Ecology

1.Bennett, S. C. The ontogeny of Pteranodon and other pterosaurs. Paleobiology 19, 92–106 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Bennett, S. C. A statistical study of Rhamphorhynchus from the Solnhofen Limestone of Germany: Year-classes of a single large species. J. Paleontol. 69, 569–580 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Bennett, S. C. Year-classes of pterosaurs from the Solnhofen Limestone of Germany: Taxonomic and systematic implications. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 16, 432–444 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bennett, S. C. New smallest specimen of the pterosaur Pteranodon and ontogenetic niches in pterosaurs. J. Paleontol. 92, 254–271 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Kellner, A. W. A. Comments on Triassic pterosaurs with discussion about ontogeny and description of new taxa. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 87, 669–689 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Chiappe, L. M., Codorniú, L., Grellet-Tinner, G. & Rivarola, D. Argentinian unhatched pterosaur fossil. Nature 432, 571–572 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Wang, X. & Zhou, Z. Pterosaur embryo from the Early Cretaceous. Nature 429, 521 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Manzig, P. C. et al. Discovery of a rare pterosaur bone bed in a Cretaceous desert with insights on ontogeny and behavior of flying reptiles. PLoS ONE 9, e100005. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100005 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Wang, X. et al. Sexually dimorphic tridimensionally preserved pterosaurs and their eggs from China. Curr. Biol. 24, 1323–1330 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Codorniú, L., Chiappe, L. & Rivarola, D. Neonate morphology and development in pterosaurs: evidence from a ctenochasmatid embryo from the Early Cretaceous of Argentina. In New Perspectives on Pterosaur Palaeobiology Vol. 455 (eds Hone, D. W. E. et al.) 83–94 (Geological Society London Special Publications, 2018).11.Wang, X. et al. Egg accumulation with 3D embryos provides insight into the life history of a pterosaur. Science 358, 1197–1201 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Unwin, D. M. The Pterosaurs from Deep Time (Pi Press, 2005).13.Prondvai, E., Stein, K., Ősi, A. & Sander, M. P. Life history of Rhamphorhynchus inferred from bone histology and the diversity of pterosaurian growth strategies. PLoS ONE 7, e31392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031392 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Heij, C. J., Rompas, C. F. E. & Moeliker, C. W. The biology of the Mollucan megapode Eulipoa wallacei (Aves, Galliformes, Megapodiidae) on Haruku and other Mollucan Islands; part 2. Deinsea 3, 1–120 (1997).
Google Scholar 
15.Jackson, B. E., Segre, P. & Dial, K. P. Precocial development of locomotor performance in a ground-dwelling bird (Alectoris chukar): Negotiating a three-dimensional terrestrial environment. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 3457–3466 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Healey, C. Dispersal of newly hatched orange-footed scrubfowl Megapodius reinwardt. Emu 94, 220–221 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Starck, J. M. Structural variants and invariants in avian embryonic and postnatal development. Oxford Ornithol. Ser. 8, 59–88 (1998).
Google Scholar 
18.Chinsamy, A., Codorniú, L. & Chiappe, L. Developmental growth patterns of the filter-feeder pterosaur, Pterodaustro guinazui. Biol. Lett. 4, 282–285 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hone, D. W. E., Ratcliffe, J. M., Riskin, D. K., Hermanson, J. W. & Reisz, R. R. Unique near isometric ontogeny in the pterosaur Rhamphorhynchus suggests hatchlings could fly. Lethaia 54, 106–112 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Habib, M. B. Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs. Zitteliana B28, 159–166 (2008).
Google Scholar 
21.Codorniú, L. & Chiappe, L. M. Early juvenile pterosaurs (Pterodactyloidea: Pterodaustro guinazui) from the Lower Cretaceous of central Argentina. Can. J. Earth Sci. 41, 9–18 (2004).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Kellner, A. W. A. Pterosaur phylogeny and comments on the evolutionary history of the group. In Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs Vol. 217 (eds Buffetaut, E. & Mazin, J.-M.) 105–137 (Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ, 2003).23.Wang, X., Kellner, A. W. A., Zhou, Z. & Campos, D. D. A. Discovery of a rare arboreal forest-dwelling flying reptile (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) from China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1983–1987 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Andres, B., Clark, J. & Xu, X. The earliest pterodactyloid and the origin of the group. Curr. Biol. 24, 1011–1016 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Witton, M. P. Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy (Princeton University Press, 2013).26.Hone, D. W. E., Farke, A. A. & Wedel, M. J. Ontogeny and the fossil record: What, if anything, is an adult dinosaur?. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150947 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Campione, N. E., Brink, K. S., Freedman, E. A., McGarrity, C. T. & Evans, D. C. ‘Glishades ericksoni’, an indeterminate juvenile hadrosaurid from the Two Medicine Formation of Montana: Implications for hadrosauroid diversity in the latest Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) of western North America. Palaeobio. Palaeoenv. 93, 65–75 (2013).
Google Scholar 
28.Wellnhofer, P. & Kellner, A. W. A. The skull of Tapejara wellnhoferi Kellner (Reptilia, Pterosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Santana Formation of the Araripe Basin, Northeastern Brazil. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Historische Geologie 31, 89–106 (1991).
Google Scholar 
29.Unwin, D. M. On the phylogeny and evolutionary history of pterosaurs. In Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs Vol. 217 (eds Buffetaut, E. & Mazin, J.-M.) 139–190 (Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ, 2003).30.Kellner, A. W. A. New information on the Tapejaridae (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) and discussion of the relationships of this clade. Ameghiniana 41, 521–534 (2004).
Google Scholar 
31.Lü, J. et al. A new species of Huaxiapterus (Pterosauria: Pterodactyloidea) from the Lower Cretaceous of Western Liaoning, China with comments on the systematics of tapejarid pterosaurs. Acta Geol. Sin. 80, 315–326 (2006).
Google Scholar 
32.Eck, K., Elgin, R. & Frey, E. On the osteology of Tapejara wellnhoferi KELLNER 1989 and the first occurrence of a multiple specimen assemblage from the Santana Formation, Araripe Basin, NE-Brazil. Swiss J. Paleontol. 130, 277–296 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Bennett, S. C. Sexual dimorphism in Pteranodon and other pterosaurs, with comments on cranial crests. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 12, 422–434 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Tomkins, J. L., LeBas, N. R., Witton, M. P., Martill, D. M. & Humphries, S. Positive allometry and the prehistory of sexual selection. Am. Nat. 176, 141–148 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Pinheiro, F. L. & Rodrigues, T. Anhanguera taxonomy revisited: Is our understanding of Santana Group pterosaur diversity biased by poor biological and stratigraphic control?. PeerJ 5, e3285. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3285 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Li, J. J., Lü, J. & Zhang, B. K. A new sinopterid pterosaur from the Mesozoic of western Liaoning Province, China. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 42, 442–447 (2003).
Google Scholar 
37.Bennett, S. C. Juvenile specimens of the pterosaur Germanodactylus cristatus, with a review of the genus. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 26, 872–878 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bennett, S. C. New information on body size and cranial display structures of Pterodactylus antiquus, with a revision of the genus. Palaeontol. Z. 87, 269–289 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Bennett, S. C. Soft tissue preservation of the cranial crest of the pterosaur Germanodactylus from Solnhofen. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 22, 43–48 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wang, X. & Zhou, Z. A new pterosaur (Pterodactyloidea, Tapejaridae) from the Early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation of western Liaoning, China and its implications for biostratigraphy. Chin. Sci. Bull. 48, 16–23 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Jouve, S. Description of the skull of a Ctenochasma (Pterosauria) from the latest Jurassic of eastern France, with a taxonomic revision of European Tithonian Pterodactyloidea. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 24, 542–554 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.McGuire, J. A. Allometric prediction of locomotor performance: An example from Southeast Asian flying lizards. Am. Nat. 161, 337–349 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.McGuire, J. A. & Dudley, R. The biology of gliding in flying lizards (genus Draco) and their fossil and extant analogs. Integr. Comp. Biol. 51, 983–990 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Witton, M. P. A new approach to determining pterosaur body mass and its implications for pterosaur flight. Zitteliana B28, 143–158 (2008).
Google Scholar 
45.Henderson, D. M. Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional mathematical slicing. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 30, 768–785 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Witton, M. P. Flight performance and lifestyle of Dimorphodon macronyx. Flugsaurier 2015 Portsmouth abstract volume, 57–60 (2015).47.Martin, E. G. & Palmer, C. A novel method of estimating pterosaur skeletal mass using computed tomography scans. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 34, 1466–1469 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Martin-Silverstone, E. et al. Exploring the relationship between skeletal mass and total body mass in birds. PLoS ONE 10, e0141794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141794 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Elgin, R., Hone, D. W. E. & Frey, E. The extent of the pterosaur flight membrane. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 56, 99–111 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Pennycuick, C. J. Modelling the Flying Bird (Academic, 2008).51.Witton, M. P. & Habib, M. B. On the size and flight diversity of giant pterosaurs, the use of birds as pterosaur analogues and comments on pterosaur flightlessness. PLoS ONE 5, e13982. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013982 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Bennett, S. C. New interpretation of the wings of the pterosaur Rhamphorhynchus muensteri based on the Zittel and Marsh specimens. J. Paleont. 1, 1–25 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Palmer, C. & Dyke, G. J. Biomechanics of the unique pterosaur pteroid. P. Roy. Soc. B 277, 1121–1127 (2010).
