Ecology

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

Brown trout can get hooked on methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug found in waterways around the world. Credit: Getty

Ecology
06 July 2021
Meth-addicted trout swim for a hit

Fish that have been exposed to the highly addictive stimulant for several weeks show signs of withdrawal if deprived of the drug.

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Human drug use can spill over into streams and rivers, because the chemicals pass through wastewater systems that weren’t designed to extract them. To study the effects of a common illicit drug on wildlife, Pavel Horký at the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague and his colleagues looked to brown trout, Salmo trutta.For 8 weeks, the researchers held 60 trout in a tank spiked with methamphetamine at a concentration of 1 microgram per litre, and 60 control trout in a meth-free tank. The fish were then placed in a tank containing two separate streams of water — one with methamphetamine and one without — between which they could swim freely. Trout that had spent 2 months swimming in meth-spiked water were found on the meth side in 50.5% of observations, compared with only 41.5% for control trout. The authors interpret this preference as a sign of addiction.Fish from the drugged tank were also markedly less mobile for the first 96 hours after their last exposure to meth, suggesting that they were experiencing withdrawal. The researchers warn that fish that become addicted to drugs could congregate around wastewater discharges, with unknown ecological effects.

J. Exp. Biol. (2021)

Ecology More

1.Saunois, M. et al. The global methane budget 2000-2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Bastviken, D., Cole, J., Pace, M. & Tranvik, L. Methane emissions from lakes: dependence of lake characteristics, two regional assessments, and a global estimate. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 18, 1–12 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Moss, B. Allied attack: climate change and eutrophication. Inl. Waters 1, 101–105 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Davidson, T. A. et al. Synergy between nutrients and warming enhances methane ebullition from experimental lakes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 156–160 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Aben, R. C. H. et al. Cross continental increase in methane ebullition under climate change. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–8 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Oremland, R. S. & Culbertson, C. W. Importance of methane-oxidizing bacteria in the methane budget as revealed by the use of a specific inhibitor. Nature 356, 421–423 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Veraart, A. J., Steenbergh, A. K., Ho, A., Kim, S. Y. & Bodelier, P. L. E. Beyond nitrogen: the importance of phosphorus for CH4 oxidation in soils and sediments. Geoderma 259–260, 337–346 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Hoefman, S. et al. Niche differentiation in nitrogen metabolism among methanotrophs within an operational taxonomic unit. BMC Microbiol. 14, 1–11 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Shelley, F., Abdullahi, F., Grey, J. & Trimmer, M. Microbial methane cycling in the bed of a chalk river: oxidation has the potential to match methanogenesis enhanced by warming. Freshw. Biol. 60, 150–160 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ho, A. et al. Conceptualizing functional traits and ecological characteristics of methane-oxidizing bacteria as life strategies. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 5, 335–345 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Semrau, J. D., Dispirito, A. A. & Yoon, S. Methanotrophs and copper. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 34, 496–531 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Kaupper, T. et al. When the going gets tough: emergence of a complex methane-driven interaction network during recovery from desiccation-rewetting. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108109 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ho, A. & Frenzel, P. Heat stress and methane-oxidizing bacteria: effects on activity and population dynamics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 50, 22–25 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Liboriussen, L. et al. Global warming: design of a flow-through shallow lake mesocosm climate experiment. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 3, 1–9 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Ghashghavi, M., Jetten, M. S. M. & Lüke, C. Survey of methanotrophic diversity in various ecosystems by degenerate methane monooxygenase gene primers. AMB Express 7, 162 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Lax, S., Abreu, C. I. & Gore, J. Higher temperatures generically favour slower-growing bacterial species in multispecies communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 560–567 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Lipson, D. A. The complex relationship between microbial growth rate and yield and its implications for ecosystem processes. Front. Microbiol. 6, 615 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Bodelier, P. L. & Laanbroek, H. J. Nitrogen as a regulatory factor of methane oxidation in soils and sediments. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 47, 265–277 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020).2.Ohayon, S., Granot, I. & Belmaker, J. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01502-3 (2021).3.Lester, S. E. et al. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Dwyer, R. G. et al. Curr. Biol. 30, 480–489 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Krueck, N. C. et al. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12415 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Harrison, H. B., Bode, M., Williamson, D. H., Berumen, M. L. & Jones, G. P. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 25595–25600 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Harrison, H. B. et al. Curr. Biol. 22, 1023–1028 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Williamson, D. H. et al. Mol. Ecol. 25, 6039–6054 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Edgar, G. J. et al. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Cinner, J. E. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6116–E6125 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.McClanahan, T. R. Mar. Policy 119, 104022 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Worm, B. & Branch, T. A. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 594–599 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Costello, C. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5125–5129 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Mora, C. et al. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000131 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.White, A. T. et al. Coastal Manage. 42, 87–106 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Abesamis, R. A. & Russ, G. R. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1798–1812 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Claudet, J. et al. Ecol. Lett. 11, 481–489 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Halpern, B. S., Gaines, S. D. & Warner, R. R. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1248–1256 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Krueck, N. C. et al. Ecol. Appl. 27, 925–941 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Krueck, N. C. et al. PLoS Biol. 15, e2000537 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Kellner, J. B., Tetreault, I., Gaines, S. D. & Nisbet, R. M. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1039–1054 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Krueck, N. C., Abdurrahim, A. Y., Adhuri, D. S., Mumby, P. J. & Ross, H. Ecol. Soc. 24, 6 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Green, A. L. et al. Biol. Rev. 90, 1215–1247 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Pan, Y. D. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Matricardi, E. A. T. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bullock, E. L., Woodcock, C. E., Souza, C. & Olofsson, P. Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 2956–2969 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Aragao, L. E. O. C. et al. 21st century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest edges. Nat. Commun. 6, 10158 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Taubert, F. et al. Global patterns of tropical forest fragmentation. Nature 554, 519–522 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Kunert, N., Teophilo Aparecido, L. M., Higuchi, N., dos Santos, J. & Trumbore, S. Higher tree transpiration due to road-associated edge effects in a tropical moist lowland forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 213, 183–192 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Broadbent, E. N. et al. Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1745–1757 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Laurance, W. F. et al. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278, 1117–1118 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Qie, L. et al. Long-term carbon sink in Borneo’s forests halted by drought and vulnerable to edge effects. Nat. Commun. 8, 1966 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e150005 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Briant, G., Gond, V. & Laurance, S. G. W. Habitat fragmentation and the desiccation of forest canopies: a case study from eastern Amazonia. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2763–2769 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 56–67 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.FAOSTAT Database (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO16.World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018).17.Brandt, M. et al. Reduction of tree cover in West African woodlands and promotion in semi-arid farmlands. Nat. Geosci. 11, 328–333 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hufkens, K. et al. Historical aerial surveys map long-term changes of forest cover and structure in the central Congo basin. Remote Sens. 12, 638 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11707–11735 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ichoku, C. et al. Biomass burning, land-cover change, and the hydrological cycle in northern sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095005 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Santoro, M. et al. The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations. Preprint at Copernicus https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-148 (2020).23.Santoro, M. & Cartus, O. GlobBiomass dataset of forest biomass, Africa (25 m). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4725667 (2020).24.Chuvieco, E., Pettinari, L. M., Lizundia Loiola, J., Storm, T. & Padilla Parellada, M. ESA Fire Climate Change Initiative (Fire_cci): MODIS Fire_cci Burned Area Grid Product Version 5.1 (Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, 2019).25.Friedl, M. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q1 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q1.00626.Laurance, W. F. Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1731–1744 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Brinck, K. et al. High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nat. Commun. 8, 14855 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kato, S. et al. Surface irradiances of edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) data product. J. Clim. 31, 4501–4527 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Running, S., Mu, Q. & Zhao, M. MOD16A2 MODIS/Terra Net Evapotranspiration 8-Day L4 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD16A2.00630.Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land-use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5425–5464 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Gaviria, J., Turner, B. L. & Engelbrecht, B. M. J. Drivers of tree species distribution across a tropical rainfall gradient. Ecosphere 8, e01712 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Alemayehu, T., van Griensven, A., Woldegiorgis, B. T. & Bauwens, W. An improved SWAT vegetation growth module and its evaluation for four tropical ecosystems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 4449–4467 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Kotto-Same, J., Woomer, P. L., Appolinaire, M. & Louis, Z. Carbon dynamics in slash-and-burn agriculture and land use alternatives of the humid forest zone in Cameroon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 65, 245–256 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Tyukavina, A. et al. Congo basin forest loss dominated by increasing smallholder clearing. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2993 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Rejou-Mechain, M. et al. Local spatial structure of forest biomass and its consequences for remote sensing of carbon stocks. Biogeosciences 11, 6827–6840 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Tropek, R. et al. Comment on “high-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change”. Science 344, 981 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Global Forest Watch (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/planted-forests38.Roteta, E., Bastarrika, A., Padilla, M., Storm, T. & Chuvieco, E. Development of a Sentinel-2 burned area algorithm: generation of a small fire database for sub-Saharan Africa. Remote Sens. Environ. 222, 1–17 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Bouvet, A. et al. An above-ground biomass map of African savannahs and woodlands at 25 m resolution derived from ALOS PALSAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 206, 156–173 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Laurance, S. G. W. Responses of understory rain forest birds to road edges in central Amazonia. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1344–1357 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Cochrane, M. A. & Laurance, W. F. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the Amazon. AMBIO 37, 522–527 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Khanna, J., Medvigy, D., Fueglistaler, S. & Walko, R. Regional dry-season climate changes due to three decades of Amazonian deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 200–204 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Costello, M. J. & Ballantine, B. Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take marine reserves: 94% of marine protected areas allow fishing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 507–509 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Giakoumi, S. et al. Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 8940 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Sala, E. & Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1166–1168 (2018).
Google Scholar 
5.Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Hansen, A. J. & Defries, R. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl. 17, 974–988 (2016).
Google Scholar 
7.Roberts, C. M., Halpern, B., Palumbi, S. R. & Warner, R. R. Designing marine reserve networks. Why small, isolated protected areas are not enough. Conserv. Pract. 2, 10–17 (2001).
Google Scholar 
8.Walters, C. Impacts of dispersal, ecological interactions, and fishing effort dynamics on efficacy of marine protected areas: how large should protected areas be? Bull. Mar. Sci. 66, 745–757 (2000).
Google Scholar 
9.Kramer, D. L. & Chapman, M. R. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environ. Biol. Fishes 55, 65–79 (1999).
Google Scholar 
10.Guidetti, P. et al. Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. PLoS One 9, e91841 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Lester, S. E. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009).
Google Scholar 
12.Di Lorenzo, M., Claudet, J. & Guidetti, P. Spillover from marine protected areas to adjacent fisheries has an ecological and a fishery component. J. Nat. Conserv. 32, 62–66 (2016).
Google Scholar 
13.Harmelin-Vivien, M. et al. Gradients of abundance and biomass across reserve boundaries in six Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence of fish spillover? Biol. Conserv. 141, 1829–1839 (2008).
Google Scholar 
14.Abesamis, R. A. & Russ, G. R. Density-dependent spillover from a marine reserve: long-term evidence. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1798–1812 (2005).
Google Scholar 
15.Murawski, S. A., Wigley, S. E., Fogarty, M. J., Rago, P. J. & Mountain, D. G. Effort distribution and catch patterns adjacent to temperate MPAs. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 1150–1167 (2005).
Google Scholar 
16.Kellner, J. B., Tetreault, I., Gaines, S. D. & Nisbet, R. M. Fishing the line near marine reserves in single and multispecies fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1039–1054 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Stelzenmüller, V. et al. Spatial assessment of fishing effort around European marine reserves: implications for successful fisheries management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 2018–2026 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E. & Kellner, J. B. Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environ. Conserv. 36, 268–276 (2010).
Google Scholar 
19.Newmark, W. D. Isolation of African protected areas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 321–328 (2008).
Google Scholar 
20.Defries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C. & Hansen, M. C. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol. Appl. 15, 19–26 (2005).
Google Scholar 
21.MPAtlas (Marine Conservation Institute, accessed 4 July 2020); http://www.mpatlas.org22.Willis, T. J., Millar, R. B., Babcock, R. C. & Tolimieri, N. Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves: putting Descartes before des horse? Environ. Conserv. 30, 97–103 (2003).
Google Scholar 
23.Roberts, C. M. et al. Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecol. Appl. 13, 215–228 (2003).
