More stories

  • in

    Tribolium beetles as a model system in evolution and ecology

    Adamski Z, Bufo SA, Chowański S, Falabella P, Lubawy J, Marciniak P et al. (2019) Beetles as model organisms in physiological, biomedical and environmental studies—a review. Front Physiol 10:319PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ahmad F, Daglish GJ, Ridley AW, Burrill PR, Walter GH (2013) Short-range resource location by Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) demonstrates a strong preference for fungi associated with cotton seed. J Stored Prod Res 52:21–27Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ahmad F, Ridley AW, Daglish GJ, Burrill PR, Walter GH (2013) Response of Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica to various resources, near and far from grain storage. J Appl Entomol 137:773–781Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alabi T, Michaud JP, Arnaud L, Haubruge E (2008) A comparative study of cannibalism and predation in seven species of flour beetle. Ecol Entomol 33:716–726
    Google Scholar 
    Allee WC (1931) Animal aggregations: a study in general sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
    Google Scholar 
    Andres A (1931) Catalogue of the Egyptian Tenebrionidae. Bull de la Société R Entomologique d’Egypte 15:74–125
    Google Scholar 
    Ankeny RA, Leonelli S (2011) What’s so special about model organisms? Stud Hist Philos Sci B Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 42:313–323
    Google Scholar 
    Arnaud L, Haubruge E, Gage MJG (2005) The malathion-specific resistance gene confers a sperm competition advantage in Tribolium castaneum. Funct Ecol 19:1032–1039Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arnaud L, Lognay G, Gaspar C, Haubruge E et al. (2000) Chemical communication in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae): knowledge and perspectives. Bulletin OILB/SROP 23:195–209Arnaud L, Lognay G, Verscheure M, Leenaers L, Gaspar C, Haubruge E (2002) Is dimethyldecanal a common aggregation pheromone of Tribolium flour beetles? J Chem Ecol 28:523–532CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Arnold PA, Cassey P, White CR (2016) Maturity matters for movement and metabolic rate: trait dynamics across the early adult life of red flour beetles. Anim Behav 111:181–188Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Arnold PA, Cassey P, White CR (2017) Functional traits in red flour beetles: the dispersal phenotype is associated with leg length but not body size nor metabolic rate. Funct Ecol 31:653–661Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Assie LK, Brostaux Y, Haubruge E (2008) Density-dependent reproductive success in Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J Stored Prod Res 44:285–289Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Attia FA, Tregenza T (2004) Divergence revealed by population crosses in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Evol Ecol Res 6:927–935
    Google Scholar 
    Bale JS, Masters GJ, Hodkinson ID, Awmack C, Bezemer TM, Brown VK et al. (2002) Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob Chang Biol 8:1–16Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barr MM (2003) Super models. Physiol Genom 13:15–24CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bell AE, Burris MJ (1973) Simultaneous selection for two correlated traits in Tribolium. Genet Res 21:29–46Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolker J (2012) Model organisms: there’s more to life than rats and flies. Nature 491:31–33CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 80:205–225PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Boyer JF (1976) The effects of prior environments on Tribolium castaneum. J Anim Ecol 45:865–874Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown SJ, Denell RE, Beeman RW (2003) Beetling around the genome. Genet Res 82:155–161CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown SJ, Shippy TD, Miller S, Bolognesi R, Beeman RW, Lorenzen MD et al. (2009) The red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera): a model for studies of development and pest biology Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2009:db.emo126Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Calabrese EJ (2013) Low doses of radiation can enhance insect lifespans. Biogerontology 14:365–381CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Campbell JF, Hagstrum DW (2002) Patch exploitation by Tribolium castaneum: movement patterns, distribution, and oviposition. J Stored Prod Res 38:55–68Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Campbell JF, Runnion C (2003) Patch exploitation by female red flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum. J Insect Sci 3:20CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Chapman RN (1918) The confused flour beetle (Tribolum confusum, Duval)Chapman RN (1928) The quantitative analysis of environmental factors. Ecology 9:111–122Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chittenden FH (1896) Some insects injurious to stored grain. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonCostantino RF, Desharnais RA (1991) Population dynamics and the tribolium model: genetics and demography. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCostantino RF, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Dennis B, Henson SM, King AA (2005) Nonlinear stochastic population dynamics: the flour beetle Tribolium as an effective tool of discovery. Adv Ecol Res 37:101–141Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Coyne JA, Barton NH, Turelli M (2000) Is Wright’s shifting balance process important in evolution? Evolution 54:306–317CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Costantino RF, Cushing JM, Dennis B, Desharnais RA (1995) Experimentally induced transitions in the dynamic behaviour of insect populations. Nature 375:227–230Costantino RF, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Dennis B (1997) Chaotic Dynamics in an Insect Population. Science 275:389–391Craig DM, Mertz DB (1994) Inbreeding effects on competition in Tribolium. Res Popul Ecol 36:251–254Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cushing JM, Costantino RF, Dennis B, Desharnais R, Henson SM (2002) Chaos in Ecology: Experimental Nonlinear Dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego CADaglish GJ, Ridley AW, Reid R, Walter GH (2017) Testing the consistency of spatio-temporal patterns of flight activity in the stored grain beetles Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.). J Stored Prod Res 72:68–74Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Davey WP (1917) The effect of X-rays on the length of life of Tribolium confusum. J Exp Zool 22:573–592Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dawson PS (1977) Life history strategy and evolutionary history of Tribolium flour beetles. Evolution 31:226–229PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Demont M, Grazer VM, Michalczyk Ł, Millard AL (2014) Experimental removal of sexual selection reveals adaptations to polyandry in both sexes. Evol Biol 41:62–70Demuth JP, Wade MJ (2007) Population differentiation in the beetle Tribolium castaneum. II. Haldane’s rule and incipient speciation. Evolution 61:694–699PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Denell R (2008) Establishment of Tribolium as a genetic model system and its early contributions to evo-devo. Genetics 180:1779–1786PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Desharnais RA, Costantino RF, Cushing JM, Henson SM, Dennis B (2001) Chaos and population control of insect outbreaks. Ecol Lett 4:229–235Desharnais RA, Reuman DC, Costantino RF, Cohen JE (2018) Temporal scale of environmental correlations affects ecological synchrony. Ecol Lett 21:1800–1811Dönitz J, Schmitt-Engel C, Grossmann D, Gerischer L, Tech M, Schoppmeier M et al. (2015) iBeetle-Base: a database for RNAi phenotypes in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Nucleic Acids Res 43:D720–5PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Droge-Young EM, Belote JM, Perez GS, Pitnick S (2016) Resolving mechanisms of short-term competitive fertilization success in the red flour beetle. J Insect Physiol 93-94:1–10CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Drury DW, Jideonwo VN, Ehmke RC, Wade MJ (2011) An unusual barrier to gene flow: perpetually immature larvae from inter-population crosses in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. J Evol Biol 24:2678–2686CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Drury DW, Siniard AL, Wade MJ (2009) Genetic differentiation among wild populations of Tribolium castaneum estimated using microsatellite markers. J Hered 100:732–741CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Drury DW, Whitesell ME, Wade MJ (2016) The effects of temperature, relative humidity, light, and resource quality on flight initiation in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Entomol Exp Appl 158:269–274PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ducoff HS (1986) Radiation and longevity enhancement in Tribolium. In: Collatz K-G, Sohal RS (eds) Insect aging: strategies and mechanisms. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 73–89
    Google Scholar 
    Dunbrack RL, Coffin C, Howe R (1995) The cost of males and the paradox of sex – experimental investigation of the short-term competitive advantages of evoltion in sexual populations. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 262:45–49Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eggert H, Diddens-de Buhr MF, Kurtz J (2015) A temperature shock can lead to trans-generational immune priming in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Ecol Evol 5:1318–1326PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    El-Aziz SEA (2011) Control strategies of stored product pests. J Entomol 8:101–122Article 