Google Scholar 
54.Currey, J. D. Bones: Structure and Mechanics (Princeton University Press, 2002).55.Vernes, K. Gliding performance of the Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in mature mixed forest of eastern Canada. J. Mammal. 82, 1026–1033 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Socha, J. J. Gliding flight in the paradise tree snake. Nature 418, 603–604 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Jackson, S. M. Gliding Mammals of the World (Csiro Publishing, 2012).58.Alexander, D. E. Nature’s Flyers: Birds, Insects, and the Biomechanics of Flight (JHU Press, 2004).59.Socha, J. J., Jafari, F., Munk, Y. & Byrnes, G. How animals glide: From trajectory to morphology. Can. J. Zoo. 93, 901–924 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Biewener, A. A. Bone strength in small mammals and bipedal birds: Do safety factors change with body size?. J. Exp. Biol. 98, 289–301 (1982).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Currey, J. D. & Alexander, R. M. The thickness of the walls of tubular bones. J. Zool. 206, 453–468 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Habib, M. Constraining the air giants: Limits on size in flying animals as an example of constraint-based biomechanical theories of form. Biol. Theory 8, 245–252 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Vidovic, S. U. & Martill, D. M. Pterodactylus scolopaciceps Meyer, 1860 (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) from the Upper Jurassic of Bavaria, Germany: The problem of cryptic pterosaur taxa in early ontogeny. PLoS ONE 9, e110646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110646 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Grigg, G. & Kirshner, D. Biology and Evolution of Crocodylians (CSIRO Publishing, 2015).65.Alerstam, T., Rosén, M., Bäckman, J., Ericson, P. G. & Hellgren, O. Flight speeds among bird species: Allometric and phylogenetic effects. PLoS Biol. 5, e197. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050197 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Dial, K. P. & Jackson, B. E. When hatchlings outperform adults: locomotor development in Australian brush turkeys (Alectura lathami, Galliformes). Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1610–1616 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Rayner, J. M. Form and function in avian flight. Curr. Ornithol. 5, 1–66 (1988).
Google Scholar 
68.Marden, J. H. From damselflies to pterosaurs: How burst and sustainable flight performance scale with size. Am. J. Physiol. Reg. I 266, R1077–R1084 (1994).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Tobalske, B. W., Altshuler, D. L. & Powers, D. R. Take-off mechanics in hummingbirds (Trochilidae). J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1345–1352 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Unwin, D. M. & Deeming, D. C. Pterosaur eggshell structure and its implications for pterosaur reproductive biology. Zitteliana B28, 199–207 (2008).
Google Scholar 
71.Unwin, D. M. & Martill, D. M. Pterosaurs of the Crato formation. In The Crato Fossil Beds of Brazil: Window into an Ancient World (eds Martill, D. M. et al.) 475–524 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).72.Lü, J. et al. An egg-adult association, gender, and reproduction in pterosaurs. Science 331, 321–324 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Naish, D. & Witton, M. P. Neck biomechanics indicate that giant Transylvanian azhdarchid pterosaurs were short-necked arch predators. PeerJ 5, e2908. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2908 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Wellnhofer, P. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs (Crescent Books, 1991).75.Witton, M. P. & Naish, D. A reappraisal of azhdarchid pterosaur functional morphology and paleoecology. PLoS ONE 3, e2271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002271 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Harmon, M. E. et al. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 15, 133–302 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Lagomarsino, A. et al. Decomposition of black pine (Pinus nigra J. F. Arnold) deadwood and its impact on forest soil components. Sci. Total Environ. 754, 142039 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Magnússon, R. Í., Tietema, A., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Hefting, M. M. & Kalbitz, K. Tamm review: Sequestration of carbon from coarse woody debris in forest soils. For. Ecol. Manag. 377, 1–15 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Vogt, K. Carbon budgets of temperate forest ecosystems. Tree Physiol. 9, 69–86 (1991).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Stutz, K. P. & Lang, F. Potentials and unknowns in managing coarse woody debris for soil functioning. Forests 8, 37 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Ulyshen, M. D. et al. Below- and above-ground effects of deadwood and termites in plantation forests. Ecosphere 8, e01910 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Siitonen, J. Ecology of woody debris in boreal forests. Ecol. Bull. 49, 11–41 (2001).
Google Scholar 
8.Pietsch, K. A. et al. Wood decomposition is more strongly controlled by temperature than by tree species and decomposer diversity in highly species rich subtropical forests. Oikos 128, 701–715 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Rubenstein, M. A., Crowther, T. W., Maynard, D. S., Schilling, J. S. & Bradford, M. A. Decoupling direct and indirect effects of temperature on decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 112, 110–116 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Hu, Z. et al. Traits mediate drought effects on wood carbon fluxes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 3429–3442 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Yoon, T. K., Noh, N. J., Kim, S., Han, S. & Son, Y. Coarse woody debris respiration of Japanese red pine forests in Korea: controlling factors and contribution to the ecosystem carbon cycle. Ecol. Res. 30, 723–734 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Wu, D., Pietsch, K. A., Staab, M. & Yu, M. Wood identity alters dominant factors driving fine wood decomposition along a tree diversity gradient in subtropical plantation forests. Biotropica 53, 643–657 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ohtsuka, T. et al. Role of coarse woody debris in the carbon cycle of Takayama forest, central Japan. Ecol. Res. 29, 91–101 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bradford, M. A. et al. Climate fails to predict wood decomposition at regional scales. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 625–630 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Shorohova, E. & Kapitsa, E. Influence of the substrate and ecosystem attributes on the decomposition rates of coarse woody debris in European boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 315, 173–184 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Crockatt, M. E. & Bebber, D. P. Edge effects on moisture reduce wood decomposition rate in a temperate forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 698–707 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Dossa, G. G. O. et al. Quantifying the factors affecting wood decomposition across a tropical forest disturbance gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 468, 118166 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Eichenberg, D. et al. The effect of microclimate on wood decay is indirectly altered by tree species diversity in a litterbag study. J. Plant Ecol. 10, 170–178 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Cornwell, W. K. et al. Plant traits and wood fates across the globe: Rotted, burned, or consumed?. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 2431–2449 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Warren, R. J. & Bradford, M. A. Ant colonization and coarse woody debris decomposition in temperate forests. Insect Soc. 59, 215–221 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Acanakwo, E. F., Sheil, D. & Moe, S. R. Wood decomposition is more rapid on than off termite mounds in an African savanna. Ecosphere 10, e02554 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Veldhuis, M. P., Laso, F. J., Olff, H. & Berg, M. P. Termites promote resistance of decomposition to spatiotemporal variability in rainfall. Ecology 98, 467–477 (2017).
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Liu, G. et al. Termites amplify the effects of wood traits on decomposition rates among multiple bamboo and dicot woody species. J. Ecol. 103, 1214–1223 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Maynard, D. S., Crowther, T. W., King, J. R., Warren, R. J. & Bradford, M. A. Temperate forest termites: ecology, biogeography, and ecosystem impacts. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 199–210 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Jacobsen, R. M., Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., Kauserud, H., Mundra, S. & Birkemoe, T. Exclusion of invertebrates influences saprotrophic fungal community and wood decay rate in an experimental field study. Funct. Ecol. 32, 2571–2582 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Ulyshen, M. D., Wagner, T. L. & Mulrooney, J. E. Contrasting effects of insect exclusion on wood loss in a temperate forest. Ecosphere 5, 47 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Box, E. O. & Fujiwara, K. A comparative look at bioclimatic zonation, vegetation types, tree taxa and species richness in northeast Asia. Bot. Pac. 1, 5–20 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lee, K.-S. & Jeong, S.-Y. Ecological characteristics of termite (Riticulitermes speratus kyshuensis) for preservation of wooden cultural heritage. Conserv. Stud. 37, 327–348 (2004) ((in Korean with English abstract)).
Google Scholar 
29.Cheesman, A. W., Cernusak, L. A. & Zanne, A. E. Relative roles of termites and saprotrophic microbes as drivers of wood decay: A wood block test. Austral Ecol. 43, 257–267 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Stoklosa, A. M. et al. Effects of mesh bag enclosure and termites on fine woody debris decomposition in a subtropical forest. Basic Appl. Ecol. 17, 463–470 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ulyshen, M. D. Interacting effects of insects and flooding on wood decomposition. PLOS ONE 9, e101867 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Noh, N. J. et al. Carbon and nitrogen accumulation and decomposition from coarse woody debris in a naturally regenerated Korean red pine (Pinus densiflora S. et Z.) forest. Forests 8, 214 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Yoon, T. K. et al. Coarse woody debris mass dynamics in temperate natural forests of Mt. Jumbong, Korea. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 34, 115–125 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Park, S.-W., Baek, G., Byeon, H.-S., Kim, Y. S. & Kim, C. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics of wood stakes as affected by soil amendment treatments in a post-fire restoration area. Korean J. Agric. For. Meteorol. 20, 357–365 (2018) ((in Korean with English abstract)).
