarote, Canary Islands. Atlantic Seabirds 5, 41–56 (2003).
Google Scholar 
40.Seto, N. W. H. & Conant, S. The effects of rat (Rattus rattus) predation on the reproductive success of the Bonin Petrel (Pterodroma hypoleuca) on Midway Atoll. Colon. Waterbirds 19, 171–185 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Walsh, P. 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).42.Quy, R. J., Cowan, D. P. & Swinney, T. Tracking as an activity index to measure gross changes in Norway rat populations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21, 122–127 (1993).
Google Scholar 
43.Martin, A. & Richardson, M. Rodent eradication scaled up: clearing rats and mice from South Georgia. Oryx 53, 27–35 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.European Chemicals Agency. Technical Notes for Guidance on Product Evaluation Appendices to Chapter 7 Product Type 14 Efficacy Evaluation of Rodenticidal Biocidal Products. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/16960215/bpd_guid_revised_appendix_chapter_7_pt14_2009_en.pdf (2009).45.European Chemicals Agency. Transitional Guidance on Efficacy Assessment for Product Type 14 Rodenticides, Helsinki, Finland. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23492134/tg_efficacy_pt14_superseded_en.pdf/f82f63de-6ca6-abed-53fe-8b7f11b53493 (2016).46.CRRU. CRRU UK Code of Best Practice. Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use, Leeds, UK. https://bpca.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/Documents/Codes%20of%20Best%20Practice/COBP-CRRU-Rodent-Control-and-Safe-Use-of-Rodenticides-2015.PDF (2015).47.Pelz, H.-J. et al. The genetic basis of resistance to anticoagulants in rodents. Genetics 170, 1839–1847 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Rost, S. et al. Novel mutations in the VKORC1 gene of wild rats and mice – a response to 50 years of selection pressure by warfarin? BMC Genet. 10, 1–9 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Berny, P., Esther, A., Jacob, J. & Prescott, C. Development of resistance to anticoagulant rodenticides in rodents. In Anticoagulant rodenticides and wildlife. Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology (Principles, Approaches and Perspectives), Vol. 5 (eds van den Brink, N. et al.) 259–286 (Springer, 2018).50.Fisher, P. Review of house mouse (Mus musculus) susceptibility to anticoagulant poisons. (Department of Conservation, Wellington, 2005).51.Lambert, M. S., Quy, R. J., Smith, R. H. & Cowan, D. P. The effect of habitat management on home-range size and survival of rural Norway rat populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1753–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01543.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Taylor, K. D. & Quy, R. J. Long distance movements of a Common rat (Rattus norvegicus ) revealed by radio-tracking. Mammalia 42, 63–71 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Schall, R. Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrika 78, 719–727 (1991).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Engeman, R. M. Indexing principles and a widely applicable paradigm for indexing animal populations. Wildl. Res. 32, 203–210 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Saad, S. M., Sanderson, R., Robertson, P. & Lambert, M. Effects of supplementary feed for game birds on activity of brown rats Rattus norvegicus on arable farms. Mammal Res. 66, 163–171 (2021).56.O’Hara, R. B. & Kotze, D. J. Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 118–122 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Watts, C. H. The foods eaten by wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) in Wytham Woods, Berkshire. J. Anim. Ecol. 37, 25–41 (1968).58.Zubaid, A. & Gorman, M. The diet of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus living in a sand dune habitat in north-east Scotland. J. Zool. 225, 227–232 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Bicknell, A. W. et al. Stable isotopes reveal the importance of seabirds and marine foods in the diet of St Kilda field mice. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Haarsma, A.-J. & Kaal, R. Predation of wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) on hibernating bats. Popul. Ecol. 58, 567–576 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Taylor, K. D., Quy, R. J. & Gurnell, J. Comparison of three methods for estimating the numbers of common rats (Rattus norvegicus). Mammalia 45, 403–413 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Lambert, M. et al. Validating activity indices from camera traps for commensal rodents and other wildlife in and around farm buildings. Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 70–77 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Pankhurst, S., Conlan, H., Rogers, M., Smith, A. Survey of Wood Mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) on the Isle of Rum, Inner Hebrides. (http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2191/1/Pankhurst_SurveyOfWoodmice.pdf, 2010).64.Harris, D. B. & Macdonald, D. W. Interference competition between introduced black rats and endemic Galápagos rice rats. Ecology 88, 2330–2344 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Rayner, M. J., Hauber, M. E., Imber, M. J., Stamp, R. K. & Clout, M. N. Spatial heterogeneity of mesopredator release within an oceanic island system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 20862–20865 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.MacKay, J. W., Russell, J. C. & Murphy, E. C. Eradicating house mice from islands: successes, failures and the way forward. In Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium (eds Witmer, G. W. et al.) 294–304 (USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO., 2007).67.Capizzi, D. A review of mammal eradications on Mediterranean Islands. Mammal Rev. 50, 124–135 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Ballari, S. A., Kuebbing, S. E. & Nuñez, M. A. Potential problems of removing one invasive species at a time: a meta-analysis of the interactions between invasive vertebrates and unexpected effects of removal programs. PeerJ 4, e2029 (2016).69.Anon. No UK products authorised for control of wood mice, https://www.pestcontrolnews.com/rodenticide-alert-prompts-reminder-of-permitted-target-species/ (2020).70.Furness, R. Predation on ground-nesting seabirds by island populations of red deer Cervus elaphus and sheep Ovis. J. Zool. 216, 565–573 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Duff, A. Population ecology of the Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus on the island of Rum, Scotland, MSc thesis, Edinburgh Napier University (2011).72.Towns, D.R., West, C.J. & Broome, K.G. Purposes, outcomes and challenges of eradicating invasive mammals from New Zealand islands: an historical perspective. Wildl. Res. 40, 94–107 (2012). Article 