    Google Scholar 
    El-Desouky TA, Elbadawy SS, Hussain HBH, Hassan NA (2018) Impact of insect densities Tribolium castaneum on the benzoquinone secretions and aflatoxins levels in wheat flour during storage periods. Open Biotechnol J 12:104–111CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ellen ED, Peeters K, Verhoeven M, Gols R, Harvey JA, Wade MJ et al. (2016) Direct and indirect genetic effects in life-history traits of flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum): Indirect genetic effects in Tribolium. Evolution 70:207–217PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Endriss SB, Vahsen ML, Bitume EV, Grey Monroe J, Turner KG, Norton AP et al. (2019) The importance of growing up: juvenile environment influences dispersal of individuals and their neighbours. Ecol Lett 22:45–55PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Fedina TY, Lewis SM (2008) An integrative view of sexual selection in Tribolium flour beetles. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 83:151–171PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Flinn PW, Campbell JF (2012) Effects of flour conditioning on cannibalism of T. castaneum eggs and pupae. Environ Entomol 41:1501–1504PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Franklin AD, Siewerdt F (2011) Post-bottleneck inbreeding accumulation reduces fitness and adaptive potential in populations of Tribolium castaneum under environmental stress. Genomics and Quantitative. Genetics 2:19–30
    Google Scholar 
    Godwin JL, Lumley AJ, Michalczyk L, Martin OY, Gage MJG (2020) Mating patterns influence vulnerability to the extinction vortex. Global Change Biology 26:4226–4239Godwin JL, Spurgin LG, Michalczyk Ł, Martin OY, Lumley AJ, Chapman T et al. (2018) Lineages evolved under stronger sexual selection show superior ability to invade conspecific competitor populations. Evol Lett 2:511–523PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Godwin JL, Vasudeva R, Michalczyk Ł, Martin OY, Lumley AJ, Chapman T et al. (2017) Experimental evolution reveals that sperm competition intensity selects for longer, more costly sperm. Evol Lett 1:102–113PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gokhale CS, Traulsen A, Joop G (2017) Social dilemma in the external immune system of the red flour beetle? It is a matter of time. Ecol Evol 7:6758–6765PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Good NE (1936) The flour beetles of the genus Tribolium. ageconsearch.umn.eduGrazer VM, Demont M, Michalczyk Ł, MJG Gage, Martin OY (2014) Environmental quality alters female costs and benefits of evolving under enforced monogamy. BMC Evol Biol 14:21PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gurdasani K, Rafter MA, Daglish GJ, Walter GH (2018) Characterising the variables associated with Tribolium castaneum adults that initiate flight in laboratory tests – generating predictions for the field. J Stored Prod Res 79:123–131Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gurdasani K, Rafter MA, Daglish GJ, Walter GH (2019) The dispersal flight of Tribolium castaneum—a field test of laboratory generated predictions. J Stored Prod Res 83:25–33Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hagstrum DW, Smittle BJ (1980) Age- and sex-specific tunneling rates of adult Tribolium castaneum. Ann Entomol Soc Am 73:11–13Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halle S, Nowizki A, Scharf I (2015) The consequences of parental age for development, body mass and resistance to stress in the red flour beetle. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 115:305–314Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halliday WD, Blouin-Demers G (2017) A test of the thermal coadaptation hypothesis with ultimate measures of fitness in flour beetles. J Therm Biol 69:206–212PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Halliday WD, Blouin-Demers G (2018) Can temperature modify the strength of density-dependent habitat selection in ectotherms? A test with red flour beetles. J Zool 304:159–168Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halliday WD, Bourque C, Blouin-Demers G (2019) Food quality influences density-dependent fitness, but not always density-dependent habitat selection, in red flour beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Can Entomol 151:728–737Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halliday WD, Slevan-Tremblay I, Blouin-Demers G (2019) Do female red flour beetles assess both current and future competition during oviposition? J Insect Behav 32:181–187Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hartmann S, Frigg R (2005) Scientific models. In: Sarkar Sahotra (ed.) The philosophy of science: an encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Routledge, LondonHaubruge E, Arnaud L (2001) Fitness consequences of malathion-specific resistance in red flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and selection for resistance in the absence of malathion. J Econ Entomol 94:552–557CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Hedges SB (2002) The origin and evolution of model organisms. Nat Rev Genet 3:838–849CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Henson SM, Costantino RF, Cushing JM, Desharnais RA, Dennis B, King AA (2001) Lattice effects observed in chaotic dynamics of experimental populations. Science 294:602–605Herndon N, Shelton J, Gerischer L, Ioannidis P, Ninova M, Dönitz J et al. (2020) Enhanced genome assembly and a new official gene set for Tribolium castaneum. BMC Genom 21:47CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Holman L, Jacomb F (2017) The effects of stress and sex on selection, genetic covariance, and the evolutionary response. J Evol Biol 30:1898–1909CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Hoste R (1968) The Use of Tribolium beetles for class practical work in genetics. J Biol Educ 2:365–372Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hufbauer RA, Szűcs M, Kasyon E, Youngberg C, Koontz MJ, Richards C et al. (2015) Three types of rescue can avert extinction in a changing environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:10557–10562CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Irwin KK, Carter PA (2014) Artificial selection on larval growth curves in Tribolium: correlated responses and constraints. J Evol Biol 27:2069–2079CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Izadi H, Mohammadzadeh M, Mehrabian M (2019) Cold tolerance of the Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), under different thermal regimes: impact of cold acclimation. J Econ Entomol 112:1983–1988CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Jacomb F, Marsh J, Holman L (2016) Sexual selection expedites the evolution of pesticide resistance. Evolution 70:2746–2751PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Janus MC (1989) Phenotypic diversity of Tribolium confusum pupae in heterogeneous environments. Entomol Exp Appl 50:281–286Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jasieński M, Korzeniak U, Łomnicki A (1988) Ecology of kin and nonkin larval interactions in Tribolium beetles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:277–284Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katz AJ, Enfield FD (1977) Response to selection for increased pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum as related to population structure*. Genet Res 30:237–246Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kennedy BK (2008) The genetics of ageing: insight from genome-wide approaches in invertebrate model organisms. J Intern Med 263:142–152CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kerstes NAG, Martin OY (2014) Insect host-parasite coevolution in the light of experimental evolution. Insect Sci 21:401–414PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Khan I, Prakash A, Agashe D (2016) Divergent immune priming responses across flour beetle life stages and populations. Ecol Evol 6:7847–7855PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Khan I, Prakash A, Issar S, Umarani M, Sasidharan R, Masagalli JN et al. (2018) Female density-dependent chemical warfare underlies fitness effects of group sex ratio in flour beetles. Am Nat 191:306–317Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kim HS, Murphy T, Xia J, Caragea D, Park Y, Beeman RW et al. (2010) BeetleBase in 2010: revisions to provide comprehensive genomic information for Tribolium castaneum. Nucleic Acids Res 38:D437–42CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    King AA, Costantino RF, Cushing JM, Henson SM, Desharnais RA, Dennis B (2004) Anatomy of a chaotic attractor: Subtle model-predicted patterns revealed in population data. P Natl Acad Sci USA 101:408–413King CE, Dawson PS (1972) Population biology and the Tribolium model. Evol Biol 1972:5
    Google Scholar 
    Koontz MJ, Oldfather MF, Melbourne BA, Hufbauer RA (2018) Parsing propagule pressure: Number, not size, of introductions drives colonization success in a novel environment. Ecol Evol 8:8043–8054PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lavie B, Ritte U (1980) Correlated effects of the response to conditioned medium in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Res Popul Ecol 21:228–232Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Leslie PH (1962) A stochastic model for two competing species of Tribolium and its application to some experimental data. Biometrika 49:1–25Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lewis SM, Tigreros N, Fedina T, Ming QL (2012) Genetic and nutritional effects on male traits and reproductive performance in Tribolium flour beetles. J Evol Biol 25:438–451CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Lewontin RC, Hubby JL (1966) A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. II. Amount of variation and degree of heterozygosity in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54:595–609CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    López-Fanjul C, Jódar B (1977) The genetic properties of egg laying of virgin females of Tribolium castaneum. Heredity 39:251–258Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lumley AJ, Michalczyk Ł, Kitson JJN, Spurgin LG, Morrison CA, Godwin JL et al. (2015) Sexual selection protects against extinction. Nature 522:470–473CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Martin CM, Kruse KC, Switzer PV (2015) Social experience affects same-sex pairing behavior in male red flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum Herbst). J Insect Behav 28:268–279Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Matsumura K, Archer CR, Hosken DJ, Miyatake T (2019) Artificial selection on walking distance suggests a mobility-sperm competitiveness trade-off. Behav EcolMatsumura K, Miyatake T (2015) Differences in attack avoidance and mating success between strains artificially selected for dispersal distance in Tribolium castaneum. PLoS ONE 10:e0127042PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Matsumura K, Miyatake T (2019) Lines selected for different durations of tonic immobility have different leg lengths in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Behaviour 157:17–31Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mayes PA, Englert DC (1984) Interstrain differences for larval dispersal and egg cannibalism in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Can J Genet Cytol 26:420–424Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McCauley DE, Wade MJ (1981) The populational effects of inbreeding in Tribolium. Heredity 46:59–67Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McCulloch GA, Mohankumar S, Subramanian S, Rajan TS, Rahul C, Surendran R et al. (2019) Contrasting patterns of phylogeographic structuring in two key beetle pests of stored grain in India and Australia. J Pest Sci 92:1249–1259Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McNemee R, Marshall J (2018) Temperature stressed males are less attractive to female red flour beetles. In: Proceeding of 3rd Entomology Undergraduate Research Poster Symposium. Kansas State University, Department of Entomology, Manhattan, KSMelbourne BA, Hastings A (2009) Highly variable spread rates in replicated biological invasions: fundamental limits to predictability. Science 325:1536–1539CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Mertz DB (1972) The Tribolium model and the mathematics of population growth. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3:51–78Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mertz DB (1975) Senescent decline in flour beetle strains selected for early adult fitness. Physiol Zool 48:1–23Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mertz DB, Cawthon DA, Park T (1976) An experimental analysis of competitive indeterminacy in Tribolium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73:1368–1372CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Mertz DB, Robertson JR (1970) Some developmental consequences of handling, egg-eating, and population density for flour beetle larvae. Ecology 51:989–998Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Michalczyk Ł, Millard AL, Martin OY, Lumley AJ, Emerson BC, Chapman T et al. (2011) Inbreeding promotes female promiscuity. Science 333:1739–1742CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ming Q-L, Lewis SM (2010) Pheromone production by male Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) is influenced by diet quality. J Econ Entomol 103:1915–1919PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Miyatake T, Katayama K, Takeda Y, Nakashima A, Sugita A, Mizumoto M (2004) Is death-feigning adaptive? Heritable variation in fitness difference of death-feigning behaviour. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 271:2293–2296Müller B, Grossniklaus U (2010) Model organisms–a historical perspective. J Proteom 73:2054–2063Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Naylor AF (1965) Dispersal responses of female flour beetles, Tribolium confusum, to presence of larvae. Ecology 46:341–343Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Orozco F, Bell AE (1974) A genetic study of egg laying of Tribolium in optimal and stress environments. Can J Genet Cytol 16:49–60CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pai A, Bernasconi G (2008) Polyandry and female control: the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum as a case study. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 310:148–159PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pai A, Yan G (2002) Female mate choice in relation to heterozygosity in Tribolium castaneum: female mate choice and heterozygosity. J Evol Biol 15:1076–1082Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T (1932) Studies in population physiology: the relation of numbers to initial population growth in the flour beetle Tribolium confusum Duval. Ecology 13:172–181Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T (1934) Observations on the general biology of the flour beetle, Tribolium confusum. Q Rev Biol 9:36–54Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T (1962) Beetles, competition, and populations. Science 138:1369–1375CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T, Leslie PH, Mertz DB (1964) Genetic strains and competition in populations of Tribolium. Physiol Zool 37:97–162Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T, Lloyd M (1955) Natural selection and the outcome of competition. Am Nat 89:235–240Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T, Mertz DB, Grodzinski W, Prus T (1965) Cannibalistic predation in populations of flour beetles. Physiol Zool 38:289–321Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Park T, Miller EV, Lutherman CZ (1939) Studies in population physiology. IX. The effect of imago population density on the duration of the larval and pupal stages of Tribolium confusum Duval. Ecology 20:365–373Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Perkin LC, Oppert B (2019) Gene expression in Tribolium castaneum life stages: Identifying a species-specific target for pest control applications. PeerJ 7:e6946PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pray LA (1997) The effect of inbreeding on population-level genetic correlations in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Evolution 51:614–619PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pray LA, Goodnight CJ (1995) Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Evolution 49:176–188PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pray LA, Goodnight CJ, Stevens L, Schwartz JM, Yan G (1996) The effect of population size on effective population size: an empirical study in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Genet Res 68:151–155Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pray LA, Schwartz JM, Goodnight CJ, Stevens L (1994) Environmental dependency of inbreeding depression: implications for conservation biology. Conserv Biol 8:562–568Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prendeville HR, Stevens L (2002) Microbe inhibition by Tribolium flour beetles varies with beetle species, strain, sex, and microbe group. J Chem Ecol 28:1183–1190CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Prokop ZM, Hlebowicz K, Gaczorek TS, Antol WM, Martin OY, Gage MJG et al. (2019) No evidence for short-term purging benefits of sexual selection in inbred red flour beetle populations. J Zool 307:178–185Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Prus T (1963) Search for methods to investigate mobility in Tribolium. Ecology 44:801–803Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rafter MA, Muralitharan V, Chandrasekaran S, Mohankumar S, Daglish GJ, Loganathan M et al. (2019) Behaviour in the presence of resource excess—flight of Tribolium castaneum around heavily-infested grain storage facilities. J Pest Sci 92:1227–1238Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rajan TS, Muralitharan V, Daglish GJ, Mohankumar S, Rafter MA, Chandrasekaran S et al. (2018) Flight of three major insect pests of stored grain in the monsoonal tropics of India, by latitude, season and habitat. J Stored Prod Res 76:43–50Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reuman DC, Costantino RF, Desharnais RA, Cohen JE (2008) Colour of environmental noise affects the nonlinear dynamics of cycling, stage-structured populations. Ecol Lett 11:820–830PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Rich SS, Bell AE, Wilson SP (1979) Genetic drift in small populations of Tribolium. Evolution 33:579–584CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ritte U, Agur Z (1977) Variability for dispersal behavior in a wild population of Tribolium castaneum. Tribolium Inf Bull 20:122–131Robinson T, Johnson NA, Wade MJ (1994) Postcopulatory, prezygotic isolation: intraspecific and interspecific sperm precedence in Tribolium spp., flour beetles. Heredity 73(Pt 2):155–159PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Sales K, Trent T, Gardner J, Lumley AJ, Vasudeva R (2018) Experimental evolution with an insect model reveals that male homosexual behaviour occurs due to inaccurate mate choice. Anim BehavSales K, Vasudeva R, Dickinson ME, Godwin JL, Lumley AJ, Michalczyk Ł et al. (2018) Experimental heatwaves compromise sperm function and cause transgenerational damage in a model insect. Nat Commun 9:4771PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sbilordo SH, Gräzer VM (2011) Impacts of starvation on male reproductive success in Tribolium castaneum. Evol Ecol Res 13:347–359Schamber EM, Muir WM (2001) Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolution in artificial breeding programmes: empirical testing using the model organism Tribolium castaneum. J Anim Breed Genet-Z Fur Tierz Und Zuchtungsbiologie 118:181–188Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Scharf I, Galkin N, Halle S (2015) Disentangling the consequences of growth temperature and adult acclimation temperature on starvation and thermal tolerance in the red flour beetle. Evol Biol 42:54–62Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schlager G (1960) Sperm Precedence in the Fertilization of Eggs in Tribolium castaneum. Ann Entomol Soc Am 53:557–560Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schlötterer C, Kofler R, Versace E, Tobler R, Franssen SU (2015) Combining experimental evolution with next-generation sequencing: a powerful tool to study adaptation from standing genetic variation. Heredity 114:431–440PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Shen J-F, Cheng C, Ming Q-L (2016) Study on reproductive isolation between Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum. J Environ Entomol 3:508–513Shostak AW, Van Buuren KG, Cook R (2015) Response of flour beetles to multiple stressors of parasitic (Hymenolepis diminuta), environmental (Diatomaceous Earth), and host (Reproduction) origin. J Parasitol 101:405–417PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Sinha RN (1966) Development and mortality of Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on seed-borne fungi. Ann Entomol Soc Am 59:192–201Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sokal RR, Sonleitner FJ (1968) The ecology of selection in hybrid populations of Tribolium castaneum. Ecol Monogr 38:345–379Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sokoloff A (1977) The biology of Tribolium with special emphasis on genetic aspects. Volume 3. Clarendon Press, OxfordSokoloff A, Franklin IR, Overton LF, Ho FK (1966) Comparative studies with Tribolium (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae)—I: Productivity of T. castaneum (Herbst) and T. confusum Duv. on several commercially-available diets. J Stored Prod Res 1:295–311Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Soliman MH (1972) Correlated response to natural selection in laboratory populations of Tribolium castaneum. Can J Genet Cytol 15:971–978CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Soliman MH (1987) Ageing and parental age effects in Tribolium (review). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 6:43–60CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Soliman MH, Lints FA (1975) Longevity, growth rate and related traits among strains of Tribolium castaneum. Gerontologia 21:102–116CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Sommer RJ (2009) The future of evo-devo: model systems and evolutionary theory. Nat Rev Genet 10:416–422CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Sonleitner FJ, Gutherie J (1991) Factors affecting oviposition rate in the flour beetle Tribolium castaneum and the origin of the population regulation mechanism. Res Popul Ecol 33:1–11Article 