Google Scholar 
35.Ulyshen, M. D. Wood decomposition as influenced by invertebrates. Biol. Rev. 91, 70–85 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gentry, J. B. & Whitford, W. G. The relationship between wood litter infall and relative abundance and feeding activity of subterranean termites Reticulitermes spp. in three southeastern coastal plain habitats. Oecologia 54, 63–67 (1982).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Schuurman, G. Decomposition rates and termite assemblage composition in semiarid Africa. Ecology 86, 1236–1249 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Weedon, J. T. et al. Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: A role for trait variation among tree species?. Ecol. Lett. 12, 45–56 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Yoon, T. K. et al. Effects of sample size and temperature on coarse woody debris respiration from Quercus variabilis logs. J. For. Res. 19, 249–259 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Roh, Y. et al. Changes in the contribution of termites to mass loss of dead wood among three tree species during 23 months in a lowland tropical rainforest. Sociobiology 65, 59–66 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Vasconcellos, A. & de Moura, F. M. S. Wood litter consumption by three species of Nasutitermes termites in an area of the Atlantic coastal forest in northeastern Brazil. J. Insect Sci. 10, 72 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Kim, S. et al. Differential effects of coarse woody debris on microbial and soil properties in Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc. forests. Forests 8, 292 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kim, R.-H. et al. Coarse woody debris mass and nutrients in forest ecosystems of Korea. Ecol. Res. 21, 819–827 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Korea Forest Service. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon (2020) (in Korean)45.Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis 75–106 (Academic Press, New York, 1985).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
46.Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Bioleaching processVariation of pH and ORP during bioleaching processpH and ORP of the sludge are widely known to be the important parameters influencing heavy metal solubilization during bioleaching process, as well as the activity of iron-oxidizing microorganisms10,26,27. The variation of sludge pH and ORP during the single bioleaching process is presented in Fig. 1.Figure 1Variation of pH and ORP during bioleaching process.Full size imageAn appropriate pH could enhance the activities of microbes, affecting the release of metals and the stability of metal ions in the liquid phase5. As shown in Fig. 1, the pH value of sewage sludge quickly decreased from 6.44 to 3.07 in the first 6 days, due to the oxidation of Fe2+ and metal sulfides, the production of sulfuric acid, ferric hydroxide and jarosite from the hydrolysis of Fe3+18. Then the pH gradually decreased to 2.89 on the 10th day. The change of ORP followed an opposite trend. ORP value of the sludge rapidly increased from − 155.6 mV to 480.0 mV in the first 6 days, then to 505.0 mV in the following 4 days, due to the oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+ by leaching microorganisms.Heavy metals solubilization and chemical speciation distribution during bioleaching processThe removal of heavy metals during bioleaching process and the distribution of chemical fractions of heavy metals before and after bioleaching are presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The single bioleaching led to the removal of Zn, Cu, Cd, Cr, Mn, Ni, As and Pb of 67.28%, 50.78%, 64.86%, 6.32%, 56.15%, 49.83%, 20.78% and 10.52% in 10 days, respectively. The solubilization efficiency was highly related to the evolution of pH and ORP, the chemical fraction distributions and the nature of heavy metals.Figure 2Removal of heavy metals during bioleaching process.Full size imageFigure 3Chemical speciation distributions of heavy metals in raw sludge and bioleached sludge, total concentration of heavy metals in the raw sludge was set as 100% (RS raw sludge, BS bioleached sludge).Full size imageFigure 2 illustrated that Zn had the highest solubilization and removal efficiency. It was found that below the threshold pH of 6–6.5, Zn could be dissolved28. Thus, the dissolving out of Zn had started at the beginning of leaching experiment with a removal percentage of 10.15% on the 2nd day. Yet the quick solubilization of Zn was observed from the 4th day (pH 4.01). And until the 6th day (pH 3.00) when the solubilization percentage of Zn was 65.71%, the leaching rate of Zn was slowed down due to the stable pH. In the raw sludge, Zn mainly existed in mobile forms (exchangeable/acid soluble and reducible forms) as shown in Fig. 3. After bioleaching, the solubilization efficiencies of Zn in exchangeable/acid soluble form and reducible form was 58.66% and 87.93%, respectively. Meanwhile, 48.27% of Zn in oxidizable form was also dissolved out due to the oxidation of metal sulfide and loss of sludge organic matter. However, Zn in residual form remained almost unchanged in the bioleached sludge due to its high stability.It has been pointed out that Cu could be rapidly solubilized below pH of 3.7 or under a high ORP condition29. As shown in Fig. 2, in the first 4 days, the solubilization efficiency of Cu was relatively low (11.44%). The removal rate of Cu increased rapidly to 43.54% on the 6th day due to the increase of ORP (480 mV). The proportion of Cu in exchangeable/acid soluble form increased by 55.16% after bioleaching, probably because the solubilized Cu2+ was re-adsorbed on the EPS of sludge cells30,31. Most of Cu was present in reducible and oxidizable forms in the raw sludge as shown in Fig. 3, because the complexation of copper and organic materials was relatively stable30,32,33. The removal percentages of Cu in reducible and oxidizable forms were 71.11% and 61.83% after bioleaching, respectively, which was the main reason for Cu removal.Cd could be solubilized rapidly under acidic conditions as shown in Fig. 2, which is consistent with the previous study34. The solubilization of Cd could be finished in 6 days with the removal rate of 64.36%. Cd was mainly present in mobile forms (91.07%) as shown in Fig. 3, which agreed with the findings of Zeng et al.35 Thus, the acid dissolution was the main removal mechanism of Cd34. Due to the low pH of the bioleached sludge, the content of Cd in mobile forms decreased by 62.77% after bioleaching. Furthermore, Cd in immobile forms (oxidizable and residual forms) also reduced significantly.The previous study found that Cr was relatively stable with the dissolved pH threshold of 2.3–3.028. Although the percentage of Cr present in mobile forms was over 40%, the removal rate of Cr (6.32%) was the lowest among all the heavy metals investigated as shown in Fig. 2, because the lowest pH of the bioleached sludge was about 2.9, which was close to the dissolution threshold limit of Cr.As shown in Fig. 2, Mn and Ni were solubilized quickly in the first 4 days. The solubilization percentage of Mn and Ni were 56.14% and 49.83% after bioleaching, respectively. Mn and Ni mainly existed in the mobile forms (Mn 82.05%, Ni 76.08%). In the early stage of bioleaching, the removal rates of Mn and Ni were closely related to the variation of pH and displayed obvious acid dissolution mechanism. After bioleaching, the concentrations of Mn in exchangeable/acid soluble, reducible and oxidizable forms were reduced by 34.65%, 78.82% and 90.84%, respectively. As for Ni, the removal rates in such forms were 34.66%, 74.58% and 64.99%, respectively. Thus, the higher extraction efficiency of Mn and Ni arose from mixed bioleaching mechanisms, which contain acid dissolution, oxidation and reduction by Fe2+/Fe3+.Relatively low removal efficiency of As (20.78%) was observed in this study. One reason, as shown in Fig. 3, was that As was mainly distributed in residual form with high stability. The other reason was that the dissolved As3+ could be oxidized to As5+ (AsO43-) by Fe3+ generated from the metabolism of iron-oxidizing bacteria, and then insoluble FeAsO4 could be produced through the reaction of AsO43- and Fe3+, which resulted in the reprecipitation of As34.Pb in exchangeable/acid soluble form was not detected in the raw sludge, and mainly existed in reducible (59.20%) and oxidizable (23.19%) forms. The removal rates of Pb in reducible and oxidizable forms were 33.51% and 58.17% after bioleaching, respectively. However, the insoluble compounds such as PbSO4 (Ksp = 1.62 × 10–8) could be generated during the bioleaching process36, which resulted in a significant increase in the concentration of Pb in residual form (from 10.89 to 25.00 mg/kg), and thus led to the low removal ratio of Pb (10.52%).To summarize, the solubilization efficiencies of Zn, Cu, Cd, Mn and Ni, which mainly existed in mobile forms in the raw sludge, were relatively high due to the instability of these metals, while the removal rates of Cr, As and Pb, which mainly existed in immobile forms, were relatively low. However, the contents of most heavy metals in mobile forms decreased obviously after bioleaching and would lead to the corresponding reduction of the environmental risk of the sludge.Combined bioleaching/Fenton-like processEffect of H2O2 dosage on the removal of heavy metals under various pH conditionsPrevious studies have shown that the production ability of hydroxyl radical during the Fenton-like reaction process could be enhanced under pH range of 2.5–4.5, and meanwhile, the amount of H2O2 directly influences the production of hydroxyl radical10,18. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, the effects of H2O2 dosage on the solubilization efficiencies of heavy metals were investigated at different stages of the bioleaching process, when the pH values of the bioleached sludge were 4.5 (about 3.5th day), 4.0 (4th day) and 3.0 (6th day).Figure 4Effects of H2O2 dosage on the removal efficiency of heavy metals under various pH conditions.Full size imageWith the increasing concentrations of H2O2 (0.0–8.0 g/L), the solubilization efficiency of Zn increased significantly at pH of 4.5 (Fig. 4) due to the oxidation of metal sulfide and organics by hydroxyl radical10. However, the solubilization percentages of Zn barely changed with further increase of H2O2 dosage (from 8.0 to 15.0 g/L). The solubilization percentage of Zn at the H2O2 dosage of 8.0 g/L (pH of 4.5) was significantly higher than when only using single bioleaching (75.31% vs. 67.64%). The enhancement of solubilization efficiency of Zn at a pH of 4.0 and 3.0 was not very noticeable (Fig. 4), because most of the Zn in immobile forms was dissolved out by bioleaching. The highest solubilization percentages of Zn were 74.96% at a pH of 4.0 and 75.53% at a pH of 3.0, which were 7.32% and 7.89% higher than that of the single bioleaching process.Due to the lower dissolved pH threshold of Cu compared with Zn, the solubilization efficiency of Cu was significantly affected by the dosage of H2O2 at a pH of 4.5 and 4.0 as shown in Fig. 4, while when the reaction pH was 3.0, the subsequent Fenton treatment had a relatively small impact on the removal of Cu. The highest removal rate of Cu (52.17%) was obtained at pH of 3.0 and H2O2 dosage of 13.0 g/L, which was slightly higher than that of the single bioleaching (50.78%). The change in solubilization efficiency of Cd was similar to that of Cu. When the pH values were 4.5 and 4.0, the solubilization percentages of Cd with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L were 4.59% and 1.23% higher than that of the single bioleaching process, respectively. Meanwhile, the highest solubilization percentage of Cd (71.91%) could be reached at a pH of 3.0 and H2O2 dosage of 13.0 g/L, which was higher than that of the single bioleaching process (64.86%).The addition of H2O2 did not increase the removal rate of Cr significantly as shown in Fig. 4. At a reaction pH of 4.5, the solubilization percentage of Cr was 7.59% with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L, which was a little higher than that of the single bioleaching process (6.32%), while the highest solubilization percentages of Cr could reach 11.63% and 9.18% at pH of 4.0 and 3.0, respectively, with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L.The solubilization process of Mn and Ni displayed similar trend as shown in Fig. 4. The solubilization