Google Scholar  More

Temporal variation and dynamic analysis of eucalyptus forestsData from the 1st-9th NFIs suggested that the total area of eucalyptus plantations had started to increase since 1973 (Table 1). In 1973–1976, Eucalyptus plantations only existed in Guangxi and Guangdong (including Hainan) in China with a total area of 23.0 × 104 hectares, taking up 0.38% of total forest area in China. The stock volume was 372.0 × 104 m3, about 0.04% of that in China. In 2014–2018, the eucalyptus plantation area increased to 546.74 × 104 hectares, about 24 times of that in 1973–1976. The growing stock has increased to 21,562.90 × 104 m3 in 2014–2018 which increased about 58 times from 1973–1976.Table 1 Eucalyptus plantation area and stand volume in different time periods by province.Full size tableThe stock volume per unit area of eucalyptus plantations did not increase significantly from 1973–2008, ranging from 14–30 m3/hectares, but it increased rapidly from 2009 to 2018, reaching 39.43 m3/hectares. This increase occurred because China started to focus and value the development of eucalyptus plantations. As a. result, plantations expanded rapidly, and the need for eucalyptus with greater trunk radius increased. The extended harvest cycle of eucalyptus plantations, not the rise of eucalyptus productivity, caused the increase in stock volume per unit area29,30,31.Based on CFLDM, the distribution of eucalyptus plantations in 2003 and 2016 are mapped (Fig. 1a,b). It suggests that the distribution of eucalyptus plantations extended from Leizhou Peninsula, Guangdong and Hainan Province to the north (Guangxi, Hunan, and Guizhou provinces), east (Fujian and Jiangxi provinces), and west (Yunan and Sichuan provinces). This is consistent with data from the NFIs. The widespread expansion of eucalyptus also leads to several regions with clustered plantations.Figure 1Distribution of eucalyptus in the south of China [(a) 2003; (b) 2016]. This figure was created by spatially overlaying spatial sample plots data from National Forest Inventory (NFI) and patch vectors data from China Forest-Land Database Map (CFLDM), (a) shows that the point data are from 6th NFIs eucalyptus sample plots and the polygon vector data are from the 2003 CFLDM; (b) shows that the point data are from 9th NFIs eucalyptus sample plots and the polygon vector data are from the 2016 CFLDM. The extents of eucalyptus plantations is mainly concerned with 11 provinces (e.g. Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi) in Southern China.Full size imageChanges in spatial distributionBased on the database of sample plots (including climate and elevation data) and sampled eucalyptus, we analyze the distribution of eucalyptus plantations, and how it is affected by elevation and climate conditions. It is found that most eucalyptus plantations are within the region of 110°23′–120°5′E and 18°21′–30°39′N. The annual mean temperature within this region ranges from 11 to 25 °C with an average of 19.5 °C, and the annual precipitation ranges from 600 to 2000 mm with an average of 1455 mm. Elevation in this region is 0–2500 m with an average of 338 m.To find out the most suitable conditions for eucalyptus growth and its plantation management, we classify this region based on their elevation and climate conditions. The classification is done separately and independently for each factor (i.e., elevation, temperature, and precipitation). In terms of elevation, the region is assigned to seven grades from below 300 m to 2100 m with an interval of 300 m in between (i.e., below 300 m, 300–600 m, 600–900 m, 900–1200 m, 1200–1500 m, 1500–1800 m, 1800–2100 m). Land with elevation above 2100 mm has limited eucalyptus plantations, and thus is not taken into consideration. Similar criterion is applied to the classification based on annual mean temperature and annual precipitation. The grades are from 11 to 25 °C within an interval of 2 °C for temperature and 600–2000 mm with an interval of 200 mm for precipitation.We examine how the eucalyptus forest area changes with these factors. This is done by plotting the eucalyptus plantation area within a certain group against the corresponding grade number (Fig. 2). Eucalyptus is mostly distributed below 300 m, reaching an