    Google Scholar 
    South A, Sirot LK, Lewis SM (2011) Identification of predicted seminal fluid proteins in Tribolium castaneum. Insect Mol Biol 20:447–456CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ, Freckleton RP (1999) What is the allee effect? Oikos 87:185–190Stevens L (1989) The genetics and evolution of cannibalism in flour beetles (genus Tribolium). Evolution 43:169–179PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Stevenson BJ, Cai L, Faucher C, Michie M, Berna A, Ren Y et al. (2017) Walking responses of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to Its aggregation pheromone and odors of wheat infestations. J Econ Entomol 110:1351–1358CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Stewart GS, Morris MR, Genis AB, Szűcs M, Melbourne BA, Tavener SJ et al. (2017) The power of evolutionary rescue is constrained by genetic load. Evol Appl 10:731–741PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stork NE, McBroom J, Gely C, Hamilton AJ (2015) New approaches narrow global species estimates for beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7519–7523CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Surtees G (1963) Laboratory studies on dispersion behaviour of adult beetles in grain. III.—Tribolium castaneum (Hbst.) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) and Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Steph.) (Coleoptera, Cucujidae). Bull Entomol Res 54:297–306Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Suzuki T (1980) 4,8-Dimethyldecanal: the aggregation pheromone of the flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Agric Biol Chem 44:2519–2520CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Szűcs M, Melbourne BA, Tuff T, Hufbauer RA (2014) The roles of demography and genetics in the early stages of colonization. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 281:20141073Szűcs M, Melbourne BA, Tuff T, Weiss-Lehman C, Hufbauer RA (2017) Genetic and demographic founder effects have long-term fitness consequences for colonising populations. Ecol Lett 20:436–444PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Szűcs M, Vahsen ML, Melbourne BA, Hoover C, Weiss-Lehman C, Hufbauer RA (2017) Rapid adaptive evolution in novel environments acts as an architect of population range expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:13501–13506PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Tigreros N, Lewis SM (2011) Direct and correlated responses to artificial selection on sexual size dimorphism in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. J Evol Biol 24:835–842CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Tribolium Genome Sequencing Consortium, Richards S, Gibbs RA, Weinstock GM, Brown SJ, Denell R et al. (2008) The genome of the model beetle and pest Tribolium castaneum. Nature 452:949–955Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vahsen ML, Shea K, Hovis CL, Teller BJ, Hufbauer RA (2018) Prior adaptation, diversity, and introduction frequency mediate the positive relationship between propagule pressure and the initial success of founding populations. Biol Invasions 20:2451–2459Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Allen BG, Bhavsar P (2014) Natal habitat effects drive density-dependent scaling of dispersal decisions. Oikos 123:699–704Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Allen BG, Rudolf VHW (2013) Ghosts of habitats past: environmental carry-over effects drive population dynamics in novel habitat. Am Nat 181:596–608PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Allen BG, Rudolf VHW (2015) Habitat-mediated carry-over effects lead to context-dependent outcomes of species interactions. J Anim Ecol 84:1646–1656PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Vasudeva R, Sutter A, Sales K, Dickinson ME, Lumley AJ, Gage MJ (2019) Adaptive thermal plasticity enhances sperm and egg performance in a model insect. Elife 8:e49452Verheggen F, Ryne C, Olsson POC, Arnaud L, Lognay G, Högberg HE et al. (2007) Electrophysiological and behavioral activity of secondary metabolites in the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum. J Chem Ecol 33:525–539CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Via S (1999) Cannibalism facilitates the use of a novel environment in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Heredity 82(Pt 3):267–275PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ (1980a) Effective population size: the effects of sex, genotype, and density on the mean and variance of offspring numbers in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Genet Res 36:1–10Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ (1980b) An experimental study of kin selection. Evolution 34:844–855PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Beeman RW (1994) The population dynamics of maternal-effect selfish genes. Genetics 138:1309–1314CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Chang NW, Mcnaughton M (1995) Incipient speciation in the flour beetle, Tribolium confusum – premating isolation between natural populations. Heredity 75:453–459PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Goodnight CJ (1998) Perspective: the theories of Fisher and Wright in the context of metapopulations: when nature does many small experiments. Evolution 52:1537–1553PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Johnson NA (1994) Reproductive isolation between two species of flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum and T. freemani: variation within and among geographical populations of T. castaneum. Heredity 72(Pt 2):155–162PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Johnson NA, Jones R, Siguel V, McNaughton M (1997) Genetic variation segregating in natural populations of Tribolium castaneum affecting traits observed in hybrids with T. freemani. Genetics 147:1235–1247CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wade MJ, Shuster SM, Stevens L (1996) Inbreeding: its effect on response to selection for pupal weight and the heritable variance in fitness in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Evolution 50:723–733PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Weiss-Lehman C, Tittes S, Kane NC, Hufbauer RA, Melbourne BA (2019) Stochastic processes drive rapid genomic divergence during experimental range expansions. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 286:20190231Wexler Y, Scharf I (2017) Distinct effects of two separately applied stressors on behavior in the red flour beetle. Behav Process 145:86–92Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wexler Y, Subach A, Pruitt JN, Scharf I (2016) Behavioral repeatability of flour beetles before and after metamorphosis and throughout aging. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:745–753Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wexler Y, Wertheimer K-O, Subach A, Pruitt JN, Scharf I (2017) Mating alters the link between movement activity and pattern in the red flour beetle: the effects of mating on behaviour. Physiol Entomol 42:299–306Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJWinther RG, Giordano R, Edge MD, Nielsen R (2015) The mind, the lab, and the field: three kinds of populations in scientific practice. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 52:12–21PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wong N, Lee C-Y (2011) Relationship between population growth of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum and protein and carbohydrate content in flour and starch. J Econ Entomol 104:2087–2094CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. naWright S, Dobzhansky T (1946) Genetics of natural populations; experimental reproduction of some of the changes caused by natural selection in certain populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 31:125–156CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Yamada Y (1974) Tribolium as a biological model in quantitative genetics. 1st World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Proc 1:439–450Yamauchi H, Harada M, Miyanoshita A (2018) Polymorphism observed in mitochondrial genes of red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) of different origin in laboratory cultures. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 82:229–231CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Yan G, Stevens L, Goodnight CJ, Schall JJ (1998) Effects of a tapeworm parasite on the competition of Tribolium beetles. Ecology 79:1093–1103Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yezerski A, Gilmor TP, Stevens L (2004) Genetic analysis of benzoquinone production in Tribolium confusum. J Chem Ecol 30:1035–1044CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Young AM (1970) Predation and abundance in populations of flour beetles. Ecology 51:602–619Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziegler JR (1972) Maintenance and regulation of unconfined populations of Tribolium, the flour beetle. University of Chicago, ChicagoZiegler JR (1976) Evolution of the migration response: emigration by Tribolium and the influence of age. Evolution 30:579–592PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziegler JR (1977) Dispersal and reproduction in Tribolium: the influence of food level. J Insect Physiol 23:955–960Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziegler JR (1978) Dispersal and reproduction in Tribolium: the influence of initial density. Environ Entomol 7:149–156Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zirkle DF, Dawson PS, Lavie B (1988) An experimental analysis of the genetic relationships among life-history traits and emigration behavior in Tribolium castaneum. Oikos 53:391–397Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zromska-Rudzka H (1966) Abundance and emigrations of Tribolium in a laboratory model. Ekol Polska, Seria A 14: 491–518 More

  • in

    Exposure to low doses of pesticides induces an immune response and the production of nitric oxide in honeybees