Google Scholar 
24.Huntington, B. E., Karnauskas, M., Babcock, E. A. & Lirman, D. Untangling natural seascape variation from marine reserve effects using a landscape approach. PLoS One 5, e12327 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Miller, K. I. & Russ, G. R. Studies of no-take marine reserves: methods for differentiating reserve and habitat effects. Ocean Coast. Manag. 96, 51–60 (2014).
Google Scholar 
26.Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–671 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Brill, G. C. & Raemaekers, S. J. P. N. A decade of illegal fishing in Table Mountain National Park (2000–2009): trends in the illicit harvest of abalone Haliotis midae and West Coast rock lobster Jasus lalandii. African. J. Mar. Sci. 35, 491–500 (2013).
Google Scholar 
28.Harasti, D., Davis, T. R., Jordan, A., Erskine, L. & Moltschaniwskyj, N. Illegal recreational fishing causes a decline in a fishery targeted species (snapper: Chrysophrys auratus) within a remote no-take marine protected area. PLoS One 14, e0209926 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Kleiven, P. J. N. et al. Fishing pressure impacts the abundance gradient of European lobsters across the borders of a newly established marine protected area. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20182455 (2019).
Google Scholar 
30.Simpson, S. D. et al. Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. Nat. Commun. 7, 10544 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Sarà, G. et al. Effect of boat noise on the behavior of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 331, 243–253 (2007).
Google Scholar 
32.Tran, D. S. C., Langel, K. A., Thomas, M. J. & Blumstein, D. T. Spearfishing-induced behavioral changes of an unharvested species inside and outside a marine protected area. Curr. Zool. 62, 39–44 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Jiao, J., Pilyugin, S. S., Riotte-Lambert, L. & Osenberg, C. W. Habitat-dependent movement rate can determine the efficacy of marine protected areas. Ecology 99, 2485–2495 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Potts, J. R., Hillen, T. & Lewis, M. A. The ‘edge effect’ phenomenon: deriving population abundance patterns from individual animal movement decisions. Theor. Ecol. 9, 233–247 (2016).
Google Scholar 
35.Gerber, L. R. et al. Population models for marine reserve design: a retrospective and prospective synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 13, 47–64 (2003).
Google Scholar 
36.Malvadkar, U. & Hastings, A.Persistence of mobile species in marine protected areas. Fish. Res. 91, 69–78 (2008).
Google Scholar 
37.Di Lorenzo, M., Guidetti, P., Calò, A. & Claudet, J. Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: a meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish. 21, 906–915 (2020).
Google Scholar 
38.Goñi, R., Quetglas, A. & Reñones, O. Spillover of spiny lobsters Palinurus elephas from a marine reserve to an adjoining fishery. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 308, 207–219 (2006).
Google Scholar 
39.Stamoulis, K. A. & Friedlander, A. M. A seascape approach to investigating fish spillover across a marine protected area boundary in Hawai’i. Fish. Res. 144, 2–14 (2013).
Google Scholar 
40.Protected Planet: the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed July 2020); http://www.protectedplanet.net41.Kulbicki, M. et al. Global biogeography of reef fishes: a hierarchical quantitative delineation of regions. PLoS One 8, e81847 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Parravicini, V. et al. Global patterns and predictors of tropical reef fish species richness. Ecography 36, 1254–1262 (2013).
Google Scholar 
43.Froese, R. & Pauly, D. (eds). FishBase (accessed May 2020); http://www.fishbase.org44.Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).