area of 301.1 × 104 hectares and counting for 67.58% of the total eucalyptus plantation area in China. Eucalyptus occurs rarely in areas with elevation above 900 m.Figure 2Area of eucalyptus plantations in China based on grades defined in text.Full size imageEucalyptus is sensitive to temperature, and its distribution is limited within areas with annual mean temperature below 19 °C. Eucalyptus is mostly distributed within areas with annual mean temperature of 19–21 °C. Areas with annual mean temperature within this range have a total of 291.49 × 104 hectares eucalyptus plantations, approximately 65.43% of all eucalyptus plantations in China. This result is slightly different from previous studies3,5, which suggests that eucalyptus prefers areas with mean annual temperature above 20 °C.Eucalyptus has a high tolerance to annual precipitation. Eucalyptus plantations can be found in areas with annual precipitation ranging from 600–2000 mm. It should be noted that this is related to irrigation conditions in production and management. However, in areas with annual precipitation below 600 mm, Eucalyptus plantations are extremely rare. Areas with annual precipitation of 1400–1600 mm (and without considering other factors) have the largest portion of eucalyptus plantations, whose total area reaches 146.49 × 104 hectares. This accounts for about 32.94% of total eucalyptus plantations in China.Productivity analysis of eucalyptusVariability in mean productivityEucalyptus annual productivity for each province based on the 5th to 9th NFIs (no digitized data for the 1th to 4th NFIs) is calculated, which includes 3564 sample plots (Table 2). Among which, 769 sample plots had been harvested at the time of the survey, and to remove the influence of these 769 sample plots, their data were removed during the productivity of the eucalyptus age-productivity relationship graph (see Fig. 3), which shows that the period of maximum productivity for eucalyptus lasts for approximately 2–3 years. Its productivity declines rapidly after 10 years of growth. Therefore, the harvest cycle of eucalyptus is normally 4–5 years. After coppicing and growing for another 4–5 years, Eucalyptus will be harvested again, which will be followed by its replanting.Table 2 Basic sample plot statistics (quantity, mean and maximum annual productivity) of eucalyptus plantations by province from the 5th to 9th NFIs.Full size tableFigure 3Relationship between age and productivity of eucalyptus sample plots.Full size imageVariability in eucalyptus productivityEucalyptus productivity for each province based on the 5th to 9th NFIs is calculated and shown in Table 2. It can be seen that from 1994 to 2018, mean and maximum productivities of eucalyptus plantations have increased. This is especially show for Guangxi and Fujian Provinces during 2009–2018. The averaged productivity of eucalyptus plantations in China increased from 4.14 to 8.57 m3 hm−2 a−1 from 1994–1998 to 2014–2018, which can be explained by the improved management of eucalyptus plantations (e.g., high soil fertility for newly cultivated lands and improved ability for irrigation) and their expansion.Data from the 5th to 9th NFIs suggest that a lot of sampled plots were no longer used for growing eucalyptus before the next inventory (Table 3). There were 226, 273, 687, and 109 eucalyptus plots in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th inventories, respectively, and in the corresponding next NFI (6th, 7th, 8th, 9th), only 150, 179, 544, and 848 of these sample plots were left unabandoned. This suggests that 33.63%, 34.43%, 20.82%, and 22.63% of the plots were abandoned before the next inventory. New plots have been included in each inventory, but large portions of these plots were abandoned as well. There are 123, 508, and 552 new eucclyptus plots in the 6th, 7th, 8th inventories, and 76, 413, and 433 of them were left unabandoned in the next inventories. The land abandonment rates for them are 38.21%, 18.70%, 21.56%, respectively.Table 3 Quantity of newly-cultivated, retained, and abandoned sample plots during different NFIs.Full size tableWe examine how the productivity changes with time for eucalyptus plantations that have been operated for more than 20 years. From the 5th