    1.Genersch, E. Honey bee pathology: Current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 87, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2573-8 (2010).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Cameron, S. A. et al. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 662–667. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014743108 (2011).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botias, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Vilcinskas, A. Pathogens associated with invasive or introduced insects threaten the health and diversity of native species. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 33, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.03.004 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Sandrock, C. et al. Impact of chronic neonicotinoid exposure on honeybee colony performance and queen supersedure. PLoS ONE 9, e103592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103592 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Genersch, E. et al. The German bee monitoring project: A long term study to understand periodically high winter losses of honey bee colonies. Apidologie 41, 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido/2010014 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Meixner, M. D. & Le Conte, Y. A current perspective on honey bee health. Apidologie 47, 273–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-016-0449-3 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Desneux, N., Decourtye, A. & Delpuech, J. M. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091440 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Retschnig, G. et al. Effects, but no interactions, of ubiquitous pesticide and parasite stressors on honey bee (Apis mellifera) lifespan and behaviour in a colony environment. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 4322–4331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12825 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Rolke, D., Fuchs, S., Grünewald, B., Gao, Z. & Blenau, W. Large-scale monitoring of effects of clothianidin-dressed oilseed rape seeds on pollinating insects in Northern Germany: Effects on honey bees (Apis mellifera). Ecotoxicology 25, 1648–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-016-1725-8 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Woodcock, B. A. et al. Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science 356, 1393–1395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1190 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Siede, R. et al. Performance of honey bee colonies under a long-lasting dietary exposure to sublethal concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid. Pest. Manag. Sci. 73, 1334–1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4547 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Odemer, R., Nilles, L., Linder, N. & Rosenkranz, P. Sublethal effects of clothianidin and Nosema spp. on the longevity and foraging activity of free flying honey bees. Ecotoxicology 27, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-018-1925-5 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Han, P., Niu, C. Y., Lei, C. L., Cui, J. J. & Desneux, N. Use of an innovative T-tube maze assay and the proboscis extension response assay to assess sublethal effects of GM products and pesticides on learning capacity of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. Ecotoxicology 19, 1612–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0546-4 (2010).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Henry, M. et al. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336, 348–350. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215039 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Decourtye, A. et al. Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 78, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2003.10.001 (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Bartling, M. T., Vilcinskas, A. & Lee, K. Z. Sub-lethal doses of clothianidin inhibit the conditioning and biosensory abilities of the western honeybee Apis mellifera. Insects https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100340 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Yang, E. C., Chang, H. C., Wu, W. Y. & Chen, Y. W. Impaired olfactory associative behavior of honeybee workers due to contamination of imidacloprid in the larval stage. PLoS ONE 7, e49472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049472 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Alaux, C. et al. Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera). Environ. Microbiol. 12, 774–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02123.x (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Aufauvre, J. et al. Parasite-insecticide interactions: A case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil synergy on honeybee. Sci. Rep. 2, 326. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00326 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Pettis, J. S., vanEngelsdorp, D., Johnson, J. & Dively, G. Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema. Naturwissenschaften 99, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-011-0881-1 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Doublet, V., Labarussias, M., de Miranda, J. R., Moritz, R. F. & Paxton, R. J. Bees under stress: Sublethal doses of a neonicotinoid pesticide and pathogens interact to elevate honey bee mortality across the life cycle. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12426 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Di Prisco, G. et al. Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18466–18471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314923110 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Brochu, K. K. et al. Pollen defenses negatively impact foraging and fitness in a generalist bee (Bombus impatiens: Apidae). Sci. Rep. 10, 3112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58274-2 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Daisley, B. A., Chmiel, J. A., Pitek, A. P., Thompson, G. J. & Reid, G. Missing microbes in bees: How systematic depletion of key symbionts erodes immunity. Trends Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2020.06.006 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Barribeau, S. M. et al. A depauperate immune repertoire precedes evolution of sociality in bees. Genome Biol. 16, 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0628-y (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.López-Uribe, M. M., Sconiers, W. B., Frank, S. D., Dunn, R. R. & Tarpy, D. R. Reduced cellular immune response in social insect lineages. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150984. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0984 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Berenbaum, M. R. & Johnson, R. M. Xenobiotic detoxification pathways in honey bees. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 10, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.03.005 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Lemaitre, B. & Hoffmann, J. The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 25, 697–743. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141615 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Müller, U., Vogel, P., Alber, G. & Schaub, G. A. The innate immune system of mammals and insects. Contrib. Microbiol. 15, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1159/000135684 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Wilmes, M., Cammue, B. P., Sahl, H. G. & Thevissen, K. Antibiotic activities of host defense peptides: More to it than lipid bilayer perturbation. Nat. Prod. Rep. 28, 1350–1358. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1np00022e (2011).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Wu, Q., Patocka, J. & Kuca, K. Insect antimicrobial peptides: A mini review. Toxins https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10110461 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Rahnamaeian, M. et al. Insect antimicrobial peptides show potentiating functional interactions against gram-negative bacteria. Proc. Biol. Sci. 282, 20150293. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0293 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Rivero, A. Nitric oxide: An antiparasitic molecule of invertebrates. Trends Parasitol. 22, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2006.02.014 (2006).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Wink, D. A. & Mitchell, J. B. Chemical biology of nitric oxide: Insights into regulatory, cytotoxic, and cytoprotective mechanisms of nitric oxide. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 25, 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(98)00092-6 (1998).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Gebicka, L. & Didik, J. Catalytic scavenging of peroxynitrite by catalase. J. Inorg. Biochem. 103, 1375–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2009.07.011 (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Brunelli, L., Yermilov, V. & Beckman, J. S. Modulation of catalase peroxidatic and catalatic activity by nitric oxide. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 30, 709–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(00)00512-8 (2001).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Brunelli, L., Crow, J. P. & Beckman, J. S. The comparative toxicity of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite to Escherichia coli. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 316, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.1995.1044 (1995).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Wells, P. G. et al. Glucuronidation and the UDP-glucuronosyltransferases in health and disease. Drug Metab. Dispos. 32, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.32.3.281 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Schmid, M. R., Brockmann, A., Pirk, C. W., Stanley, D. W. & Tautz, J. Adult honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) abandon hemocytic, but not phenoloxidase-based immunity. J. Insect Physiol. 54, 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.11.002 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Wilson-Rich, N., Dres, S. T. & Starks, P. T. The ontogeny of immunity: Development of innate immune strength in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). J. Insect Physiol. 54, 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2008.07.016 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Bull, J. C. et al. A strong immune response in young adult honeybees masks their increased susceptibility to infection compared to older bees. PLoS Pathog 8, e1003083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003083 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Suazo, A., Torto, B., Teal, P. E. A. & Tumlinson, J. H. Response of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) to honey bee (Apis mellifera) and beehive-produced volatiles. Apidologie 34, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2003043 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. J. & Green, A. An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 22, 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1133242 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Schott, M. et al. Honeybee colonies compensate for pesticide-induced effects on royal jelly composition and brood survival with increased brood production. Sci. Rep. 11, 62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79660-w (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Crossthwaite, A. J. et al. The invertebrate pharmacology of insecticides acting at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. J. Pestic. Sci. 42, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.D17-019 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Liu, Y. J. et al. Thiacloprid exposure perturbs the gut microbiota and reduces the survival status in honeybees. J. Hazard Mater. 389, 121818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121818 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Vidau, C. et al. Exposure to sublethal doses of fipronil and thiacloprid highly increases mortality of honeybees previously infected by Nosema ceranae. PLoS ONE 6, e21550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021550 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Dickel, F., Munch, D., Amdam, G. V., Mappes, J. & Freitak, D. Increased survival of honeybees in the laboratory after simultaneous exposure to low doses of pesticides and bacteria. PLoS ONE 13, e0191256. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191256 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Mattson, M. P. Hormesis defined. Ageing Res. Rev. 7, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2007.08.007 (2008).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Pilling, E. D. & Jepson, P. C. Synergism between EBI fungicides and a pyrethroid insecticide in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Pestic. Sci. 39, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780390407 (1993).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Neagu, A. et al. Expression signature of some immunity genes triggered in Apis mellifera carpatica model by Pseudomonas entomophila experimental infection. Roum. Arch. Microbiol. Immunol. 18, 18–24 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    55.Bogdan, C., Rollinghoff, M. & Diefenbach, A. The role of nitric oxide in innate immunity. Immunol. Rev. 173, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-065x.2000.917307.x (2000).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    56.DeGrandi-Hoffman, G. & Chen, Y. Nutrition, immunity and viral infections in honey bees. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 10, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2015.05.007 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Zhao, J. Interplay among nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species: A complex network determining cell survival or death. Plant Signal Behav. 2, 544–547. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.2.6.4802 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Sadekuzzaman, M., Stanley, D. & Kim, Y. Nitric Oxide mediates insect cellular immunity via Phospholipase A2 activation. J. Innate Immun. 10, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481524 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Nappi, A. J., Vass, E., Frey, F. & Carton, Y. Nitric oxide involvement in Drosophila immunity. Nitric Oxide 4, 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1006/niox.2000.0294 (2000).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Kim, S. H. & Lee, W. J. Role of DUOX in gut inflammation: Lessons from Drosophila model of gut-microbiota interactions. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 3, 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2013.00116 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Ha, E. M., Oh, C. T., Bae, Y. S. & Lee, W. J. A direct role for dual oxidase in Drosophila gut immunity. Science 310, 847–850. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117311 (2005).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Chmiel, J. A., Daisley, B. A., Burton, J. P. & Reid, G. Deleterious effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on Drosophila melanogaster immune pathways. mBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01395-19 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Ozcan, A. & Ogun, M. Biochemistry of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Basic Princ. Clin. Signif. Oxid. Stress https://doi.org/10.5772/61193 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Sadekuzzaman, M. & Kim, Y. Nitric oxide mediates antimicrobial peptide gene expression by activating eicosanoid signaling. PLoS ONE 13, e0193282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193282 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Foley, E. & O’Farrell, P. H. Nitric oxide contributes to induction of innate immune responses to gram-negative bacteria in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 17, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1018503 (2003).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Hsieh, H. J., Liu, C. A., Huang, B., Tseng, A. H. & Wang, D. L. Shear-induced endothelial mechanotransduction: The interplay between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) and the pathophysiological implications. J. Biomed. Sci. 21, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1423-0127-21-3 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Lee, K. A. et al. Bacterial-derived uracil as a modulator of mucosal immunity and gut-microbe homeostasis in Drosophila. Cell 153, 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.009 (2013).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Negri, P. et al. Nitric oxide participates at the first steps of Apis mellifera cellular immune activation in response to non-self recognition. Apidologie 44, 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-013-0207-8 (2013).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Negri, P. et al. Apis mellifera hemocytes generate increased amounts of nitric oxide in response to wounding/encapsulation. Apidologie 45, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-014-0279-0 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Mehta, S. K. & Gowder, S. J. T. Members of antioxidant machinery and their functions. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/61884 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Werck-Reichhart, D. & Feyereisen, R. Cytochromes P450: A success story. Genome. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2000-1-6-reviews3003 (2000).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Anzenbacher, P. & Anzenbacherova, E. Cytochromes P450 and metabolism of xenobiotics. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 58, 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00000897 (2001).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Manjon, C. et al. Unravelling the molecular determinants of bee sensitivity to neonicotinoid insecticides. Curr. Biol. 28, 1137–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.045 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Thimmegowda, G. G. et al. A field-based quantitative analysis of sublethal effects of air pollution on pollinators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 117, 20653–20661. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009074117 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Zheng, L. et al. Transcriptomic analysis reveals importance of ROS and phytohormones in response to short-term salinity stress in Populus tomentosa. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00678 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Jiang, J., Shi, Y., Yu, R., Chen, L. & Zhao, X. Biological response of zebrafish after short-term exposure to azoxystrobin. Chemosphere 202, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.055 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Rodrigues, N. R. et al. Short-term sleep deprivation with exposure to nocturnal light alters mitochondrial bioenergetics in Drosophila. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 120, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2018.04.549 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Brandt, A. et al. Immunosuppression response to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid in females and males of the red mason bee Osmia bicornis L. Sci. Rep. 10, 4670. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61445-w (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Brandt, A. et al. Immunosuppression in honeybee queens by the neonicotinoids thiacloprid and clothianidin. Sci. Rep. 7, 4673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04734-1 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Brandt, A., Gorenflo, A., Siede, R., Meixner, M. & Buchler, R. The neonicotinoids thiacloprid, imidacloprid, and clothianidin affect the immunocompetence of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). J. Insect Physiol. 86, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2016.01.001 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Schlüns, H. & Crozier, R. H. Relish regulates expression of antimicrobial peptide genes in the honeybee, Apis mellifera, shown by RNA interference. Insect Mol. Biol. 16, 753–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2583.2007.00768.x (2007).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    82.Carreck, N. L. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. The dose makes the poison: Have “field realistic” rates of exposure of bees to neonicotinoid insecticides been overestimated in laboratory studies?. J. Apic. Res. 53, 607–614. https://doi.org/10.3896/ibra.1.53.5.08 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Schott, M. et al. Temporal dynamics of whole body residues of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid in live or dead honeybees. Sci. Rep. 7, 6288. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06259-z (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Cullen, M. G., Thompson, L. J., Carolan, J. C., Stout, J. C. & Stanley, D. A. Fungicides, herbicides and bees: A systematic review of existing research and methods. PLoS ONE 14, e0225743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225743 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    85.Han, J. et al. Marine copepod cytochrome P450 genes and their applications for molecular ecotoxicological studies in response to oil pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124, 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.048 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    86.Regoli, F. et al. Oxidative stress in ecotoxicology: From the analysis of individual antioxidants to a more integrated approach. Mar. Environ. Res. 54, 419–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-1136(02)00146-0 (2002).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    87.Sheehan, G., Farrell, G. & Kavanagh, K. Immune priming: The secret weapon of the insect world. Virulence 11, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2020.1731137 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    88.Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.2–7. (2020). More