Google Scholar 
45.Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn (CRC Press, 2017).46.Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ 6, e4794 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. v.3.6.1 (2019).48.QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project (QGIS Development Team, 2020); http://qgis.osgeo.org49.Harmelin-Vivien, M. et al. Species richness, abundance and biomass data for assessing fish spillover from Mediterranean marine protected areas. SEANOE https://doi.org/10.17882/74396 (2020). More

In order to study the impact of biochar application into the soil for the emanation coefficient and radon exhalation rate, biochar was applied to the soil in various doses. Then, after the soil stabilization period, samples were taken for laboratory tests and field measurements of exhalation arte were carried out. Based on the obtained results, a discussion was conducted focused on the perspective of environmental changes in the context of radon emission from soil depending on the dose of biochar. A detailed description of the materials and measurement methods used to conduct the research is presented in the following subsections.BiocharThe biochar incorporated in the field experiment was produced from sunflower husk in the pyrolysis process in the temperature range of 450–550 °C and consist on grains with diameters from 50 μm up to 10 mm. The biochar was characterized by specific surface area of 2.0 m2 g−1 in occupancy of Cu ions and 5.1 m2 g−1 for Ag ions23.Field experimentThe field experiment was conducted in ten plots, each with a dimension of 1.1 m × 1.1 m, located in Lublin/Felin at the Institute of Agrophysics of Polish Academy of Science. In addition one plot was left without biochar as a reference. The biochar was applied into the soil in April 2018. The soil presented on the fields were classified as Haplic Luvisol with 66% of sand, 23% of silt 11% of clay and 0.91% of organic matter (data for 0–15 cm layer)32. The following doses of biochar were applied for the following fields: 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, and 100 Mg ha−1 (which corresponded to the percentage of biochar per unit mass of soil: 0.05, 0.24, 0.48, 0.95, 1.43, 1.90, 2.28, 2.86, 3.81, and 4.76%, respectively). The fields were kept without vegetation by application of herbicide (Roundup 360 PLUS at 2.5 L ha−1). For the purpose of presented work six fields were investigated: with 0 (control), 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 Mg ha−1 biochar doses.Soil sample collection and preparationThe soil samples were collected from five experimental plots, where the biochar was applied into the soil at the doses of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 Mg ha−1, and from a control field, where no biochar was applied (denoted as 0 Mg ha−1). Soil samples were collected from each field at five statistically chosen points to get about 2 kg of soil. After collection, the soil was mixed and dried at room temperature for two weeks. One sample for laboratory examinations was prepared from each part of the soil. The sample was a 4.7 cm high and 5.2 cm diameter steel cylinder, as presented in Fig. 1. The volume of each sample was 100 cm3. The bulk density of each sample was evaluated. The soil net weight of each sample was measured by measurements of each sample and subtraction of the weight of the steel cylinder. Next, the cylinders were closed on the bottom with a rubber cap to reduce the radon emanation surface to the size of 19.62 cm2 at the top of the sample.Figure 1The example of sample collected from the experimental field and prepared for measurements within the small accumulation chamber in the process of radon emanation assessment.Full size imageTotal porosity measurementsThe total porosity was measured with the weight method after water saturation. First, the samples were dried at 105 °C for 1 h and weighed to measure the total mass of the soil-biochar samples. To assess the total pore volume, the samples were placed in a tray filled with water for 24 h to reach saturation and the weight measurements were repeated. The total porosity η was calculated according to the equation:$$eta =frac{{V}_{p}}{{V}_{s}}=frac{{m}_{w}}{{rho }_{w}cdot {V}_{s}}=frac{left({m}_{s}-{m}_{d}right)}{{rho }_{w}cdot {V}_{s}}$$where ms is the mass of a saturated sample, md is the mass of a dried sample, Vs and Vp represent the sample volume (100 cm3) and pore volume, respectively, and ρw is water density. The weight measurements were realized by electronic laboratory balance with the accuracy of 0.1 mg. The total uncertainty of the method was assessed for 5%.The uncertainty for radon in air concentration measurements were assessed for 18% basing on the data provided by the instrument.Emanation coefficient assessmentThe radon emission from samples in the laboratory environment were measured using an AlphaGUARD instrument equipped with a measuring chamber made of stainless steel, as presented on the left in Fig. 2. The chamber was 11 cm in diameter and 12 cm in height, giving 0.00114 m3 of volume. The measurement of the radon concentration in air was made setting a 1 dm3 min−1 flow rate and 10 min reading cycles. Data were next averaged for 1 h, resulting to one data point represents the average values from six originally