to 9th NFIs, we find 55 and 38 such (operating for more than 25 and 20 years, respectively; Table 4). It is found that the productivity of eucalyptus is relatively low in the first 5 years of its growing. The productivity increases in the 5th–10th years, and reaches its peak after 10–15 years of growing eucalyptus. For land that have been continuously growing eucalytptus for 15–25 years or more, the productivity decreases significantly. This is due to the decrease in soil fertility.Table 4 Relationship between Continuous planting time and Mean productivity of reserved and newly-cultivated eucalyptus sample plots during different NFIs (unit: m3 hm−2 a−1).Full size tableMost (~ 90%) of the sample plots have mean annual productivity below 10 m3 hm−2 a−1 (Fig. 4). The productivity reaches its peak after 10–15 years of growing eucalyptus (mean annual average: 7.0175 m3 hm−2 a−1), and starts to decrease afterwards. Statistical model (Table 5) is established between productivity and age of eucalyptus plots. The results suggest that eucalyptus productivity follows a consistent pattern: it increases with time until a peak and then decrease (Fig. 5), and this applies to the old, newly-included plots and their average. The statistical model also agrees to the observed data, suggesting that the productivity peak is reached 10–15 years after the planting of eucalyptus, and the productivity reaches its minimum or even zero after 50 years of growing eucalyptus continuously.Figure 4Distribution of mean annual productivity for sample plot from different NFIs.Full size imageTable 5 Productivity prediction model of multi-stage reserved and increase eucalyptus sample plots.Full size tableFigure 5Statistical model showing how mean annual productivity of eucalyptus sample plots changes with time.Full size imageSoil fertility variation of eucalyptus plantationsHow eucalyptus affects soil fertility is not well-studied. Here, based on 948 sample points from Tang32, which includes monitoring of soil fertility of eucalyptus plantations from 1993 to 2018, we report and study the temporal soil fertility variation for eucalyptus plantations. After 25 years of growing eucalyptus, acidification of the corresponding lands persists. The pH value changed to 4.63 in 2018, a 4.14% decrease compared to that in1993. The organic content within the soil reached its minimum of 17.98 g/kg in 2018, a decrease of 23.19% compared to 1993. Total nitrogen content of the investigated samples changed from 2.11 to 1.98 g/kg, and total phosphorus content decreased from 1.12 to 0.75 g/kg. The temporal variation of potassium does not change in a consistent pattern with time. Alkaline hydrolysis of nitrogen and available potassium content in 2018 are significantly lower than those in 1993. From more to less, the rank of soil fertility indicator affiliation polygon area is 1993  > 1998  > 2003  > 2013  > 2018  > 2008. The rank of soil fertility index is 1993  > 1998  > 2018  > 2003  > 2013  > 2008. It decreased first, and then increased. The minimum soil fertility (0.475) was reached in 2008 (22.51), which is smaller than that in 1993. The soil fertility decreases at the greatest rate after 15 years of growing eucalyptus. This argument from Tang32 is consistent with this work (Table 6). Soil fertility generally decreases with the age of eucalyptus plantations.Table 6 Evolutionary characteristics of soil chemical indicators in eucalyptus plantation forests.Full size tableIn addition, Parfitt et al.33 studied the variation of soil fertility of pine plantations in New Zealand for a period of 20 years, and found that long-term successive rotations lead to an increase of the soil C/N ratio. Carbon is lost at a speed much greater than nitrogen. Successive rotations of eucalyptus lead to environmental issues such as decrease in soil fertility and ecological diversity and soil erosion. These would limit the sustainable management of eucalyptus plantations34,35,36,37,38,39,40.Abandonment of sample plotsWe find that many sample plots were not used for growing eucalyptus anymore after each inventory. The abandonment rate is high, ranging from 18.7 to 38.21%. The 226 eucalyptus sample plots in the 5th inventory decreased to 103 (the others are abandoned) during the 