  • in

    Seasonal patterns of bison diet across climate gradients in North America

    General patterns of dietary quality and compositionAveraged across the months, site-level [CP] ranged from 62.6 to 147.3 mg g−1 and averaged 96.7 ± 3.3 mg g−1. [DOM] ranged from 571.3 to 643.6 mg g−1 and averaged 605.8 ± 2.4 mg g−1 while [DOM]: [CP] ranged from 4.4 to 10.3 with an average of 6.9 ± 0.2.Examining seasonal patterns averaged across all sites, [CP] averaged 82.5 ± 5.4 mg g−1 in April, peaked at 113.2 ± 3.3 mg g−1 in June, and declined to 80.6 ± 4.5 mg g−1 in September (Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 2). Similarly, [DOM] averaged 583.0 ± 6.1 mg g−1 in April, peaked at 630.2 ± 3.4 mg g−1 in June, and declined to 585.1 ± 4.2 mg g−1 by September (Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 2). [DOM]: [CP] averaged 8.1 ± 0.5 in April, declined to 5.8 ± 0.2 in June, and increased to 8.1 ± 0.4 by September (Supplementary Table S1, Fig. 2).Figure 22019 monthly dietary quality metrics averaged (± S.E.) across all sites. Shown are (a) crude protein concentrations ([CP]), (b) digestible organic matter concentrations ([DOM]), and (c) the ratio between [DOM] and [CP].Full size imageExamining dietary functional group composition across sites, on average 38.2 ± 2.6% of dietary protein intake came from grasses, ranging from 12.7 to 82.2% across sites. Examining patterns for the two grass functional groups, 26.5 ± 2.9% (1.3–82.0%) of protein intake was derived from cool-season (C3) graminoids and 11.7 ± 1.6% (0–36.7%) came from warm-season (C4) grasses. Of the Eudicots, protein intake from legumes averaged 37.8 ± 2.8% (1.3–70.2%), from non-leguminous forbs averaged 21.5 ± 2.0% (0.2–68.0%), and 2.5 ± 0.8% (0–31.6%) from woody species.Examining monthly patterns across sites, C3 grass protein intake was highest in May (40.8 ± 5.0%) and lowest in September (15.8 ± 2.8%) while C4 grass protein intake peaked in September (16.2 ± 2.9%) and was lowest in July (10.2 ± 2.4%) (Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 3). Legume protein intake was highest in August at 55.8 ± 5.3% and was lowest in May (20.0 ± 4.0%) (Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 3). Forb protein intake peaked in June at 27.6 ± 3.5% and was lowest in August (14.2 ± 2.8%) (Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 3).Figure 3Average contributions of different functional groups to 2019 dietary protein intake for bison across sites for each month from April to September. Data based on the 200 most abundant Exact Sequence Variants (ESVs), which were assigned a consensus taxonomy and then a function classification. Cool-season graminoids includes C3 grasses, sedges, and Equisetum. Warm-season grass was derived exclusively from grasses. Legumes only included species from Fabaceae.Full size imageClimate and dietary qualityExamining patterns of [CP] across sites, [CP] was highest in cool, wet climates (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). For example, bison in June at a site with 1200 mm of rain and 6 °C MAT would have [CP] of 186.3 mg g−1. Bison in June at a site with 400 mm of rain and 18 °C MAT would have [CP] of just 67.8 mg g−1. There was also a statistical interaction between the identity of the month and MAT on [CP] (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). In April, [CP] tended to increase with increasing MAT (2.51 ± 1.46 mg g−1 °C−1), as warm-climate sites tended to have higher [CP] than cold-climate sites (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). By May, colder sites tended to have higher [CP] (− 2.01 ± 1.81 mg g−1 °C−1), which became stronger by June (− 5.34 ± 1.83 mg g−1 °C−1) and lasted through September (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). Examining patterns of functional group composition on top of climate relationships, [CP] was lower when greater amounts of warm-season grasses were in the diet, independent of climate and season (Supplementary Table S4).Figure 4Maps of dietary crude protein and digestible organic matter concentrations for non-forested areas. Maps are modeled based on Supplementary Table S3. Units are mg g−1. Maps generated utilizing the raster package for reclassifying and masking pixels in R 3.5.2.Full size imageLike [CP], [DOM] was also highest in cool, wet climates (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). For example, bison at a site with 1200 mm of rain and 6 °C MAT in June would have [CP] of 670.4 mg g−1 as opposed to bison at a site with 400 mm of rain and 18 °C MAT in June, which would have [CP] of just 580.4 mg g−1. In April, bison in warm-climate sites tended to consume a diet that was higher in [DOM] than bison in colder-climate sites (2.04 ± 1.73 mg g−1 °C−1) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). By May, [DOM] was invariant across MAT gradients (− 0.08 ± 1.98 mg g−1 °C−1) and by June, cold-climate sites had higher [DOM] (5.51 ± 2.00 mg g−1 °C−1) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3).Examining patterns of DOM:CP reveals the seasonal and spatial patterns of protein limitation. In general, bison in cool, wet climates had the lowest [DOM]: [CP] (Supplementary Table S3). Yet, the statistical interaction between MAT and month shows that in April, bison in cold climates were more protein limited than in warm climates (− 0.16 ± 0.11 °C−1) (Supplementary Table S3). By May, [DOM]: [CP] tended to become higher in warm climates, with the gradient becoming strongest by August (0.61 ± 0.15 °C−1) (Supplementary Table S3).Climate and dietary compositionExamining cross-site relationships between the relative amounts of different functional groups in diet and the predictors of climate and season, the proportion of cool-season grass in the diet was highest in cool sites (decreasing at a rate of 3.8 ± 0.5% °C−1), with no significant influence of MAP (P = 0.16) (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S5). The proportion of cool-season grass in the diet varied among months, but there was no difference among months in the relationship with MAT (P = 0.54). In contrast, the proportion of warm-season grass in diet was greatest in hot, dry regions (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S5). For example, bison at a site with 400 mm of rain and 18 °C MAT would have 42.9% of their dietary protein from warm-season grasses as opposed to a site with 1200 mm of rain and 6 °C MAT, where warm-season grasses would provide 0% of their dietary protein.Figure 5Maps of functional group composition of bison diet (excluding woody plants, which had low abundance and little pattern with climate) for non-forested areas. As there were no interactions between either MAT or MAP and the identity of the month, only maps for June are shown here. See Fig. 2 for how functional group composition of the diet changes over the six six months. Maps generated utilizing the raster package for reclassifying and masking pixels in R 3.5.2.Full size imageAmong Eudicots, there was no seasonal variation in the percentage of forbs in the diet, but the percentage of dietary protein from forbs was highest in hot, dry regions (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S5). For example, bison at a site with 400 mm of rain and 18 °C MAT in June would have 54.2% of their dietary protein from forbs as opposed to a site with 1200 mm of rain and 6 °C MAT in June, where it would be just 9.6%. Legumes had strong seasonal variation in its dietary contribution, but little variation with climate, increasing at a rate of 2.0 ± 0.8% per 100 mm MAP (P = 0.02) (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S5).Comparison with 2018 dataComparing [CP] between years, June [CP] was higher on average in 2019 than 2018 (113.2 ± 3.3 vs. 93.6 ± 3.2 mg g−1; P  0.3 for both MAT and MAP) (Table 3). There were also no significant relationships with climate for forb or woody contribution to diet between years (Table 3). Despite many of the similarities between years, comparing dietary functional group composition in September between years, legumes contributed 20% more protein and warm-season grasses 14% less in 2019 than 2018.Table 3 Model results for comparing functional group abundance in bison diet for June and September between 2018 and 2019.Full size table More

  • in

    Extreme philopatry and genetic diversification at unprecedented scales in a seabird

    1.Rodríguez, A. et al. Future directions in conservation research on petrels and shearwaters. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 94 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Thomson, S. A. et al. Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005075 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Friesen, V. L., Burg, T. M. & McCoy, K. D. Mechanisms of population differentiation in seabirds. Mol. Ecol. 16(9), 1765–1785 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Lombal, A. J., O’Dwyer, J. E., Friesen, V. L., Woehler, E. J. & Burridge, C. P. Identifying mechanisms of genetic differentiation among population in vagile species: historical factors dominate genetic differentiation in seabirds. Biol. Rev. 95(3), 625–651 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Friesen, V. L. Speciation in seabirds: why are there so many species…and why aren’t there more?. J. Ornithol. 156, 27–39 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Morris-Pocock, J. A., Steeves, T. E., Estela, F. A., Anderson, D. J. & Friesen, V. L. Comparative phylogeography of brown (Sula leucogaster) and red-footed boobies (Sula sula): the influence of physical barriers and habitat preference on gene flow in pelagic seabirds. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 54(3), 883–896 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Morris-Pocock, J. A., Anderson, D. J. & Friesen, V. L. Biological barriers to dispersal and rare gene flow shape population genetic structure in red-footed boobies (Sula sula). J. Biogeogr. 43(11), 2125–2135 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Nuss, A., Carlos, C. J., Moreno, I. B. & Fagundes, N. J. R. Population genetic structure of the Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens (Aces, Suliformes) breeding colonies in the western Atlantic Ocean. PLoS ONE 11, e0149834 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Friesen, V. L., González, J. A. & Cruz-Delgado, F. Population genetic structure and conservation of the Galápagos Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia). Conserv. Genet. 7, 105–115 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Frugone, M. J. et al. Contrasting phylogeographic patterns among Eudyptes penguins around the Southern Ocean. Sci. Rep. 8, 17481 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Croxall, J. P. et al. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conserv. Int. 22(1), 1–34 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Montevecchi, W. A. Interactions between fisheries and seabirds. In The Biology of Marine Birds (eds Schrieber, E. A. & Burger, J.) 527–557 (CRC Press, 2002).13.Hamer, K. C. Breeding biology, life histories and life history-environment interaction in seabirds. In The Biology of Marine Birds (eds Schrieber, E. A. & Burger, J.) 217–261 (CRC Press, 2002).14.Frankham, R., Briscoe, D. A. & Ballou, J. D. Introduction to Conservation Genetics (Cambridge University Press, 2002).15.Wan, Q. H., Wu, H., Fujihara, T. & Fang, S. G. Which genetic marker for which conservation geneitic issue?. Electrophoresis 25, 2165–2176 (2004).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Paleczny, M., Hammill, E., Karpouzi, V. & Pauly, D. Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950–2010. PLoS ONE 10(6), e0129342 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Pinet, P. et al. Barau’s Petrel Pterodroma baraui: history, biology and conservation of an endangered endemic petrel. Mar. Ornithol. 37, 107–113 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    18.Lougnon, A. Sous le Signe de la Tortue. Voyage Anciens a I’Ile Bourbon, (1611–1725). Saint-Denis, La Reunion, France. (Editions Orphie, 2006).19.Milot, E., Weimerskirch, H. & Bernatchez, L. The seabird paradox: dispersal, genetic structure and population dynamics in a highly mobile, but philopatric albatross species. Mol. Ecol. 17(7), 1658–1673 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Antaky, C. C., Coklin, E. E., Toonen, R. J., Knapp, I. S. S. & Price, M. R. Unexpectedly high genetic diversity in a rare and endangered seabird in the Hawaiian Archipelago. PeerK 8, e8463 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Smith, A. L. & Friesen, V. L. Differentiation of sympatric populations of the Band-rumped Storm Petrel in the Galapagos Islands: an examination of genetics, morphology, and vocalizations. Mol. Ecol. 16(8), 1593–1603 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Wiley, A. E. et al. Foraging segregation and genetic divergence between geographically proximate colonies of a highly mobile seabird. Oecologia 168, 119–130 (2011).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Hardy, O. J., Charbonnel, N., Fréville, H. & Heuertz, M. Microsatellite allele sizes: a simple test to assess their significance of genetic differentiation. Genetics 163(4), 1467–1482 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Faubet, P., Waples, R. S. & Gaggiotti, O. E. Evaluating the performance of a multilocus Bayesian method for the estimation of migration rates. Mol. Ecol. 16(6), 1149–1166 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Brooke, M. Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World (Oxford University, 2004).26.Pinet, P., Jaquemet, S., Phillips, R. A. & Le Corre, M. Sex-specific foraging strategies throughout the breeding season in a tropical sexually monomorphic small petrel. Anim. Behav. 83(4), 979–989 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Friesen, V. L. et al. Sympatric speciation by allochrony in a seabird. PNAS 104(47), 18589–18594 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Gay, L. et al. Speciation with gene flow in the large white-headed gulls: Does selection counterbalance introgression?. Heredity 102, 122–146 (2009).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Zidat, T. et al. Reproductive isolation maintains distinct genotypes, phenotypes and chemical signatures in mixed colonies of the two European Calonectris shearwaters (Procellariiformes: Procellariidae). Zool. J. Linnean. Soc. 181(3), 711–726 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Abbott, C. L. & Double, M. C. Genetic structure, conservation genetics and evidence of speciation by range expansion in shy and white-capped albatrosses. Mol. Evol. 12, 2953–2962 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    31.Welch, A. J. et al. Population divergence and gene flow in an endangered and highly mobile seabird. Heredity 109, 19–28 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Pinet, P. Biologie, écologie & conservation d’un oiseau marin endemique de La Réunion: Le Petrel de Barau (Pterodroma baraui), Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université de La Réunion (2012).33.Coulson, J. C. A review of philopatry in seabirds and comparisons with other waterbird species. Waterbirds 39, 229–326 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Cristofari, R. et al. Unexpected population fragmentation in an endangered seabird: the case of the Peruvian diving-petrel. Sci. Rep. 9, 2021 (2019).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Pinet, P. et al. Migration, wintering distribution and habitat use of an endangered tropical seabird, Barau’s Petrel Pterodroma baraui. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 423, 291–302 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Danckwerts, D. K., Corré, S., Pinet, P. L., Corre, M. & Humeau, L. Isolation and characterization of 15 polymorphic microsatellite loci for the Barau’s Petrel (Pterodroma baraui), an endangered endemic of Réunion Island (Indian Ocean). Waterbirds 39, 413–416 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Schuelke, M. An economic method for the fluorescent labelling of PCR fragments. Nat. Biotechnol. 18(2), 233–234 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 43(3), 535–538 (2004).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Rousset, F. Genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for windows and linus. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57(1), 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Agapow, P. M. & Burt, A. Indices of multi-locus linkage disequilibrium. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 1, 101–102 (2001).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. Peer J 4, 2281 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    43.Nei, M. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89, 583–590 (1978).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4(1), 1–9 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    46.El Mousadik, A. & Petit, R. J. High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among population of the argan tree [Argania spinose (L.) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor. Appl. Genet. 92, 832–839 (1996).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Goudet, J. FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J. Hered. 86, 485–486 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Paradis, E. Pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated-modular approach. Bioinformatics 26, 419–420 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Wright, S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am. Nat. 56, 330–338 (1922).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Wright, S. The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19, 395–420 (1965).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics of population structure. Evolution 38(6), 1358–1370 (1984).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Jombart, T. adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24(11), 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Hardy, O. J. & Vekemans, X. SPAGEDI: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual and population levels. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2, 618–620 (2002).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Meirmans, P. G. GENODIVE version 3.0: easy-to-use software for the analysis of genetic data of diploids and polyploids. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20(4), 1126–1131 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    56.Pons, O. & Petit, R. J. Measuring and testing genetic differentiation with ordered vs. unordered alleles. Genetics 144, 1237–1245 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Falush, D., Stephens, M. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 155(2), 945–959 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    58.Porras-Hurtado, L. et al. An overview of STRUCUTE: applications, parameter settings, and supporting software. Front. Genet. 4, 98 (2013).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Falush, D., Stephens, M. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164(4), 1567–1587 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Hubisz, M. J., Falush, D., Stephens, M. & Pritchard, J. K. Inferrign weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 9, 1322–1332 (2009).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Pritchard, J., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Earl, D. A. & von Holdt, B. M. Structure harvester: a website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Cons Genet Res 4, 359–361 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. CLUMPAK: a program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15(5), 1179–1191 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 94 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Carlen, E. & Munshi-South, J. Widespread genetic connectivity of feral pigeons across the Northeastern megacity. Evol. Appl. 14, 1–13 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    67.Nomura, T. Estimation of effective number of breeders from molecular coancestry of single cohort sample. Evol. Appl. 1(3), 462–474 (2008).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Do, C. et al. NeEstimator V2: Re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14(1), 209–214 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Piry, S., Luikart, G. & Cornuet, J. M. BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reduction in effective population size using allele frequency data. J. Hered. 90, 502–503 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Peery, M. Z. et al. Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines. Mol. Ecol. 21(14), 3403–3418 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Luikart, G., Cornuet, J. M. & Allendorf, F. W. Temporal changes in allele frequencies provide estimates of population bottleneck size. Cons. Biol. 13(3), 523–530 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Archer, F. I., Adams, P. E. & Schneiders, B. B. stratag: an r package for manipulating, summarizing and analyzing population genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17(1), 5–11 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Nikolic, N. & Chevalet, C. Detecting past changes of effective population size. Evol. Appl. 7(6), 663–681 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Garza, J. C. & Williamson, E. G. Detection of reduction in population size using data from microsatellite loci. Mol. Ecol. 10(3), 305–318 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Wickman, H. François, R. Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (2020).76.Humeau, L. et al. Genetic structuring among colonies of a pantropical seabird: Implication for subspecies validation and conservation. Ecol. Evol. (in press).77.Nunes, G. T. & Bugoni, L. Local adaptation drives population isolation in a tropical seabird. J Biogeogr. 45(2), 332–341 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Barlow, E. J. et al. Weak large-scale population genetic structure in a philopatric seabird, the European Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Ibis 153(4), 768–778 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    79.QGIS.org. QGIS Geographical Information System version 3.10. QGIS Association. http://www.qgis.org (2020). More