measured data points. Measurement for one sample took 20 h. Values of radon concentration in air was registered with the uncertainty for each data point assessed directly by the instrument.Figure 2Set up for radon accumulation measurements for assessment of the emanation coefficient in the laboratory environment. Set include the small accumulation chamber with the total volume of 0.00114 m3 (present on the left side) operating with the AlphaGuard instrument (presented on the right).Full size imageThe emanation coefficient ε was determined based on the Ra-226 activity concentration and radon potential Ω according to the methodology proposed by33 and making an additional assumption that the samples were dried to zero humidity, which implied that no pores filled with water were present within the samples during measurements. The assumption reduces the equation for calculating the time bound exhalation constant.The emanation coefficient expressed in % was evaluated according to the equation:$$varepsilon =frac{{Omega }}{{Ac}_{Ra}}cdot 100{%}$$
(2)
where AcRa represents the Ra-226 activity concentration in a soil sample expressed in Bq kg−1.The AcRa was assessed using gamma spectrometry and a high purity germanium detector according to the methodology described by25. For properly Ra-226 activity concentration in soil assessment the impact of 185.7 keV gammas from U-235 was subtracted after its evaluation basing on the 63.3 keV peak of Th-234.The main advantage of the proposed method is the ability to assess the emanation coefficient based on short-time measurements (below 24 h) with a cumulative chamber method. Originally, in the methodology developed by33, the assessment requires evaluation of Ω according to the formula:$$Omega = frac{{a + lambda _{{eff}} cdot C_{{Rn}}^{0} }}{{lambda _{{Rn}} }}~frac{{V_{e} }}{m}$$
(3)
where a (Bq m−3 s−1) represents the slope of the linear fit of radon exhalation rate data series measured in the cumulative chamber, λeff is an effective time constant (s−1), CRn0 is the initial Rn-222 concentration in the accumulation chamber (Bq m−3), λRn denotes the Rn-222 decay constant, Ve describes the effective accumulation volume in the experimental setup (m3), and m (kg) is the mass of the sample.The effective time constant describes the effective time of the presence of radon exhaled within the experimental set up and is the sum of the Rn-222 decay constant λRn (s−1), the bound exhalation constant λb (s−1) characterizing the sample, and the leakage constant characterizing the accumulation chamber equipment λl (s−1):$${lambda }_{eff}={lambda }_{Rn}+{lambda }_{b}+{lambda }_{l}$$
(4)
The λb coefficient is dependent on the soil sample porosity according to the simplified equation:$${lambda }_{b}={lambda }_{Rn}eta frac{{V}_{0}}{{V}_{e}}$$
(5)
where η represents the total porosity of the sample, as the assumption of zero humidity of samples during measurements was made, and V0 represents the volume of the sample.λl was evaluated experimentally by measuring the Rn-222 decay in the empty accumulation chamber system with a natural radon concentration at the starting point. The most significant compound of total uncertainty for the emanation coefficient was associated with estimation for slope a, CRn0 and with assessment of the total porosity for the samples η. The uncertainty was evaluated using differentiation method.Radon exhalation rate assessmentThe radon exhalation rate (ERn) was assessed according to the methodology presented in25. The field radon exhalation rate was assessed indirectly by measurement of radon concentration in air using an AlphaGUARD instrument equipped with accumulation open-wall chamber placed on the ground as presented on the Fig. 3. The chamber volume was 0.024 m3. The setup measuring parameters were the same as in the case of the laboratory measurements with the small closed chamber but the measuring time was 70 min giving seven data points for each field. Values of radon concentration in air was registered with the uncertainty for each data point assessed directly by the instrument.Figure 3Setup for assessment of the radon exhalation rate in the field measurements. The set consist of the accumulation chamber with 0.024 m3 in volume and the AlphaGuard instrument.Full size imageThe increase of radon concentration in air (CRn) in accumulation box were registered and the linear function was interpolated basing on seven measuring points registered for each experimental field. Basing on the measurement of radon concentration in air the radon exhalation rate could be assessed according to the equation:$${E}_{Rn}=frac{V}{A}frac{partial {C}_{Rn}}{partial t}$$
(6)
where V/A are the ratio of accumulation chamber volume to area covered by the chamber and is a constant value of 0.2, (frac{partial {C}_{Rn}}{partial t}) is a change of radon concentration in air registered in accumulation chamber in time t and was represented as a linear fit into the experimental data as:$${C}_{Rn}=acdot t+b$$
(7)
After differentiation we can compute the radon exhalation rate as slope, a of linear fit scaled by 0.2:$${E}_{Rn}=0.2a$$
(8)
The uncertainty for radon exhalation rate assessment was associated mainly with the assessment of the slope of linear fit ad was calculated as a standard deviation for data point used for linear fits. More