percentage of Mn was not significantly improved when the H2O2 dosage was increased from 5.0 to 11.0 g/L at pH of 4.5 and 4.0, but a much faster increase of the removal rate was observed with the H2O2 dosage over 13.0 g/L. It could be due to the enhanced oxidizing ability of Fenton-like reaction with abundant H2O2. However, the solubilization efficiency of Mn under a pH of 3.0 began to increase with H2O2 concentration of 11.0 g/L, which could be attributed to the high efficiency of Fenton action under lower pH15. The highest removal percentage of Mn was 66.29% at pH of 3.0 and H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L, while the removal percentage of Mn in the single bioleaching process was 56.14%. The removal behavior of Ni at various pH was consistent with Mn. The highest removal rate of Ni (65.81%) was found at a pH of 3.0 with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L, which was significantly improved, compared with the single bioleaching process (49.83%).On the contrary, the removal efficiency of As and Pb in the combined process was not promoted compared with the single bioleaching process. Due to the strong oxidizing capacity of Fenton-like process, the yield of SO42− and insoluble FeAsO4 could be improved. Correspondingly, Pb2+ could be transformed into residual form, such as insoluble PbSO410. Therefore, the removal efficiencies of As and Pb decreased in the combined process. The highest removal rates of As and Pb after Fenton-like treatment were 12.46% and 10.20%, respectively.In the combined process, higher solubilization efficiencies of most heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cd, Mn, Ni, Cr) could be achieved in 6 days. The removal efficiency of heavy metals (except Cr, As and Pb) of combined process (pH of 3.0, H2O2 dosage of 15 g/L) is higher than that of the single bioleaching process. The removal rate of Zn, Cu, Cd, Mn and Ni increased by 7.89%, 0.38%, 5.56%, 10.15% and 15.35%, respectively. Meanwhile, the total concentrations of heavy metals measured in this study after treatment could meet the control standards of pollutants in sludge for agricultural use of China (National Standard GB 4284-2018). The removal of As and Pb was not improved by the combined process, other methods such as chemical leaching, electrokinetic remediation and phytoremediation could be considered as alternatives. However, their transformation into insoluble forms may also reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals and increase the environmental safety of the treated sludge. For that reason, the chemical speciation distributions of heavy metals in the combined process were further analyzed in detail.Chemical fraction distributions of heavy metals in the combined processIt can be seen in Fig. 4 that the solubilization efficiency of most heavy metals did not change significantly with H2O2 dosage below 8.0 g/L. Therefore, the chemical speciation changes of heavy metals after Fenton treatment under H2O2 dosage of 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 g/L, as shown in Fig. 5, were discussed.Figure 5Change of chemical speciation distributions of heavy metals under different H2O2 dosage at a pH of 4.5, 4.0 and 3.0, total concentration of heavy metal in the raw sludge was set as 100%.Full size imageUnder various pH conditions, the contents of Zn in all of the four forms showed a downward trend along with the increasing H2O2 dosage (Fig. 5). After bioleaching, Zn mainly existed in exchangeable/acid soluble form under the final pH of 4.5 (64.89%), pH of 4.0 (73.33%) and pH of 3.0 (80.82%). The removal of Zn in exchangeable/acid soluble form showed good correlation to the dosage of H2O2, which might be attributed to the destruction of EPS, and the released heavy metals were transferred to the liquid phase. Meanwhile, the improvement of sludge dewaterability could also promote the removal of heavy metals. After Fenton-like reaction at a pH of 4.5, the percentages of Zn in exchangeable/acid soluble forms were reduced by 30.35%, 31.41% and 40.09% at H2O2 dosage of 11.0, 13.0 and 15.0 g/L, respectively, compared with the percentage of Zn in the sludge at the end of the single bioleaching process. However, the percentage of Zn in other forms did not change significantly after Fenton-like treatment. Therefore, the further removal of Zn in exchangeable/acid soluble form and the dewaterability improvement of sludge may be the main reasons for the higher removal efficiency of Zn in the combined process.Cu was still mainly associated with the oxidizable form after bioleaching ended at pH of 4.5, 4.0 and 3.0 (Fig. 5), which might be attributed to the preference of Cu for organic materials22. The addition of H2O2 at pH 4.5 significantly boosted the solubilization efficiency of Cu in exchangeable/acid soluble form. The percentages of Cu in exchangeable/acid soluble form in the sludge after Fenton treatment at pH 4.5 were 24.69% (11.0 g/L), 29.50% (13.0 g/L) and 38.15% (15.0 g/L), which were lower than that at the end of the single bioleaching process. Meanwhile, the content of Cu in reducible form was reduced by nearly 50% with H2O2 dosage of 13.0 and 15.0 g/L, compared with its content after bioleaching ended at pH 4.5. However, the highest removal rate of Cu in oxidizable form was only 33.20% with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L. The removal efficiency of Cu in exchangeable/acid soluble and reducible forms increased with the increasing H2O2 dosage at pH 4.0 and 3.0, similar to the observation at pH 4.5. Under a reaction pH of 4.0, 47.2% of Cu in oxidizable form was removed after Fenton treatment with H2O2 dosage of 13.0 g/L, while only 28.6% was removed at H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L. In addition, the removal rates of Cu in oxidizable form were only 4.9–17.7% at various H2O2 dosage at a Fenton reaction pH of 3.0. The removal efficiency of Cu was reduced in despite of the increasing oxidation capacity of Fenton-like reaction. The macro-molecular organic matters could be degraded into small organic molecules during Fenton treatment process, releasing partial Cu. However, the generated small molecule organic matters had more undissociated carboxyl that would combine with released Cu31, which formed Cu in oxidizable form. Thus, it could explain the low removal efficiency of Cu in oxidizable form under stronger oxidizing condition. However, the highest removal rate of Cu (52.17%) was observed at pH 3.0 and H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L, due to the high reduction ratio of Cu in mobile forms at that condition.Cd mainly existed in mobile forms in the sludge after bioleaching and Fenton treatment, as shown in Fig. 5. The contents of Cd in mobile and oxidizable forms decreased with the increasing H2O2 dosage at pH 4.5. The content of Cd in exchangeable/acid soluble form after Fenton treatment at pH 4.5 and H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L was 29.10% lower than that at the end of the single bioleaching process. Meanwhile, the content of Cd in mobile form was decreased by 27.54% (11.0 g/L), 26.56% (13.0 g/L) and 36.72% (15.0 g/L) after Fenton treatment at pH 4.0. The removal of Cd in exchangeable/acid soluble form after Fenton treatment could be largely due to the improvement of sludge dewaterability. However, the reduction of Cd was not obvious after Fenton treatment at pH 3.0, because the solubilization threshold of most of Cd in various forms were reached after the bioleaching process ended at pH 3.0.The removal efficiency of Cr was not improved obviously by Fenton treatment in this study, as shown in Fig. 5. It was also reported that Cr was difficult to be removed by bioleaching or combined process due to its relatively high stability10. However, the content of Cr in oxidizable form after Fenton treatment at pH 4.5 was 4.76% (11.0 g/L), 9.20% (13.0 g/L) and 9.84% (15.0 g/L) lower than that at the end of the single bioleaching process, due to the strong oxidizing capacity of hydroxyl radical. And the lowest content of Cr in oxidizable form was observed after Fenton treatment at pH 4.0 and H2O2 dosages of 13.0 g/L, which was 39.4% lower than that in the bioleached sludge. Meanwhile, the highest Cr removal rate was also obtained at this condition after Fenton-like treatment. Thus, the improvement of Cr removal in combined process was mainly due to the release of Cr in oxidizable form. Furthermore, the released metals could be absorbed on the surface of oxides31, thus inevitably caused the increase of Cr in reducible form as shown in Fig. 5. The chemical speciation change of Cr after Fenton treatment at pH 3.0 was similar to that at pH 4.0.The removal efficiency and chemical speciation distribution of Mn varied obviously after Fenton treatment with different dosages of H2O2. The removal rate of Mn was improved with the increasing dosage of H2O2 at various pH values. Because most of the Mn in reducible form (over 80%) was removed by bioleaching process, the reduction of Mn in exchangeable/acid soluble form should account for the removal of a substantial part of Mn after Fenton treatment. The highest removal rate of Mn in exchangeable/acid soluble form under different pH conditions was 26.27% (pH 4.5), 25.06% (pH 4.0) and 42.18% (pH 3.0), all with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L. Although nearly 30% of Mn in reducible and oxidizable forms was also removed after Fenton treatment with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L at various pH values, it contributed little to the removal of Mn considering the low concentration of Mn in reducible and oxidizable forms in the raw sludge. Furthermore, the changes of Mn in residual form were not obvious under different pH.The chemical speciation change of Ni was similar to that of Mn after Fenton treatment. The contents of Ni in mobile and oxidizable forms decreased along with the increasing dosage of H2O2, as shown in Fig. 5. Meanwhile, the reduction of Ni in exchangeable/acid soluble form after the addition of H2O2 was the prime reason for the higher removal efficiency of Ni after the combined process than that after the single bioleaching process. The highest removal rate of Ni in exchangeable/acid soluble form was found with H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L at pH 4.0, which was 34.47% lower than that in the sludge after the signal bioleaching process. However, the highest removal efficiency of Ni (65.19%) was reached when the reaction pH was 3.0 with H2O2 dosages of 15.0 g/L due to the simultaneous reduction of Ni in reducible and oxidizable forms. The contents of Ni in reducible and oxidizable forms were reduced by 50.30% and 52.83% under this reaction condition, respectively, compared with that at the end of the single bioleaching process.As and Pb were mainly present in residual form before Fenton treatment as shown in Fig. 5. The content of As in exchangeable/acid soluble form decreased significantly due to the degradation of EPS at various pH values with the addition of H2O2. However, the content of As in residual form gradually rose with the increasing dosage of H2O2, probably because As3+ could be oxidized to As5+ by hydroxyl radical and/or Fe3+ with the formation of insoluble FeAsO434. The content of Pb in reducible form showed a trend of increase after Fenton treatment. SO42− was generated due to the oxidation of sulfur elements and/or sulfide in sludge by hydroxyl radicals with the production of insoluble PbSO410, and thus the content of Pb in residual form also increased after further Fenton treatment. Although the Fenton treatment had a negative impact on the removal of As and Pb as shown in Fig. 5, because of the formation of insoluble compounds under strong oxidizing condition, the environmental risk of these two heavy metals decreased to some extent under an appropriate condition, due to the increased proportion of immobile fractions, especially residual form. compared with the bioleached sludge.The content and proportion of most heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cd, Mn, Ni, As) in mobile forms were lower in the treated sludge after the combined bioleaching and Fenton-like process, compared with the single bioleaching process, which was also the main reason for the high removal efficiency of these metals. Their bioavailability and toxicity were also reduced. However, Fenton treatment was found to have a negative impact on the removal of As, but the increased proportion of As in residual form also lowered its bioavailability