  • in

    Toxicity of the insecticide sulfoxaflor alone and in combination with the fungicide fluxapyroxad in three bee species

    1.Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Michener, C. D. The Bees of the World. (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).5.Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science (80-. ). 313, 351–354 (2006).6.Nieto, A. et al. European Red List of Bees. IUCN Global Species Programm (Publication Office of the European Union, 2014). https://doi.org/10.2779/77003.7.Zattara, E. E. & Aizen, M. A. Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4, 114–123 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. & Tarrant, S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?. Oikos 120, 321–326 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Klein, A. M. et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 303–313 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science (80-. ). 347, 1255957 (2015).11.Kremen, C., Williams, N. M. & Thorp, R. W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 16812–16816 (2002).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Mullin, C. A. et al. High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in north American apiaries: implications for honey bee health. PLoS ONE 5, e9754 (2010).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Tosi, S., Costa, C., Vesco, U., Quaglia, G. & Guido, G. A 3-year survey of Italian honey bee-collected pollen reveals widespread contamination by agricultural pesticides. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 208–218 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Cedergreen, N. Quantifying synergy: A systematic review of mixture toxicity studies within environmental toxicology. PLoS ONE 9, e96580 (2014).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Thompson, H. M., Fryday, S. L., Harkin, S. & Milner, S. Potential impacts of synergism in honeybees (Apis mellifera) of exposure to neonicotinoids and sprayed fungicides in crops. Apidologie 45, 545–553 (2014).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Carnesecchi, E. et al. Investigating combined toxicity of binary mixtures in bees: Meta-analysis of laboratory tests, modelling, mechanistic basis and implications for risk assessment. Environ. Int. 133, 105256 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Sgolastra, F. et al. Bees and pesticide regulation: Lessons from the neonicotinoid experience. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108356 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Arena, M. & Sgolastra, F. A meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of bees to pesticides. Ecotoxicology 23, 324–334 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Uhl, P., Awanbor, O., Schulz, R. S. & Brühl, C. A. Osmia bicornis is rarely an adequate regulatory surrogate species. Comparing its acute sensitivity towards multiple insecticides with regulatory Apis mellifera endpoints . bioRxiv 366237 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1101/366237.20.Heard, M. S. et al. Comparative toxicity of pesticides and environmental contaminants in bees: Are honey bees a useful proxy for wild bee species?. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 357–365 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Biddinger, D. J. et al. Comparative toxicities and synergism of apple orchard pesticides to Apis mellifera (L.) and Osmia cornifrons (Radoszkowski). PLoS One 8, e72587 (2013).22.Robinson, A. et al. Comparing bee species responses to chemical mixtures: Common response patterns?. PLoS ONE 12, e0176289 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    23.FAO. Fluxapyroxad (256). 659–926 (2015). Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/JMPR/Evaluation12/Fluxapyroxad.pdf.24.Bénit, P. et al. Evolutionarily conserved susceptibility of the mitochondrial respiratory chain to SDHI pesticides and its consequence on the impact of SDHIs on human cultured cells. PLoS ONE 14, e0224132 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    25.EFSA. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F). EFSA J. 10, 2522 (2012).26.Sierotzki, H. & Scalliet, G. A review of current knowledge of resistance aspects for the next-generation succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicides. Phytopathology 103, 880–887 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Zhu, Y. et al. Discovery and characterization of sulfoxaflor, a novel insecticide targeting sap-feeding pests. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 2950–2957 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Sparks, T. C. et al. Sulfoxaflor and the sulfoximine insecticides: Chemistry, mode of action and basis for efficacy on resistant insects. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 107, 1–7 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Brown, M. J. F. et al. A horizon scan of future threats and opportunities for pollinators and pollination. PeerJ 4, e2249 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Siviter, H., Brown, M. J. F. & Leadbeater, E. Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success. Nature 561, 109–112 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Siviter, H., Horner, J., Brown, M. J. F. & Leadbeater, E. Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces egg laying in bumblebees Bombus terrestris. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 160–169 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Siviter, H. et al. No evidence for negative impacts of acute sulfoxaflor exposure on bee olfactory conditioning or working memory. PeerJ 7, e7208 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Cheng, Y. et al. A semi-field study to evaluate effects of sulfoxaflor on honey bee (Apis mellifera). Bull. Insectol. 71, 225–233 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    34.Zhu, Y. C., Yao, J., Adamczyk, J. & Luttrell, R. Synergistic toxicity and physiological impact of imidacloprid alone and binary mixtures with seven representative pesticides on honey bee (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 12, e0176837 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Zhu, Y. C., Yao, J., Adamczyk, J. & Luttrell, R. Feeding toxicity and impact of imidacloprid formulation and mixtures with six representative pesticides at residue concentrations on honey bee physiology (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 12, e0178421 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Thompson, H. M., Wilkins, S., Harkin, S., Milner, S. & Walters, K. F. A. Neonicotinoids and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): effects on nectar consumption in individual workers. Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 946–950 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Cresswell, J. E. et al. Differential sensitivity of honey bees and bumble bees to a dietary insecticide (imidacloprid). Zoology 115, 365–371 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Azpiazu, C. et al. Chronic oral exposure to field-realistic pesticide combinations via pollen and nectar: effects on feeding and thermal performance in a solitary bee. Sci. Rep. 9, 13770 (2019).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Berenbaum, M. R. & Johnson, R. M. Xenobiotic detoxification pathways in honey bees. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 10, 51–58 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Therneau, T. M. Package ‘ survival ’. (2020).41.Demidenko, E. & Miller, T. W. Statistical determination of synergy based on Bliss definition of drugs independence. PLoS ONE 14, 1–22 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Casida, J. E. Neonicotinoids and other insect nicotinic receptor competitive modulators: progress and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 125–144 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Matsuda, K., Ihara, M. & Sattelle, D. B. Neonicotinoid insecticides: molecular targets, resistance, and toxicity. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 60, 241–255 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Sanchez-Bayo, F. & Goka, K. Pesticide residues and bees-a risk assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e94482 (2014).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Sgolastra, F. et al. Synergistic mortality between a neonicotinoid insecticide and an ergosterol-biosynthesis-inhibiting fungicide in three bee species. Pest Manag. Sci. 73, 1236–1243 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D. J. & Green, A. An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. An Int. J. 22, 1050–1064 (2016).47.Lambert, O. et al. Widespread occurrence of chemical residues in beehive matrices from apiaries located in different landscapes of western France. PLoS ONE 8, e67007 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Iwasa, T., Motoyama, N., Ambrose, J. T. & Roe, R. M. Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee. Apis mellifera. Crop Prot. 23, 371–378 (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Sgolastra, F. et al. Combined exposure to sublethal concentrations of an insecticide and a fungicide affect feeding, ovary development and longevity in a solitary bee. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20180887 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Tosi, S. & Nieh, J. C. Lethal and sublethal synergistic effects of a new systemic pesticide, flupyradifurone (Sivantow), on honeybees. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20190433 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Johnson, R. M., Dahlgren, L., Siegfried, B. D. & Ellis, M. D. Acaricide, Fungicide and Drug Interactions in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 8, e54092 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Tsvetkov, N. et al. Chronic exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops. Science (80-. ). 356, 1395–1397 (2017).53.Uhl, P., Awanbor, O., Schulz, R. S. & Brühl, C. A. Osmia bicornis is rarely an adequate regulatory surrogate species. Comparing its acute sensitivity towards multiple insecticides with regulatory Apis mellifera endpoints. PLoS One 14, e0201081 (2019).54.Beadle, K. et al. Genomic insights into neonicotinoid sensitivity in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis. 1–19 (2019).55.Hayward, A. et al. The leafcutter bee, Megachile rotundata, is more sensitive to N-cyanoamidine neonicotinoid and butenolide insecticides than other managed bees. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1521–1524 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.EPA. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Sulfoxaflor. United States Environ. Prot. Agency (2019).57.EFSA. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance sulfoxaflor in light of confirmatory data submitted. EFSA J. 17, e05633 (2019).58.Mundy-Heisz, K. A., Prosser, R. S. & Raine, N. E. Acute oral toxicity and risks of exposure to the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, and other classes of systemic insecticide, for the Common Eastern Bumblebee (Bombus impatiens). bioRxiv (2020). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.27.921510.59.EFSA. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera , Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J. 11, 3295 (2013).60.Sgolastra, F. et al. Pesticide exposure assessment paradigm for solitary bees. Environ. Entomol. 48, 22–35 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Gradish, A. E. et al. Comparison of pesticide exposure in honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): implications for risk assessments. Environ. Entomol. 48, 12–21 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Chan, D. S. W., Prosser, R. S., Rodríguez-Gil, J. L. & Raine, N. E. Assessment of risk to hoary squash bees (Peponapis pruinosa) and other ground-nesting bees from systemic insecticides in agricultural soil. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–13 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    63.Boyle, N. K. & Pitts-Singer, T. L. Assessing blue orchard bee (Osmia lignaria) propagation and pollination services in the presence of honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Utah tart cherries. PeerJ 7, e7639 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Franklin, E. L. & Raine, N. E. Moving beyond honeybee-centric pesticide risk assessments to protect all pollinators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1373–1375 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.OECD. Test No. 213: Honeybees, Acute Oral Toxicity Test. (OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, 1998). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070165-en.66.OECD. Test No. 247: Bumblebee, Acute Oral Toxicity Test. (OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284128-en.67.Medrzycki, P. et al. Standard methods for toxicology research in Apis mellifera. J. Apic. Res. 52, 1–60 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Brandt, A. et al. Immunosuppression response to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid in females and males of the red mason bee Osmia bicornis L. Sci. Rep. 10, 4670 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Ladurner, E., Bosch, J., Maini, S. & Kemp, W. P. A method to feed individual bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) known amounts of pesticides. Apidologie 34, 597–602 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Kassambara, A., Kosinski, M., Biecek, P. & Fabian, S. Package ‘survminer’. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (2020).71.Oller, R. & Langohr, K. FHtest : An R Package for the Comparison of Survival Curves with Censored Data . J. Stat. Softw. 81, (2017).72.Robertson, J. L., Russell, R. M., Preisler, H. K. & Savin, N. E. Bioassays with Arthropods. (CRC Press, 2007).73.Jonker, M. J., Svendsen, C., Bedaux, J. J. M., Bongers, M. & Kammenga, J. E. Significance testing of synergistic/antagonistic, dose level-dependent, or dose ratio-dependent effects in mixture dose-response analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24, 2701–2713 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    eDNA metabarcoding for biodiversity assessment, generalist predators as sampling assistants