7th inventory, and the land abandonment rate was 31.33%. In the 8th and 9th inventories, the abandonment rates are 30.10% and 23.61%, respectively. The cumulative land abandonment rates are 33.63%, 54.43%, 68.15%, and 75.66% after 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of growing eucalyptus, respectively (Table 7).Table 7 Quantity (rates) of retained and abandoned sample plots after certain periods of plantation management.Full size tableThere are a total of 1843 eucalyptus plots from the 5th to 9th NFIs. In the last NFI, there are 1282 sampled plots still growing eucalyptus, and the rest 561 plots are abandoned. The averaged land abandonment rates of these plots every 5 years are 23.92%, 24.26% (43.52% cumulatively), 32.10% (68.48% cumulatively), and 23.61% (75.66% cumulatively) over 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively.These data suggest that the abandonment rate of eucalyptus plantations reaches its peak (about one third) after 15 years of operation. For other time intervals (i.e., 5, 10, and 20 years), the rate remains at around 25%. This is related to the management of eucalyptus plantations in the south of China: the first eucalyptus harvest cycle is about 6 years. The second generation of eucalyptus reproduces by division propagation (sprout naturally) with 4 years of harvest cycle, and the third generation follows the same pattern. These amount to 15–16 years-long period for plantation management. Eucalyptus requires stubble-cleaning after twice of division propagations (sprout reproduction), and needs to be re-planted. This is consistent with the timing of abandonment rate peak as stated above. It is highly likely that the eucalyptus plantations are abandoned due to the low soil fertility, and plantation managers or land owners decide to stop growing eucalyptus as a result.A simple statistical model (second-order polynomial) is established between eucalyptus plantations abandonment rate and time (Fig. 6), which suggests that all plantations will stop growing eucalyptus after 50 years, and the corresponding lands will be used for other purposes. The expansion of eucalyptus plantations relies on sustained cultivation of new lands (land reclamation). The total area of eucalyptus plantations reached 5,647,400 hectares in the 9th NFI, but only 4.29% of them (that) have been continuously growing eucalyptus since the 5th NFL (i.e., 24.34% of the plots from the 5th NFI are kept).Figure 6Statistical model showing how abandonment and replanting rates of eucalyptus plantations change with time.Full size imageThere are two main reasons to explain the loss of eucalyptus plantations. The land might be taken over for non-agricultural use (e.g., infrastructure and building construction), or they could be used for growing other crops. The latter is help for soil fertility restoration and soil microorganism readjustment. As most eucalyptus plantations in China are cultivated on lands with poor growing conditions, most of them were abandoned voluntarily by the land owner or plantation manager as stated earlier.After harvest, eucalyptus plantations could be reused for the continuation of eucalyptus growing or used for other purposes (e.g., growing other crops). The plots that were temporarily not used for growing eucalyptus could be used for re-growing it under certain conditions after a certain time period. We investigate the replanting rate of the 561 abandoned eucalyptus plantations, and study whether the abandoned plantations are used for growing other outcrops, and, if so, the corresponding tree species (Tables 8, 9, 10, 11). The 6th NFI data suggests that there are 76 plots abandoned after the 5th NFI. Their replanting rates are 2.63%, 7.89% (10.53% cumulatively), 0.00% (10.53% cumulatively), and 5.26% (15.79% cumulatively) within every 5 years, and after 5, 10, and 15 years of abandonment. For all the 561 abandoned plots, replanting rates are 9.09%, 5.53% (cumulatively 14.62% within 10 years), 0.53% (cumulatively 15.15% within 15 years), 5.26% (cumulatively 15.86% within 20 years) within every 5 years, and after 5, 10, and 15 years of abandonment. These suggest that about five sixth of the abandoned plots had not replanted eucalyptus for at least 20 years since