and mobility in the environment. The increase in the content of Pb in both mobile forms (mainly in reducible form) and immobile forms (mainly in residual form) was observed under different conditions, so special attention should be paid to the chemical speciation distributions of Pb during sludge treatment process.The effect of H2O2 dosage on sludge dewaterability at different pH valuesThe changes of CST of treated sludge under various conditions are presented in Fig. 6. The CST of the raw sludge (98.7 s) was dramatically reduced by bioleaching and Fenton oxidation treatments. After bioleaching ended on the 10th day (pH 2.89), the 6th day (pH 3.0), the 4th day (4.0) and the 3.5th day (pH 4.5), CST values of 20.3 s, 24.2 s, 30.7 s and 35.0 s were observed. The decreased pH after bioleaching process could destroy the EPS and neutralize the negative charge of the sludge flocs, resulting in the release of bound water37. Moreover, sludge dewatering could also be improved by the coagulation effect of Fe2+ 10. Furthermore, hydroxyl radicals were essential to improve sludge dewatering performance by destroying EPS and porous structure during the Fenton treatment process35. Therefore, the CST value of treated sludge was reduced to 20.6 s after Fenton treatment with H2O2 dosage of 15 g/L at pH 4.5, which was comparable to the CST value at the end of the single bioleaching process. The CST values were further reduced along with the decreasing reaction pH (4.0 and 3.0) and the increasing H2O2 dosage. The lowest CST value of 12.4 s was observed at Fenton reaction pH 3.0 and H2O2 dosage of 15.0 g/L, which meant a reduction from the initial CST of 87.44%. Therefore, the combined process could lead to an obvious improvement of the sludge dewaterability and significantly reduced the treatment period.Figure 6Changes of CST under different H2O2 dosage and pH.Full size image More

1.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Bessler, H. et al. Nitrogen uptake by grassland communities: contribution of N2 fixation, facilitation, complementarity, and species dominance. Plant Soil 358, 301–322 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Karanika, E. D., Alifragis, D. A., Mamolos, A. P. & Veresoglou, D. S. Differentiation between responses of primary productivity and phosphorus exploitation to species richness. Plant Soil 297, 69–81 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Lange, M. et al. How plant diversity impacts the coupled water, nutrient and carbon cycles. Adv. Ecol. Res. 61, 185–219 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Oelmann, Y. et al. Does plant diversity influence phosphorus cycling in experimental grasslands? Geoderma 167-68, 178–187 (2011).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Tilman, D., Wedin, D. & Knops, J. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379, 718–720 (1996).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Leimer, S., Oelmann, Y., Wirth, C. & Wilcke, W. Time matters for plant diversity effects on nitrate leaching from temperate grassland. Agric Ecosyst. Environ. 211, 155–163 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Palmborg, C., Prinz, A. & Schulze, E.-D. The role of plant diversity and composition for nitrate leaching in grasslands. Ecology 84, 1539–1552 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Elser, J. & Bennett, E. A broken biogeochemical cycle. Nature 478, 29–31 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lambers, H., Mougel, C., Jaillard, B. & Hinsinger, P. Plant-microbe-soil interactions in the rhizosphere: an evolutionary perspective. Plant Soil 321, 83–115 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Wassen, M. J., Olde Venterink, H., Lapshina, E. D. & Tanneberger, F. Endangered plants persist under phosphorus limitation. Nature 437, 547–550 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O. & White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Change-Hum. Policy Dimens. 19, 292–305 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.van der Heijden, M. G. A., Martin, F. M., Selosse, M.-A. & Sanders, I. R. Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: the past, the present, and the future. N. Phytol. 205, 1406–1423 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396, 69–72 (1998).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Richardson, A. E. & Simpson, R. J. Soil microorganisms mediating phosphorus availability. Plant Physiol. 156, 989–996 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hacker, N. et al. Plant diversity shapes microbe-rhizosphere effects on P mobilisation from organic matter in soil. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1356–1365 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hacker, N., Wilcke, W. & Oelmann, Y. The oxygen isotope composition of bioavailable phosphate in soil reflects the oxygen isotope composition in soil water driven by plant diversity effects on evaporation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 248, 387–399 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Craven, D. et al. Plant diversity effects on grassland productivity are robust to both nutrient enrichment and drought. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 8 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Fridley, J. D. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia 132, 271–277 (2002).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Weigelt, A., Weisser, W. W., Buchmann, N. & Scherer-Lorenzen, M. Biodiversity for multifunctional grasslands: equal productivity in high-diversity low-input and low-diversity high-input systems. Biogeosciences 6, 1695–1706 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Nyfeler, D. et al. Strong mixture effects among four species in fertilized agricultural grassland led to persistent and consistent transgressive overyielding. J. Appl Ecol. 46, 683–691 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Oelmann, Y., Vogel, A., Wegener, F., Weigelt, A. & Scherer-Lorenzen, M. Management intensity modifies plant diversity effects on N yield and mineral N in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 79, 559–568 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Manning P., et al. Transferring biodiversity-ecosystem function research to the management of ‘real-world’ ecosystems. In: Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (ed^(eds Eisenhauer N., Bohan D. A., Dumbrell A. J.). Academic Press Ltd-Elsevier Science Ltd (2019).27.Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct. Ecol. 29, 592–599 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Allan, E. et al. Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol. Lett. 18, 834–843 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Collins, C. D. & Foster, B. L. Community-level consequences of mycorrhizae depend on phosphorus availability. Ecology 90, 2567–2576 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Klironomos, J. N., McCune, J., Hart, M. & Neville, J. The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol. Lett. 3, 137–141 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Busch, V. et al. Will I stay or will I go? Plant species-specific response and tolerance to high land-use intensity in temperate grassland ecosystems. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 674–686 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Sorkau, E. et al. The role of soil chemical properties, land use and plant diversity for microbial phosphorus in forest and grassland soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 181, 185–197 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Wardle, D. A. A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 67, 321–358 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Lange, M. et al. Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage. Nat. Commun. 6, 6707 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Eisenhauer, N. et al. Plant diversity effects on soil microorganisms support the singular hypothesis. Ecology 91, 485–496 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Cleveland, C. C. & Liptzin, D. C. N: P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85, 235–252 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Marquard, E. et al. Plant species richness and functional composition drive overyielding in a 6-year grassland experiment. Ecology 90, 3290–3302 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Liebisch, F. et al. Seasonal dynamics and turnover of microbial phosphorus in a permanent grassland. Biol. Fertil. Soils 50, 465–475 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Boeddinghaus, R. S. et al. Plant functional trait shifts explain concurrent changes in the structure and function of grassland soil microbial communities. J. Ecol. 107, 2197–2210 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Soussana, J. F. et al. Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag. 20, 219–230 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Waldrop, M. P., Zak, D. R., Blackwood, C. B., Curtis, C. D. & Tilman, D. Resource availability controls fungal diversity across a plant diversity gradient. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1127–1135 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kour, D. et al. Biodiversity, current developments and potential biotechnological applications of phosphorus-solubilizing and -mobilizing microbes: a review. Pedosphere 31, 43–75 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dijkstra, F. A., He, M. Z., Johansen, M. P., Harrison, J. J. & Keitel, C. Plant and microbial uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus affected by drought using N-15 and P-32 tracers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 82, 135–142 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Hiiesalu, I. et al. Species richness of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: associations with grassland plant richness and biomass. N. Phytol. 203, 233–244 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Roscher, C. et al. The role of biodiversity for element cycling and trophic interactions: an experimental approach in a grassland community. Bas Appl. Ecol. 5, 107–121 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Hoffmann K., Bivour W., Früh B., Koßmann M., Voß P.-H. Climate studies in Jena for adaption to climate change and ist expected consequences. (In German). Selbstverlag des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (2014).49.IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015: International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. FAO (2015).50.Fischer, M. et al. Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Bas Appl Ecol. 11, 473–485 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Alt, F., Oelmann, Y., Herold, N., Schrumpf, M. & Wilcke, W. Phosphorus partitioning in grassland and forest soils of Germany as related to land-use type, management intensity, and land use-related pH. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174, 195–209 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Vogt, J. et al. Eleven years’ data of grassland management in Germany. Biodiver Data J. 7, 38 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Alt, F., Oelmann, Y., Schöning, I. & Wilcke, W. Phosphate release kinetics at stable pH in calcareous grassland and forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77, 2060–2070 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Jones J. B., Wolf B., Mills H. A. Plant analysis handbook. Micro Macro Publishing (1991).55.Marina, M. A. & Lopez, M. C. B. Determination of phosphorus in raw materials for ceramics: comparison between X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 432, 157–163 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Hedley, M. J., Stewart, J. W. B. & Chauhan, B. S. Changes in inorganic and organic soil-phosphorus fractions induced by cultivation practices and by laboratory incubations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 970–976 (1982).