    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.Pimm, S. L. et al. Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 685–696 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Duelli, P., Obrist, M. K. & Schmatz, D. R. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscape: Above-ground insects. Argicult. Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 33–64 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Depraetere, M. et al. Monitoring animal diversity using acoustic indices: Implementation in a temperate woodland. Ecol. Indic. 13, 46–54 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Green, S. E., Rees, J. P., Stephens, P. A., Hill, R. A. & Giordano, A. J. Innovations in camera trapping technology and approaches: The integration of citizen science and artificial intelligence. Animals 10, 132 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Roberts, T. E., Bridge, T. C., Caley, M. J. & Baird, A. H. The point count transect method for estimates of biodiversity on coral reefs: Improving the sampling of rare species. PLoS ONE 11, e0152335 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Stribling, J. B., Pavlik, K. L., Holdsworth, S. M. & Leppo, E. W. Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 27, 906–919 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Iknayan, K. J., Tingley, M. W., Furnas, B. J. & Beissinger, S. R. Detecting diversity: Emerging methods to estimate species diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 97–106 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Bortolus, A. Error cascades in the biological sciences: The unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 37, 114–118 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Thomsen, P. F. & Willerslev, E. Environmental DNA—An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 183, 4–18 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Deiner, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 12, 3218–3221 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L. & Coissac, E. Environmental DNA for Biodiversity Research and Monitoring. (Oxford University Press, 2018).13.Sales, N. G. et al. Fishing for mammals: Landscape-level monitoring of terrestrial and semi-aquatic communities using eDNA from riverine systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 707–716 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Iacolina, L. et al. eDNA and metabarcoding for rewilding projects monitoring, a dietary approach. Mamm. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-020-00032-y (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Thomsen, P. F. et al. Detection of a diverse marine fish fauna using environmental DNA from seawater samples. PLoS ONE 7, 1–9 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    16.Weltz, K. et al. Application of environmental DNA to detect an endangered marine skate species in the wild. PLoS ONE 12, 1–16 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Zinger, L. et al. Body size determines soil community assembly in a tropical forest. Mol. Ecol. 28, 528–543 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Djurhuus, A. et al. Environmental DNA reveals seasonal shifts and potential interactions in a marine community. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Lodge, D. M. et al. Conservation in a cup of water: Estimating biodiversity and population abundance from environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2555–2558 (2012).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Drummond, A. J. et al. Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment. Gigascience 4, (2015).21.Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: Diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Cavallo, C. et al. Molecular analysis of predator scats reveals role of salps in temperate inshore food webs. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 381 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Hawkins, J. et al. Using DNA metabarcoding to identify the floral composition of honey: A new tool for investigating honey bee foraging preferences. PLoS ONE 10, 1–20 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    24.Xu, C. C. Y., Yen, I. J., Bowman, D. & Turner, C. R. Spider web DNA: A new spin on noninvasive genetics of predator and prey. PLoS ONE 10, e0142503 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    25.De Vere, N. et al. Using DNA metabarcoding to investigate honey bee foraging reveals limited flower use despite high floral availability. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Galan, M. et al. Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their prey: Application to bat species diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 474–489 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Fløjgaard, C., De Barba, M., Taberlet, P. & Ejrnæs, R. Body condition, diet and ecosystem function of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a fenced nature reserve. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 11, 312–323 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Lopes, C. M. et al. Ecological specialization and niche overlap of subterranean rodents inferred from DNA metabarcoding diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. 00, 1–11 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    29.Aizpurua, O. et al. Agriculture shapes the trophic niche of a bat preying on multiple pest arthropods across Europe: Evidence from DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 27, 815–825 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Jo, H. et al. Discovering hidden biodiversity: The use of complementary monitoring of fish diet based on DNA barcoding in freshwater ecosystems. Ecol. Evol. 6, 219–232 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Boyer, S., Cruickshank, R. H. & Wratten, S. D. Faeces of generalist predators as ‘biodiversity capsules’: A new tool for biodiversity assessment in remote and inaccessible habitats. Food Webs 3, 1–6 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Schnell, I. B. et al. iDNA from terrestrial haematophagous leeches as a wildlife surveying and monitoring tool—Prospects, pitfalls and avenues to be developed. Front. Zool. 12, 24 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Berry, T. E. et al. DNA metabarcoding for diet analysis and biodiversity: A case study using the endangered Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Ecol. Evol. 7, 5435–5453 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Siegenthaler, A. et al. Metabarcoding of shrimp stomach content: Harnessing a natural sampler for fish biodiversity monitoring. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 206–220 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Berry, T. E. et al. DNA metabarcoding for diet analysis and biodiversity: A case study using the endangered Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Ecol. Evol. 7, 5435–5453 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.McInnes, J. C. et al. Optimised scat collection protocols for dietary DNA metabarcoding in vertebrates. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 192–202 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Mortensen, P. H. Tofte Skov of Mose – status. (2012).38.Roper, T. J. Badger. (HarperCollins UK, 2010).39.De Barba, M. et al. DNA metabarcoding multiplexing and validation of data accuracy for diet assessment: Application to omnivorous diet. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 306–323 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Taberlet, P. et al. Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1816–1820 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Ficetola, F. et al. An In silico approach for the evaluation of DNA barcodes. BMC Genom. 11, 434 (2010).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Boyer, F. et al. obitools: A unix-inspired sotfware package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 176–182 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2018).44.Oksanen, A. J. et al. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-2. R J. (2017).45.Thuo, D. et al. Food from faeces: Evaluating the efficacy of scat DNA metabarcoding in dietary analyses. PLoS ONE 14, 1–15 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Kruuk, H. & Parish, T. Feeding specialization of the European badger Meles-Meles in Scotland UK. J. Anim. Ecol. 50, 773–788 (1981).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Teerink, B. Atlas and Identification Key—Hair of West European Mammals. (Cambridge University Press, 1991).48.Jensen, T. S. Mus, rotter og spidsmus. (Natur og Museum, 1993).49.Day, M. G. Identification of Hairs and feather remains in the gut and faeces of stoats and weasels. J. Zool. 148, 201–217 (1966).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Fog, K., Schmedes, A. & Lasson, D. R. Nordens pattedyr og krybdyr. (GAD, 1997).51.Toft, S. Leddyrenes biologi. (Biological Institute, Aarhus University, 2000).52.Mazziotta, A. et al. Dataset on species incidence, species richness and forest characteristics in a Danish protected area Data in Brief. eCollection 1, 895–897 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    53.Mortensen, P. H. Høstemark – status. (2001).54.Nichols, R. V., Åkesson, M. & Kjellander, P. Diet assessment based on rumen contents: A comparison between DNA metabarcoding and macroscopy. PLoS ONE 11, e0157977 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Biffi, M. et al. Comparison of diet and prey selectivity of the Pyrenean desman and the Eurasian water shrew using next-generation sequencing methods. Mamm. Biol. 87, 176–184 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Spitzer, R. et al. Doubting dung: eDNA reveals high rates of misidentification in diverse European ungulate communities. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65, 1–14 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Balestrieri, A., Remonti, L., Saino, N. & Raubenheimer, D. The ‘omnivorous badger dilemma’: towards an integration of nutrition with the dietary niche in wild mammals. Mamm. Rev. 49, 324–339 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Elmeros, M. et al. The diet of feral raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and native badger (Meles meles) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Denmark. Mammal Res. 63, 405–413 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Madsen, S. A. & Elmeros, M. Seasonal food of badgers (Meles meles) in Denmark. Mammalia 66, 341–352 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Pagh, S., Tjørnløv, R. S., Olesen, C. R. & Chriel, M. The diet of Danish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to a changing agricultural ecosystem. A historical perspective. Mammal Res. 60, 319–329 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Soe, E. et al. Europe-wide biogeographical patterns in the diet of an ecologically and epidemiologically important mesopredator, the red fox Vulpes vulpes: a quantitative review. Mamm. Rev. 47, 198–211 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Deagle, B. E., Thomas, A. C., Shaffer, A. K., Trites, A. W. & Jarman, S. N. Quantifying sequence proportions in a DNA-based diet study using Ion Torrent amplicon sequencing: Which counts count?. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 620–633 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Mumma, M. A. et al. A comparison of morphological and molecular diet analyses of predator scats. J. Mammal. gyv160 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv160.64.Harper, L. R. et al. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of pond water as a tool to survey conservation and management priority mammals. Biol. Conserv. 238, 108225 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Leempoel, K., Hebert, T. & Hadly, E. A. A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity. bioRxiv (2019). https://doi.org/10.1101/634022. More