abandonment.Table 8 Land use of eucalyptus plantation sample plots during different NFIs.Full size tableTable 9 Temporal change of tree species planted in sample plots.Full size tableTable 10 Replanting rate of eucalyptus plantations.Full size tableTable 11 Productivity of plantations that have replanted eucalyptus.Full size tableA simple statistical model is established between replanting rate and time (second-order polynomial) based on the current data (Fig. 5). It suggests that the replanting rates after 30 and 50 years are around 20% and 30%, respectively. These suggest that if the plantation management does not improve significantly, it would be difficult to maintain the current supply of eucalyptus and areal distribution of its plantations in the long term. It is necessary to rely on both land rotation and cultivation of new lands to maintain the current supply of eucalyptus.The NFI data suggests that very few eucalyputs plots are turned to non-plantation purposes. The exception is from the 6th NFI in which 34.21% of plots have been used for other purposes after harvest. This rate is below 20% for all other inventory data. A lot of abandoned eucalyptus plantations are still used as plantations, and they are for growing eucalyptus, and the rate of regrowing eucalyptus tends to remain low for a long period of time (below one sixth after 20 years based on current data). This is because eucalyptus grows fast with high productivity, and it has high demand for soil fertility and water. Land rotation is necessary after a few harvest cycles to restore the soil fertility, which would take relatively long period of time before the land becomes suitable to regrow euccalyptus. Among the 561 abandoned eucalyptus plots, broad-leaf and economic tree species are the most commonly planted species after stop growing eucalyptus (e.g., rubber tree and Lychee; 18.54% and 18.36%; Table 9). The greater variability of land use for the abandoned plots suggests greater management intensity. Afforestation with eucalyptus is dominated by short rotation period (harvest cycle). Frequently modifying tree species planted within plantations helps maintain a high productivity of the land.
Carbon storage and fixation of eucalyptus plantationsVariability in carbon storageBased on the 9th NFI data and Eqs. (2–8), we calculate the BEF of eucalyptus in each province (Table 12). The results suggest that the BEF ranges from 0.982–1.652 with a weighted average of 1.236 (weight determined by stock volume).Table 12 BEF of eucalyptus by province.Full size tableCalculation from Eqs. (9) and (10) suggests that the total carbon storage (excluding harvest volume) of eucalyptus in China is 2.40 TgC (1973–1976, 1Tg = 1012 g), 4.14 TgC (1977–1981), 2.73 TgC (1984–1988), 5.42 TgC (1989–1993), 9.73 TgC (1994–1998), 12.58 TgC (1999–2003), 28.90 TgC (2004–2008), 98.61 TgC (2009–2013), and 133.00 TgC (2014–2018) in different time periods in the past 45 years (Table 13).Table 13 Eucalyptus carbon density and storage by province.Full size tableThe carbon storage of eucalyptus increased rapidly in the past 45 years especially since the end of last century. This is due to the rapid expansion of eucalyptus plantations in China, and its carbon storage in 2014–2018 is 55.42 times of that in 1973–1976. The carbon density per square hectometer also increases from 5.22 MgC (1 Mg = 106 g) in 1973–1976 to 12.16 MgC in 2014–2018, about 2.33 times of the former.Carbon fixationThe mean annual productivity of eucalyptus is 8.57 m3 hm−2 a−1 in 2014–2018 based on the 9th NFI. This is a lot greater compared to other species widely planted in the same areas (Pinus massoniana Lamb.: 2.91 m3 hm−2 a−1; Cunninghamia lanceolata Lamb.: 3.93 m3 hm−2 a−1). Using the stock volume biomass method with BEF being 1.2336 (from previous calculation) and carbon storage coefficient of 0.5, the mean annual carbon fixed by eucalyptus is 5.29 t hm−2 a−1, which are about 2.95 and 2.18 times that of Pinus massoniana Lamb. (1.79 t hm−2 a−1) and Cunninghamia lanceolata Lamb. (2.42 t hm−2 a−1), respectively. This shows that eucalyptus is characterized by high biomass productivity and high carbon fixation capability. It thus plays an important role in maintaining the carbon balance in China. More