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3 Chemical Methods (eds Sparks D. L., et al.). SSSA (1996).58.Cross, A. F. & Schlesinger, W. H. A literature review and evaluation of the Hedley fractionation – applications to the biogeochemical cycle of soil phosphorus in natural ecosystems. Geoderma 64, 197–214 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Negassa, W. & Leinweber, P. How does the Hedley sequential phosphorus fractionation reflect impacts of land use and management on soil phosphorus: a review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172, 305–325 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Murphy, J. & Riley, J. P. A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 26, 31–36 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.McLaughlin, M. J., Alston, A. M. & Martin, J. K. Measurement of phosphorus in the soil microbial biomass – a modified procedure for field soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 18, 437–443 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Kouno, K., Tuchiya, Y. & Ando, T. Measurement of soil microbial biomass phosphorus by an anion exchange membrane method. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 1353–1357 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Bünemann, E. K., Marschner, P., Smernik, R. J., Conyers, M. & McNeill, A. M. Soil organic phosphorus and microbial community composition as affected by 26 years of different management strategies. Biol. Fertil. Soils 44, 717–726 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Brookes, P. C., Powlson, D. S. & Jenkinson, D. S. Measurement of microbial biomass phosphorus in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem 14, 319–329 (1982).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Eivazi, F. & Tabatabai, M. A. Phosphatases in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 9, 167–172 (1977).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Marx, M. C., Wood, M. & Jarvis, S. C. A microplate fluorimetric assay for the study of enzyme diversity in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 1633–1640 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Berner, D. et al. Land-use intensity modifies spatial distribution and function of soil microorganisms in grasslands. Pedobiologia 54, 341–351 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.White, D. C., Davis, W. M., Nickels, J. S., King, J. D. & Bobbie, R. J. Determination of the sedimentary microbial biomass by extractable lipid phosphate. Oecologia 40, 51–62 (1979).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Bligh, E. G. & Dyer, W. J. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 911–917 (1959).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Kramer, C. & Gleixner, G. Variable use of plant- and soil-derived carbon by microorganisms in agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 3267–3278 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Frostegard, A. & Baath, E. The use of phospholipid fatty acid analysis to estimate bacterial and fungal biomass in soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 22, 59–65 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Zelles, L. Identification of single cultured micro-organisms based on their whole-community fatty acid profiles, using an extended extraction procedure. Chemosphere 39, 665–682 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Dassen, S. et al. Differential responses of soil bacteria, fungi, archaea and protists to plant species richness and plant functional group identity. Mol. Ecol. 26, 4085–4098 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Kuramae, E. E. et al. Tracking fungal community responses to maize plants by DNA- and RNA-based pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 8, 8 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Wubet, T., Weiss, M., Kottke, I. & Oberwinkler, F. Two threatened coexisting indigenous conifer species in the dry Afromontane forests of Ethiopia are associated with distinct arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Can. J. Bot.-Rev. Canadienne De. Botanique 84, 1617–1627 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
76.Lee, J., Lee, S. & Young, J. P. W. Improved PCR primers for the detection and identification of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 65, 339–349 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Simon, L., Lalonde, M. & Bruns, T. D. Specific amplification of 18S fungal ribosomal genes from vesicular-arbuscular endomycorrhizal fungi colonizing roots. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58, 291–295 (1992).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Lefcheck, J. S. PIECEWISESEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. The mycorrhizal contribution to plant productivity, plant nutrition and soil structure in experimental grassland. N. Phytol. 172, 739–752 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Frew, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity increases growth and phosphorus uptake in C-3 and C-4 crop plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 248–250 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Hedlund, K. et al. Plant species diversity, plant biomass and responses of the soil community on abandoned land across Europe: idiosyncracy or above-belowground time lags. Oikos 103, 45–58 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Treseder, K. K. The extent of mycorrhizal colonization of roots and its influence on plant growth and phosphorus content. Plant Soil 371, 1–13 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Köhl, L., Oehl, F. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Agricultural practices indirectly influence plant productivity and ecosystem services through effects on soil biota. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1842–1853 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Fornara, D. A. & Tilman, D. Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. J. Ecol. 96, 314–322 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Steinbeiss, S. et al. Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2937–2949 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Hacker N. Phosphorus Release Mechanisms in an Experimental Grassland of Varying Biodiversity. Doctoral thesis, University of Tübingen, Germany (2017). More

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

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

1.Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Meyer, W. B. & Turner, B. L. Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 39–61 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Davidson, N. C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65, 934–941 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Maitima, J. M. et al. The linkages between land use change, land degradation and biodiversity across East Africa. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3, 2 (2009).
Google Scholar 
6.Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. & Goldewijk, K. K. Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 270, 1293–1300 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Cereghetti, E., Scherler, P., Fattebert, J. & Grüebler, M. U. Quantification of anthropogenic food subsidies to an avian facultative scavenger in urban and rural habitats. Landsc. Urban Plann. 190, 103606 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Clergeau, P. & Quenot, F. Roost selection flexibility of European starlings aids invasion of urban landscape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 80, 56–62 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wolff, A., Paul, J. P., Martin, J. L. & Bretagnolle, V. The benefits of extensive agriculture to birds: The case of the little bustard. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 963–975 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Howell, C. A., Dijak, W. D. & Thompson, F. R. Landscape context and selection for forest edge by breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 273–284 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Sauer, J. et al. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 2015–2017. (US Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland USA, 2017).12.Kiff, L. F. The current status of North American vultures. Raptors at risk. Surrey: World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, Berlin, and Hancock House Publishers (2000).13.Zimmerman, G. S. et al. Allowable take of black vultures in the eastern United States. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 272–282 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Carrete, M. et al. Winners and losers in human-made habitats: interspecific competition outcomes in two Neotropical vultures. Anim. Conserv. 13, 390–398 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Buechley, E. R. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. The avian scavenger crisis: Looming extinctions, trophic cascades, and loss of critical ecosystem functions. Biol. Conserv. 198, 220–228 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Sweeney, T. M. & Fraser, J. D. Vulture roost dynamics and monitoring techniques in southwest Virginia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1973–2006(14), 49–54 (1986).
Google Scholar 
17.Kc, K. B. et al. Factors influencing the presence of the endangered Egyptian vulture Neophron percnopterus in Rukum Nepal. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00727 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Thompson, W. L., Yahner, R. H. & Storm, G. L. Winter use and habitat characteristics of vulture communal roosts. J. Wildl. Manag. 54, 77–83 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Evans, B. A. Dynamics of a problematic vulture roost in southwest Florida and responses of vultures to roost-dispersal management efforts, Florida Gulf Coast University, (2013).20.Novaes, W. G. & Cintra, R. Factors influencing the selection of communal roost sites by the Black Vulture Coragyps atratus (Aves: Cathartidae) in an urban area in Central Amazon. Zoologia (Curitiba) 30, 607–614 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Coleman, J. S. & Fraser, J. D. Habitat use and home ranges of black and turkey vultures. J. Wildl. Manag. 53, 782–792 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Hill, J. E., DeVault, T. L., Beasley, J. C., Rhodes, O. E. & Belant, J. L. Roads do not increase carrion use by a vertebrate scavenging community. Sci. Rep. 8, 16331 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Novoselova, N. S., Novoselov, A. A., Macarrão, A., Gallo-Ortiz, G. & Silva, W. R. Remote sensing applications for abating aircraft–bird strike risks in southeast Brazil. Hum.-Wildl. Interact. 14, 8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
24.Novaes, W. G. & Cintra, R. Anthropogenic features influencing occurrence of Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) and Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura) in an urban area in central Amazonian Brazil. Condor 117, 650–659 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Campbell, M. O. N. The impact of urbanization and agricultural development on vultures in El Salvador. Vulture News 66, 16–28 (2014).
Google Scholar 
26.Cone, C. D. The soaring flight of birds. Sci. Am. 206, 130–142 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Mallon, J. M., Bildstein, K. L. & Katzner, T. E. In-flight turbulence benefits soaring birds. Auk 133, 79–85 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Holland, A. E. et al. Evidence of niche differentiation for two sympatric vulture species in the Southeastern United States. Mov. Ecol. 7, 31 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Avery, M. L. et al. Vulture flight behavior and implications for aircraft safety. J. Wildl. Manag. 75, 1581–1587 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Lowney, M. S. Damage by black and turkey vultures in Virginia, 1990–1996. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 715–719 (1999).
Google Scholar 
31.Tillman, E. A., Humphrey, J. S. & Avery, M. L. Use of vulture carcasses and effigies to reduce vulture damage to property and agriculture in Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. (eds RM Timm & RH Schmidt) 123–128 (University of California, Davis).32.Holland, A. E. et al. Fine-scale assessment of home ranges and activity patterns for resident black vultures (Coragyps atratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura). PLoS ONE 12, e0179819 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Avery, M. L., Humphrey, J. S., Tillman, E. A. & Milleson, M. P. Responses of black vultures to roost dispersal in Radford, Virginia in Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. (eds RM Timm & JM O’Brien) 239–243 (University of California, Davis).34.Avery, M. L., Humphrey, J. S., Tillman, E. A., Phares, K. O. & Hatcher, J. E. Dispersing vulture roosts on communication towers. J. Rapt. Res. 36, 45–50 (2002).