CORRESPONDENCE
05 October 2021

Fund natural-history museums, not de-extinction

Corrie S. Moreau

 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-5792

0
&

Jessica L. Ware

 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4066-7681

1

Corrie S. Moreau

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Jessica L. Ware

American Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

The only way to study extinct species is by leveraging the irreplaceable collections of natural-history museums. It is unfortunate, then, that instead of supporting these often imperilled institutions, private investors are spending millions on attempts to resurrect species. For example, the US start-up firm Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences, co-founded by synthetic biologist George Church, is exploring such feats.

Access options

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

/* style specs start */
style{display:none!important}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 *{align-content:stretch;align-items:stretch;align-self:auto;animation-delay:0s;animation-direction:normal;animation-duration:0s;animation-fill-mode:none;animation-iteration-count:1;animation-name:none;animation-play-state:running;animation-timing-function:ease;azimuth:center;backface-visibility:visible;background-attachment:scroll;background-blend-mode:normal;background-clip:borderBox;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;background-origin:paddingBox;background-position:0 0;background-repeat:repeat;background-size:auto auto;block-size:auto;border-block-end-color:currentcolor;border-block-end-style:none;border-block-end-width:medium;border-block-start-color:currentcolor;border-block-start-style:none;border-block-start-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-left-radius:0;border-bottom-right-radius:0;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-collapse:separate;border-image-outset:0s;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-inline-end-color:currentcolor;border-inline-end-style:none;border-inline-end-width:medium;border-inline-start-color:currentcolor;border-inline-start-style:none;border-inline-start-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-spacing:0;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-left-radius:0;border-top-right-radius:0;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;bottom:auto;box-decoration-break:slice;box-shadow:none;box-sizing:border-box;break-after:auto;break-before:auto;break-inside:auto;caption-side:top;caret-color:auto;clear:none;clip:auto;clip-path:none;color:initial;column-count:auto;column-fill:balance;column-gap:normal;column-rule-color:currentcolor;column-rule-style:none;column-rule-width:medium;column-span:none;column-width:auto;content:normal;counter-increment:none;counter-reset:none;cursor:auto;display:inline;empty-cells:show;filter:none;flex-basis:auto;flex-direction:row;flex-grow:0;flex-shrink:1;flex-wrap:nowrap;float:none;font-family:initial;font-feature-settings:normal;font-kerning:auto;font-language-override:normal;font-size:medium;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal;font-style:normal;font-synthesis:weight style;font-variant:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-position:normal;font-weight:400;grid-auto-columns:auto;grid-auto-flow:row;grid-auto-rows:auto;grid-column-end:auto;grid-column-gap:0;grid-column-start:auto;grid-row-end:auto;grid-row-gap:0;grid-row-start:auto;grid-template-areas:none;grid-template-columns:none;grid-template-rows:none;height:auto;hyphens:manual;image-orientation:0deg;image-rendering:auto;image-resolution:1dppx;ime-mode:auto;inline-size:auto;isolation:auto;justify-content:flexStart;left:auto;letter-spacing:normal;line-break:auto;line-height:normal;list-style-image:none;list-style-position:outside;list-style-type:disc;margin-block-end:0;margin-block-start:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-inline-end:0;margin-inline-start:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;margin-top:0;mask-clip:borderBox;mask-composite:add;mask-image:none;mask-mode:matchSource;mask-origin:borderBox;mask-position:0% 0%;mask-repeat:repeat;mask-size:auto;mask-type:luminance;max-height:none;max-width:none;min-block-size:0;min-height:0;min-inline-size:0;min-width:0;mix-blend-mode:normal;object-fit:fill;object-position:50% 50%;offset-block-end:auto;offset-block-start:auto;offset-inline-end:auto;offset-inline-start:auto;opacity:1;order:0;orphans:2;outline-color:initial;outline-offset:0;outline-style:none;outline-width:medium;overflow:visible;overflow-wrap:normal;overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:visible;padding-block-end:0;padding-block-start:0;padding-bottom:0;padding-inline-end:0;padding-inline-start:0;padding-left:0;padding-right:0;padding-top:0;page-break-after:auto;page-break-before:auto;page-break-inside:auto;perspective:none;perspective-origin:50% 50%;pointer-events:auto;position:static;quotes:initial;resize:none;right:auto;ruby-align:spaceAround;ruby-merge:separate;ruby-position:over;scroll-behavior:auto;scroll-snap-coordinate:none;scroll-snap-destination:0 0;scroll-snap-points-x:none;scroll-snap-points-y:none;scroll-snap-type:none;shape-image-threshold:0;shape-margin:0;shape-outside:none;tab-size:8;table-layout:auto;text-align:initial;text-align-last:auto;text-combine-upright:none;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:solid;text-emphasis-color:currentcolor;text-emphasis-position:over