Google Scholar 
35.Walter, W. D. et al. Using three-dimensional flight patterns at airfields to identify hotspots for avian–aircraft collisions. Appl. Geogr. 35, 53–59 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.NOAA. Climate Data Online, (2021).37.Humphrey, J. S., Avery, M. L. & McGrane, A. P. Evaluating relocation as a vulture management tool in north Florida in Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. (eds TP Salmon & AC Crabb) 49–53 (University of California, Davis).38.Wallace, M. P., Parker, P. G. & Temple, S. A. An evaluation of patagial markers for cathartid vultures. J. Field Ornithol. 51, 309–314 (1980).
Google Scholar 
39.Sweeney, T. M., Fraser, J. D. & Coleman, J. S. Further evaluation of marking methods for black and turkey vultures. J. Field Ornithol. 56, 251–257 (1985).
Google Scholar 
40.Humphrey, J. S. & Avery, M. L. Improved satellite transmitter harness attachment technique. J. Rapt. Res. 48, 289–291 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.McVey, K. J., Skrade, P. D. & Sordahl, T. A. Use of a communal roost by Turkey Vultures in northeastern Iowa. J. Field Ornithol. 79, 170–175 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Tabor, S. P. & McAllister, C. T. Nocturnal flight by Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura) in southcentral Texas. J. Rapt. Res. 22, 91 (1988).
Google Scholar 
43.Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States national land cover database: Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 146, 108–123 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Elías, E. E. I. Feeding habits and ingestion of synthetic products in a Black Vulture population from Chiapas, Mexico. Acta Zool. Mex. 19, 1–15 (1987).
Google Scholar 
45.Amazon. Terrain Tiles on AWS. https://registry.opendata.aws/terrain-tiles (2017).46.US Census Bureau. TIGER/Line Shapefiles. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.html (2019).47.Lehman, C. P. et al. Elk resource selection at parturition sites, Black Hills, South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 465–478 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Pan, W. Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57, 120–125 (2001).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Cade, B. S. Model averaging and muddled multimodel inferences. Ecology 96, 2370–2382 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Survival: survival analyses. R package version 3–2–3 (2020).51.R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (Vienna, Austria, 2020).52.Fieberg, J. R. et al. Used-habitat calibration plots: A new procedure for validating species distribution, resource selection, and step-selection models. Ecography 41, 737–752 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Harrell, F. E. Jr., Lee, K. L. & Mark, D. B. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat. Med. 15, 361–387 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Muff, S., Signer, J. & Fieberg, J. Accounting for individual-specific variation in habitat-selection studies: Efficient estimation of mixed-effects models using Bayesian or frequentist computation. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 80–92 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Lambertucci, S. A., Speziale, K. L., Rogers, T. E. & Morales, J. M. How do roads affect the habitat use of an assemblage of scavenging raptors?. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 2063–2074 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.DeVault, T. L., Blackwell, B. F., Seamans, T. W., Lima, S. L. & Fernández-Juricic, E. Effects of vehicle speed on flight initiation by turkey vultures: implications for bird-vehicle collisions. PLoS ONE 9, e87944 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Bautista, L. M. et al. Effect of weekend road traffic on the use of space by raptors. Conserv. Biol. 18, 726–732 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Wallace, M. P. & Temple, S. A. Competitive interactions within and between species in a guild of avian scavengers. Auk 104, 290–295 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.de Araujo, G. M., Peres, C. A., Baccaro, F. B. & Guerta, R. S. Urban waste disposal explains the distribution of Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) in an Amazonian metropolis: management implications for birdstrikes and urban planning. PeerJ 6, e5491 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Hill, J. R. III. & Neto, P. S. Black Vultures Nesting on Skyscrapers in Southern Brazil (Buitres Anidando en Rascacielos en el Sur de Brasil). J. Field Ornithol. 62, 173–176 (1991).
Google Scholar 
62.U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Communication Tower and Antenna Consultation in New Jersey. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, New Jersey, 2001).63.Bohrer, G. et al. Estimating updraft velocity components over large spatial scales: Contrasting migration strategies of golden eagles and turkey vultures. Ecol. Lett. 15, 96–103 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Coleman, J. S. & Fraser, J. D. Food habits of black and turkey vultures in Pennsylvania and Maryland. J. Wildl. Manag. 51, 733–739 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Turner, K., Abernethy, E., Conner, L. M., Rhodes, O. E. & Beasley, J. C. Abiotic and biotic factors modulate carrion fate and vertebrate scavenging communities. Ecology 98, 2413–2424 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Grigg, N. P. et al. Anatomical evidence for scent guided foraging in the turkey vulture. Sci. Rep. 7, 17408 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Rabenold, P. P. Recruitment to food in black vultures: evidence for following from communal roosts. Anim. Behav. 35, 1775–1785 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Buckley, N. J. Food finding and the influence of information, local enhancement, and communal roosting on foraging success of North American vultures. Auk 113, 473–488 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Buckley, N. J. Experimental tests of the information-center hypothesis with black vultures (Coragypsatratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartesaura). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 267–279 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Rodríguez-Estrella, R., Donázar, J. A. & Hiraldo, F. Raptors as indicators of environmental change in the scrub habitat of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Conserv. Biol. 12, 921–925 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.DeVault, T. L. et al. Estimating interspecific economic risk of bird strikes with aircraft. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 42, 94–101 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Wickham, H. ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 3, 180–185 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Pebesma, E. J. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10, 439 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Ward, A. J. W. & Hart, P. J. B. The effects of kin and familiarity on interactions between fish. Fish Fish 4, 348–358 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ward, A. & Webster, M. Sociality: The Behaviour of Group-Living Animals (Springer, 2016).3.Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. D. Living in Groups (Oxford University Press, 2002).4.Kohn, G. M. Friends give benefits: autumn social familiarity preferences predict reproductive output. Anim. Behav. 132, 201–208 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Seppä, T., Laurila, A., Peuhkuri, N., Piironen, J. & Lower, N. Early familiarity has fitness consequences for Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) juveniles. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 1380–1385 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Oesch, N. & Dunbar, R. I. M. Group size, communication, and familiarity effects in foraging human teams. Ethology 124, 483–495 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Edenbrow, M. & Croft, D. P. Kin and familiarity influence association preferences and aggression in the mangrove killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus. J. Fish. Biol. 80, 503–518 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Kavaliers, M. & Choleris, E. Out-Group threat responses, in-group bias, and nonapeptide involvement are conserved across vertebrates: (A comment on Bruintjes et al., “out-group threat promotes within-group affiliation in a cooperative fish”). Am. Nat. 189, 453–458 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.McCarter, M. W. & Sheremeta, R. M. You can’t put old wine in new bottles: the effect of newcomers on coordination in groups. PLoS ONE 8, e55058 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Silk, J. B. in Sociality, Hierarchy, Health: Comparative Biodemography (eds Weinstein, M. & Lane, M. A.) 121–144 (National Academies Press, 2014).11.Thompson, A. B. & Hare, J. F. Neighbourhood watch: multiple alarm callers communicate directional predator movement in Richardson’s ground squirrels, Spermophilus richardsonii. Anim. Behav. 80, 269–275 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Micheletta, J. et al. Social bonds affect anti-predator behaviour in a tolerant species of macaque, Macaca nigra. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 279, 4042–4050 (2012).
Google Scholar 
13.Strodl, M. & Schausberger, P. Social familiarity reduces reaction times and enhances survival of group-living predatory mites under the risk of predation. PLoS ONE 7, e43590 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Versace, E., Damini, S., Caffini, M. & Stancher, G. Born to be asocial: Newly hatched tortoises avoid unfamiliar individuals. Anim. Behav. 138, 187–192 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Strodl, M. A. & Schausberger, P. Social familiarity modulates group living and foraging behaviour of juvenile predatory mites. Die Naturwissenschaften 99, 303–311 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Gutmann, A. K., Špinka, M. & Winckler, C. Long-term familiarity creates preferred social partners in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 169, 1–8 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Engelmann, J. M. & Herrmann, E. Chimpanzees trust their friends. Curr. Biol. 26, 252–256 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Ward, A. J. W., Axford, S. & Krause, J. Mixed-species shoaling in fish: The sensory mechanisms and costs of shoal choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 182–187 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Vickruck, J. L. & Richards, M. H. Nestmate discrimination based on familiarity but not relatedness in eastern carpenter bees. Behav. Proc. 145, 73–80 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Siracusa, E. et al. Familiarity with neighbours affects intrusion risk in territorial red squirrels. Anim. Behav. 133, 11–20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Domenici, P. & Blake, R. W. The kinematics and performance of fish fast-start swimming. J. Exp. Biol. 200, 1165–1178 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Eaton, R. C., Lavender, W. A. & Wieland, C. M. Identification of Mauthner-initiated response patterns in goldfish: Evidence from simultaneous cinematography and electrophysiology. J. Comp. Phys. A 144, 521–531 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Gerlotto, F., Bertrand, S., Bez, N. & Gutierrez, M. Waves of agitation inside anchovy schools observed with multibeam sonar: a way to transmit information in response to predation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63, 1405–1417 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Domenici, P. & Batty, R. S. Escape behaviour of solitary herring (Clupea harengus) and comparisons with schooling individuals. Mar. Biol. 128, 29–38 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Rosenthal, S. B., Twomey, C. R., Hartnett, A. T., Wu, H. S. & Couzin, I. D. Revealing the hidden networks of interaction in mobile animal groups allows prediction of complex behavioral contagion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4690–4695 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Korn, H. & Faber, D. S. The Mauthner cell half a century later: a neurobiological model for decision-making? Neuron 47, 13–28 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Domenici, P. & Hale, M. E. Escape responses of fish: a review of the diversity in motor control, kinematics and behaviour. J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb166009 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kohashi, T. & Oda, Y. Initiation of Mauthner- or non-Mauthner-mediated fast escape evoked by different modes of sensory input. J. Neurosci. 28, 10641–10653 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hecker, A., Schulze, W., Oster, J., Richter, D. O. & Schuster, S. Removing a single neuron in a vertebrate brain forever abolishes an essential behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3254–3260 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Walker, J. A., Ghalambor, C. K., Griset, O. L., McKenney, D. & Reznick, D. N. Do faster starts increase the probability of evading predators? Funct. Ecol. 19, 808–815 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.McCormick, M. I., Fakan, E. & Allan, B. J. M. Behavioural measures determine survivorship within the hierarchy of whole-organism phenotypic traits. Funct. Ecol. 32, 958–969 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Chivers, D. P., Brown, G. E. & Smith, J. F. R. Familiarity and shoal cohesion in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas): Implications for antipredator behavior. Can. J. Zool. 73, 955–960 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Griffiths, S. W., Brockmark, S., Hojesjo, J. & Johnsson, J. I. Coping with divided attention: the advantage of familiarity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 271, 695–699 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Clément, R. J. G., Wolf, M., Snijders, L., Krause, J. & Kurvers, R. H. J. M. Information transmission via movement behaviour improves decision accuracy in human groups. Anim. Behav. 105, 85–93 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Beauchamp, G. & Ruxton, G. D. False alarms and the evolution of antipredator vigilance. Anim. Behav. 74, 1199–1206 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Kao, A. B. & Couzin, I. D. Modular structure within groups causes information loss but can improve decision accuracy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 374, 20180378 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Sosna, M. M. G. et al. Individual and collective encoding of risk in animal groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20556–20561 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bohorquez-Herrera, J., Kawano, S. M. & Domenici, P. Foraging behavior delays mechanically-stimulated escape responses in fish. Integr. Comp. Biol. 53, 780–786 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Furtbauer, I. & Heistermann, M. Cortisol coregulation in fish. Sci. Rep. 6, 30334 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.DeVries, A. C., Glasper, E. R. & Detillion, C. E. Social modulation of stress responses. Phys. Behav. 79, 399–407 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.McEwen, B. S. Brain on stress: How the social environment gets under the skin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17180–17185 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Furukawa, T. & Furshpan, E. J. Two inhibitory mechanisms in the Mauthner neurons of goldfish. J. Neurophys. 26, 140–176 (1963).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pratchett, M. S., Coker, D. J., Jones, G. P. & Munday, P. L. Specialization in habitat use by coral reef damselfishes and their susceptibility to habitat loss. Ecol. Evol. 2, 2168–2180 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Nadler, L. E., McNeill, D. C., Alwany, M. A. & Bailey, D. M. Effect of habitat characteristics on the distribution and abundance of damselfish within a Red Sea reef. Environ. Biol. Fishes 97, 1265–1277 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Ohman, M. C., Munday, P. L., Jones, G. P. & Caley, M. J. Settlement strategies and distribution patterns of coral-reef fishes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 225, 219–238 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Killen, S. S., Marras, S., Nadler, L. & Domenici, P. The role of physiological traits in assortment among and within fish shoals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160233 (2017).47.Lassig, B. R. The effects of a cyclonic storm on coral reef fish assemblages. Environ. Biol. Fishes 9, 55–63 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Yoon, J.-D., Jang, M.-H. & Joo, G.-J. Effect of flooding on fish assemblages in small streams in South Korea. Limnol 12, 197–203 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Taborsky, M., Frommen, J. G. & Riehl, C. Correlated pay-offs are key to cooperation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150084 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Johansen, J. L. Quantifying water flow within aquatic ecosystems using load cell sensors: a profile of currents experienced by coral reef organisms around Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. PLoS ONE 9, e83240 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Griffiths, S. W. & Magurran, A. E. Familiarity in schooling fish: how long does it take to acquire? Anim. Behav. 53, 945–949 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Eaton, R. & Emberley, D. How stimulus direction determines the trajectory of the mauthner-initiated escape response in a teleost fish. J. Exp. Biol. 161, 469–487 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Domenici, P. et al. Fast-starting after a breath: air-breathing motions are kinematically similar to escape responses in the catfish Hoplosternum littorale. Biol. Open 4, 79–85 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Nadler, L. E., Killen, S. S., Domenici, P. & McCormick, M. I. Role of water flow regime in the swimming behaviour and escape performance of a schooling fish. Biol. Open 7, bio031997 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Nissanov, J. & Eaton, R. C. Reticulospinal control of rapid escape turning maneuvers in fishes. Am. Zool. 29, 103–121 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Marras, S., Batty, R. S. & Domenici, P. Information transfer and antipredator maneuvers in schooling herring. Adap. Behav. 20, 44–56 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Vila Pouca, C. & Brown, C. Contemporary topics in fish cognition and behaviour. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 16, 46–52 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Eaton, R., Lee, R. & Foreman, M. The Mauthner cell and other identified neurons of the brainstem escape network of fish. Prog. Neurobiol. 63, 467–485 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Nakayama, H. & Oda, Y. Common sensory inputs and differential excitability of segmentally homologous reticulospinal neurons in the hindbrain. J. Neurosci. 24, 3199–3209 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.DiDomenico, R., Nissanov, J. & Eaton, R. C. Lateralization and adaptation of a continuously variable behavior following lesions of a reticulospinal command neuron. Brain Res. 473, 15–28 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Medan, V. & Preuss, T. The Mauthner-cell circuit of fish as a model system for startle plasticity. J. Physiol. Paris 108, 129–140 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Dukas, R. Behavioural and ecological consequences of limited attention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 357, 1539–1547 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Yue, S., Duncan, I. J. H. & Moccia, R. D. Do differences in conspecific body size induce social stress in domestic rainbow trout? Environ. Biol. Fishes 76, 425–431 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Korn, H., Triller, A. & Faber, D. S. Structural correlates of recurrent collateral interneurons producing both electrical and chemical inhibitions of the Mauthner cell. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 202, 533–538 (1978).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Whitaker, K. W. et al. Serotonergic modulation of startle-escape plasticity in an African cichlid fish: a single-cell molecular and physiological analysis of a vital neural circuit. J. Neurophys. 106, 127–137 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Ward, A. J. W., Herbert-Read, J. E., Sumpter, D. J. T. & Krause, J. Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2312–2315 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Herbert-Read, J. E. et al. Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18726–18731 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Conradt, L. & Roper, T. J. Activity synchrony and social cohesion: a fission-fusion model. Proc. R. Soc. B, Biol. Sci. 267, 2213–2218 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Sogard, S. M. & Olla, B. L. The influence of hunger and predation risk on group cohesion in a pelagic fish, walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma. Environ. Biol. Fishes 50, 405–413 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Domenici, P. Spacing of wild schooling herring while encircled by killer whales. J. Fish. Biol. 57, 831–836 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Miller, N., Garnier, S., Hartnett, A. T. & Couzin, I. D. Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions in animal groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5263–5268 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Granroth-Wilding, H. M. & Magurran, A. E. Asymmetry in pay-off predicts how familiar individuals respond to one another. Biol. Lett. 9, 20130025 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Landeau, L. & Terborgh, J. Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation. Anim. Behav. 34, 1372–1380 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Ruxton, G. D., Jackson, A. L. & Tosh, C. R. Confusion of predators does not rely on specialist coordinated behavior. Behav. Ecol. 18, 590–596 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Wolcott, H. L., Ojanguren, A. F. & Barbosa, M. The effects of familiarity on escape responses in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). PeerJ 5, e3899 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Guayasamin, O. L., Couzin, I. D. & Miller, N. Y. Behavioural plasticity across social contexts is regulated by the directionality of inter-individual differences. Behav. Proc. 141, 196–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Jacoby, D. M. P., Sims, D. W. & Croft, D. P. The effect of familiarity on aggregation and social behaviour in juvenile small spotted catsharks Scyliorhinus canicula. J. Fish. Biol. 81, 1596–1610 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Laskowski, K. L. & Bell, A. M. Competition avoidance drives individual differences in response to a changing food resource in sticklebacks. Ecol. Lett. 16, 746–753 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Herbert-Read, J. E. et al. How predation shapes the social interaction rules of shoaling fish. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 284, 20171126 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Romenskyy, M. et al. Quantifying the structure and dynamics of fish shoals under predation threat in three dimensions. Behav. Ecol. 31, 311–321 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Couzin, I. D. Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends Cog. Sci. 13, 36–43 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Bshary, R., Gingins, S. & Vail, A. L. Social cognition in fishes. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 465–471 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Gil, M. A., Emberts, Z., Jones, H. & St Mary, C. M. Social Information on fear and food drives animal grouping and fitness. Am. Nat. 189, 227–241 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.May, R. M. The evolution of cooperation. Nature 292, 291–292 (1981).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Munday, P. L. & Wilson, S. K. Comparative efficacy of clove oil and other chemicals in anaesthetization of Pomacentrus amboinensis, a coral reef fish. J. Fish. Biol. 51, 931–938 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Domenici, P., Turesson, H., Brodersen, J. & Bronmark, C. Predator-induced morphology enhances escape locomotion in crucian carp. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 275, 195–201 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Turesson, H. & Domenici, P. Escape latency is size independent in grey mullet. J. Fish. Biol. 71, 253–259 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Webb, P. W. Fast-start performance and body form in seven species of teleost fish. J. Exp. Biol. 74, 211–226 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Marras, S. & Domenici, P. Schooling fish under attack are not all equal: some lead, others follow. PLoS ONE 8, e65784 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Bachelet, E. Circular Statistics in Biology (Academic Press, 1981).91.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2016). More