right;text-emphasis-style:none;text-indent:0;text-justify:auto;text-orientation:mixed;text-overflow:clip;text-rendering:auto;text-shadow:none;text-transform:none;text-underline-position:auto;top:auto;touch-action:auto;transform:none;transform-box:borderBox;transform-origin:50% 50% 0;transform-style:flat;transition-delay:0s;transition-duration:0s;transition-property:all;transition-timing-function:ease;vertical-align:baseline;visibility:visible;white-space:normal;widows:2;width:auto;will-change:auto;word-break:normal;word-spacing:normal;word-wrap:normal;writing-mode:horizontalTb;z-index:auto;-webkit-appearance:none;-moz-appearance:none;-ms-appearance:none;appearance:none;margin:0}.LiveAreaSection-193358632{width:100%}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .login-option-buybox{display:block;width:100%;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-access-options{display:block;font-weight:700;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child)::before{transform:translateY(-50%);content:”;height:1rem;position:absolute;top:50%;left:0;border-left:2px solid #999}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child){padding-left:10px}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li{display:inline-block;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:10px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;flex:1;flex-direction:row-reverse;margin:-30px -15px 0}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .box-inner{width:100%;height:100%}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:1;flex-basis:255px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .subscribe-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:4;flex-basis:300px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:29%;margin-left:29%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .asia-link{color:#069;cursor:pointer;text-decoration:none;font-size:1.05em;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:1.05em6}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:10%;margin-left:10%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:30%;margin-left:30%;font-size:14px;color:#222;opacity:.8px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-buybox{display:block;font-size:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;padding-top:30px;text-align:center}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-from{font-size:14px;padding-right:10px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .issue-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;text-align:center;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:19px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .no-price-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;text-align:center;padding-right:10%;padding-left:10%;padding-bottom:20px;padding-top:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .vat-buybox{display:block;margin-top:5px;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:11px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:15px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:17px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container{display:block;padding-right:20px;padding-left:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container >a:hover,.Button-505204839:hover,.Button-1078489254:hover{text-decoration:none}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-button{background:#fff;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-asia{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:75px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-label-asia,.ButtonLabel-3869432492,.ButtonLabel-3296148077{display:block;color:#fff;font-size:17px;line-height:20px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;cursor:pointer}.Button-505204839,.Button-1078489254{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:10px}.Button-505204839 .readcube-label,.Button-1078489254 .readcube-label{color:#069}
/* style specs end */Subscribe to JournalGet full journal access for 1 year$199.00only $3.90 per issueSubscribeAll prices are NET prices. VAT will be added later in the checkout.Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.Rent or Buy articleGet time limited or full article access on ReadCube.from$8.99Rent or BuyAll prices are NET prices.

Additional access options:

Log in

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Nature 598, 32 (2021)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02710-4

Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

See more letters to the editor

Subjects

Conservation biology

Ecology

Evolution

Latest on:

Ecology

Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests
News 30 SEP 21

Why stem cells might save the northern white rhino
Outlook 29 SEP 21

Fine-root traits in the global spectrum of plant form and function
Article 29 SEP 21

Evolution

The genetic symphony underlying evolution of the brain’s prefrontal cortex
News & Views 01 OCT 21

Hominini-specific regulation of CBLN2 increases prefrontal spinogenesis
Article 01 OCT 21

Closest known relatives of virus behind COVID-19 found in Laos
News 24 SEP 21

Jobs

Postdoctoral Fellow- Molecular Oncology

Georgetown University
Washington, DC, United States

POSTDOCOTRAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST

Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC), CU
New York, NY, United States

Postdoctoral Fellow in Deep Learning and Neuroimaging

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UT Health Science Center at San Antonio)
San Antonio, TX, United States

Associate or Senior Editor (Human Genetics/Genomics), Nature Communications

Springer Nature
London, United Kingdom More