  • in

    Cooperative partner choice in multi-level male dolphin alliances

    1.West, S. A. & Ghoul, M. Conflict within cooperation. Curr. Biol. 29, R425–R426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.028 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. (John Murray, 1859).3.Pennisi, E. How did cooperative behavior evolve?. Science 309, 93–93. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5731.93 (2005).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Ghoul, M., Andersen, S. B. & West, S. A. Sociomics: Using omic approaches to understand social evolution. Trends Genet. 33, 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2017.03.009 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Kay, T., Lehmann, L. & Keller, L. Kin selection and altruism. Curr. Biol. 29, R438–R442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.067 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Rodrigues, A. M. & Kokko, H. Models of social evolution: Can we do better to predict ‘who helps whom to achieve what’?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150088 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Strassmann, J. E., Page, R. E. Jr., Robinson, G. E. & Seeley, T. D. Kin selection and eusociality. Nature 471, E5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09833 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Silk, J. B. Nepotistic cooperation in non-human primate groups. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 3243–3254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0118 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Foerster, S. et al. Social bonds in the dispersing sex: Partner preferences among adult female chimpanzees. Anim. Behav. 105, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.012 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Bourke, A. F. G. Hamilton’s rule and the causes of social evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0362 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Hamilton, W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. II. J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1–52 (1964).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Chapais, B. In Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution (eds Kappeler, P. M. & van Schaik, C. P.) 47–64 (Springer, 2006).13.Borgeaud, C. & Bshary, R. Wild vervet monkeys trade tolerance and specific coalitionary support for grooming in experimentally induced conflicts. Curr. Biol. 25, 3011–3016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.016 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Massen, J. J. M. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (eds. Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T.) 1–6 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).15.Cords, M. & Thompson, N. A. In APA Handbook of Comparative Psychology: Basic Concepts, Methods, Neural Substrate, and Behavior, Vol. 1 APA Handbooks in Psychology®. 899–913 (American Psychological Association, 2017).16.Barclay, P. Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 7, 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.012 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Samuni, L. et al. Social bonds facilitate cooperative resource sharing in wild chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20181643 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.St-Pierre, A., Larose, K. & Dubois, F. Long-term social bonds promote cooperation in the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 4223–4228. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1156 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Berghänel, A., Ostner, J., Schröder, U. & Schülke, O. Social bonds predict future cooperation in male Barbary macaques, Macaca sylvanus. Anim. Behav. 81, 1109–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.009 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Thompson, N. A. Understanding the links between social ties and fitness over the life cycle in primates. Behaviour 156, 859. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003552 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Caro, T. M. Cheetah mothers bias parental investment in favour of cooperating sons. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2, 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.1990.9525399 (1990).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Lukas, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. Social complexity and kinship in animal societies. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1129–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13079 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Clutton-Brock, T. Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies. Nature 462, 51–57 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Riehl, C. Living with strangers: Direct benefits favour non-kin cooperation in a communally nesting bird. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 1728–1735 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Carter, G. G. & Wilkinson, G. S. Social benefits of non-kin food sharing by female vampire bats. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20152524. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2524 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Boesch, C., Kohou, G., Néné, H. & Vigilant, L. Male competition and paternity in wild chimpanzees of the Taï forest. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 130, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20341 (2006).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Mitani, J. C., Merriwether, D. A. & Zhang, C. Male affiliation, cooperation and kinship in wild chimpanzees. Anim. Behav. 59, 885–893 (2000).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Wroblewski, E. E. et al. Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Anim. Behav. 77, 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.014 (2009).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Díaz-Muñoz, S. L., Du Val, E. H., Krakauer, A. H. & Lacey, E. A. Cooperating to compete: Altruism, sexual selection and causes of male reproductive cooperation. Anim. Behav. 88, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.11.008 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Diaz-Aguirre, F., Parra, G. J., Passadore, C. & Möller, L. Kinship influences social bonds among male southern Australian bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops cf. australis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2621-4 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Parsons, K. M. et al. Kinship as a basis for alliance formation between male bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Bahamas. Anim. Behav. 66, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2186 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Möller, L. M., Beheregaray, L. B., Harcourt, R. G. & Krützen, M. Alliance membership and kinship in wild male bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) of southeastern Australia. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268, 1941–1947. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1756 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Wells, R. S. In Primates and Cetaceans: Field Research and Conservation of Complex Mammalian Societies (eds Yamagiwa, J. & Karczmarski, L.) 149–172 (Springer Japan, 2014).34.Connor, R. C., Wells, R. S., Mann, J. & Read, A. J. In Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales (eds Mann, J, Connor, R.C., Tyack, P., & Whitehead, H.) 91–126 (University of Chicago Press, 2000).35.Trivers, R. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57 (1971).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Connor, R. C. Pseudo-reciprocity: Investing in mutualism. Anim. Behav. 34, 1562–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80225-1 (1986).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Connor, R. C. The benefits of mutualism: A conceptual framework. Biol. Rev. 70, 427–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1995.tb01196.x (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.West-Eberhard, M. J. The evolution of social behavior by kin selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 50, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/408298 (1975).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Randić, S., Connor, R. C., Sherwin, W. B. & Krützen, M. A novel mammalian social structure in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.): Complex male alliances in an open social network. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 3083–3090. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0264 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Krützen, M., Barré, L. M., Connor, R. C., Mann, J. & Sherwin, W. B. ‘O father: where art thou?’—Paternity assessment in an open fission–fusion society of wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mol. Ecol. 13, 1975–1990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02192.x (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Connor, R. C. & Krützen, M. Male dolphin alliances in Shark Bay: Changing perspectives in a 30-year study. Anim. Behav. 103, 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.019 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Connor, R. C., Heithaus, M. R. & Barre, L. M. Complex social structure, alliance stability and mating access in a bottlenose dolphin ‘super-alliance’. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268, 263–267 (2001).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Mann, J., Connor, R. C., Barre, L. M. & Heithaus, M. R. Female reproductive success in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.): Life history, habitat, provisioning, and group-size effects. Behav. Ecol. 11, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.2.210 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Smolker, R. A., Richards, A. F., Connor, R. C. & Pepper, J. W. Sex differences in patterns of association among Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphins. Behaviour 123, 38–69. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853992X00101 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Krützen, M. et al. Contrasting relatedness patterns in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) with different alliance strategies. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 270, 497–502 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Gerber, L. et al. Affiliation history and age similarity predict alliance formation in adult male bottlenose dolphins. Behav. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz195 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Smith, J. E. Hamilton’s legacy: Kinship, cooperation and social tolerance in mammalian groups. Anim. Behav. 92, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.029 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Connor, R. C. Cooperation beyond the dyad: on simple models and a complex society. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2687–2697. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0150 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Krzyszczyk, E., Patterson, E. M., Stanton, M. A. & Mann, J. The transition to independence: Sex differences in social and behavioural development of wild bottlenose dolphins. Anim. Behav. 129, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.011 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Molesti, S. & Majolo, B. Cooperation in wild Barbary macaques: Factors affecting free partner choice. Anim. Cogn. 19, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0919-4 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Carter, G. G. & Wilkinson, G. S. Food sharing in vampire bats: Reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20122573–20122573. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2573 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Young, C., Majolo, B., Schülke, O. & Ostner, J. Male social bonds and rank predict supporter selection in cooperative aggression in wild Barbary macaques. Anim. Behav. 95, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.007 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Gilby, I. C. et al. Fitness benefits of coalitionary aggression in male chimpanzees. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1457-6 (2013).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Cronin, K. A. Prosocial behaviour in animals: The influence of social relationships, communication and rewards. Anim. Behav. 84, 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.009 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Schino, G. & Aureli, F. In Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 39, 45–69 (Academic Press, 2009).56.Watts, D. P. & Mitani, J. C. Boundary patrols and intergroup encounters in wild chimpanzees. Behaviour 138, 299–327 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Connor, R. C., Watson-Capps, J. J., Sherwin, W. B. & Krützen, M. A new level of complexity in the male alliance networks of Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.). Biol. Lett. 7, 623–626. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0852 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C. & Altmann, J. Social relationships among adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus) II. Variation in the quality and stability of social bonds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0250-9 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Silk, J. B. et al. Female chacma baboons form strong, equitable, and enduring social bonds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1733–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-0986-0 (2010).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Silk, J. B., Alberts, S. C., Altmann, J., Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. Stability of partner choice among female baboons. Anim. Behav. 83, 1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.028 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Mitani, J. C. Male chimpanzees form enduring and equitable social bonds. Anim. Behav. 77, 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.021 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Bizzozzero, M. R. et al. Tool use and social homophily among male bottlenose dolphins. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20190898 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Massen, J. J. M. & Koski, S. E. Chimps of a feather sit together: Chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.008 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Mourier, J., Vercelloni, J. & Planes, S. Evidence of social communities in a spatially structured network of a free-ranging shark species. Anim. Behav. 83, 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.008 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Mitani, J. C., Watts, D. P., Pepper, J. W. & Merriwether, D. A. Demographic and social constraints on male chimpanzee behaviour. Anim. Behav. 64, 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.4014 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Ruckstuhl, K. E. & Neuhaus, P. Behavioral synchrony in ibex groups: Effects of age, sex and habitat. Behaviour 138, 1033. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853901753286551 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Hammerstein, P. & Noë, R. Biological trade and markets. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0101 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Sandel, A. A., Langergraber, K. E. & Mitani, J. C. Adolescent male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) form social bonds with their brothers and others during the transition to adulthood. Am. J. Primatol. 82, e23091. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23091 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Sherman, P. W. Kinship, demography, and belding’s ground squirrel nepotism. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8, 251–259 (1981).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Faaborg, J. et al. Confirmation of cooperative polyandry in the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36, 83–90 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Heinsohn, R. G. Kidnapping and reciprocity in cooperatively breeding white-winged choughs. Anim. Behav. 41, 1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80652-9 (1991).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Tang-Martinez, Z. The mechanisms of kin discrimination and the evolution of kin recognition in vertebrates: A critical re-evaluation. Behav. Proc. 53, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00148-0 (2001).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Nolin, D. A. Kin preference and partner choice. Hum. Nat. 22, 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9113-9 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Suchak, M., Eppley, T. M., Campbell, M. W. & de Waal, F. B. M. Ape duos and trios: spontaneous cooperation with free partner choice in chimpanzees. PeerJ 2, e417. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.417 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Gale, D. & Shapley, L. S. College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am. Math. Mon. 69, 9–15 (1962).MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Krützen, M. et al. A biopsy system for small cetaceans: darting success and wound healing in Tursiops spp.. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18, 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01078.x (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    77.King, S. L. et al. Bottlenose dolphins retain individual vocal labels in multi-level alliances. Curr. Biol. 28, 1993-1999.e1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.013 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    78.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing v. 3.4.0. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017).79.Farine, D. R. Animal social network inference and permutations for ecologists in R using asnipe. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1187–1194 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Wang, J. Triadic IBD coefficients and applications to estimating pairwise relatedness. Genet. Res. 89, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672307008798 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    82.Wang, J. Coancestry: A program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Mol. Ecol. Resourc. 11, 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02885.x (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression. 3rd edn (Sage, 2019).84.Connor, R. C., Richards, A. F., Smolker, R. A. & Mann, J. Patterns of female attractiveness in Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphins. Behaviour 133, 37–69 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Injury alters motivational trade-offs in calves during the healing period

    This work was undertaken at the University of California Davis Dairy Teaching and Research Facility from June to September 2018. All experimental protocols were approved by and carried out in accordance with the University of California Davis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol # 20505).TreatmentsWe enrolled all female calves born between June 19 and September 1 2018, for a total of 28 Holsteins and 8 Jerseys. Our sample size was determined by the availability of calves being born in our herd of approximately 105 lactating cows during this period. Calves were blocked by birth order and randomly allocated to 1 of 3 treatments balanced for breed: disbudded the morning of (Day 0) or 21 days before (Day 21) the startle test, or sham-disbudded (Sham, n = 12/treatment). Among the control calves, half were sham-disbudded the morning of the test, whereas the other half underwent the procedure 21 days earlier. Birth weights were similar across treatments (mean ± SD; Day 0: 35 ± 5 kg; Day 21: 35 ± 6 kg; Sham: 36 ± 9 kg). The startle test occurred between 25 and 32 days of age for all calves. Thus, all Day 0 calves and half of the Sham calves were disbudded between 25 and 32 days of age, and all Day 21 calves and half of the Sham calves were disbudded between 4 and 11 days of age. This design meant all animals were at the same stage of cognitive and motor development during data collection. This was a priority for us because we expected age to strongly influence behavioural responses during the startle test. While it is also possible that disbudding at different ages may affect responses, previous research suggests disbudding has similar outcomes across this range13,15,20.Animal husbandry and housingImmediately after birth, calves were housed individually in outdoor enclosures consisting of a plastic hutch (2.0 m long × 1.5 m wide) and a wire-fenced pen (2.0 m long × 1.5 wide × 0.9 m high). The enclosures were spaced 0.5 m apart and bedded with sand approximately 15 to 20 cm deep.Calves were bottle-fed colostrum twice a day for 5 days. From 5 days of age, calves received milk replacer (26% CP and 16% fat, 15% total solids; Calva Products Inc., Acampo, CA) in bottles at 0645, 1245, and 1845 h. At each meal, Holsteins were fed 1.9 L from 1 to 13 days, 2.4 L from 14 to 23 days, and 2.8 L from 24 days. Jerseys received 1.4 L from 1 to 13 days, 1.9 L from 14 to 23 days, and 2.4 L from 24 days. Water and starter (18.3% CP, 2.8% fat, 4% crude fat; Associated Feed & Supply Co., Turlock, CA) were provided ad libitum in buckets. As part of a separate concurrent study, 11 calves (3 Sham, 3 Day 21, 5 Day 0) received chopped mountain grass hay (34% CP) ad libitum.DisbuddingDisbudding occurred between 730 and 1000 h. For the procedure, the calf was restrained in a head device in her home enclosure21. A 5 × 5 cm patch of hair was clipped with a size 40 electric razor blade on each side of the head to locate the horn bud. We used a 20 gauge × 25 mm needle to administer a cornual nerve block consisting of 5.5 mL buffered lidocaine (2% lidocaine hydrochloride diluted with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate in a 10:1 ratio). If the horn bud was not numb after 10 min, as assessed by pinprick, we gave an additional 2 mL of buffered lidocaine (13% of horn buds). An electric cautery iron (X50, Rhinehart Development Corp., Spencerville, IN) was fitted with a 1.3 cm tip and heated to 439 ± 15 °C (mean ± SD). It was applied to the horn bud for 17 ± 5 s (mean ± SD). Immediately before disbudding, the calf received approximately 1 mg/kg of meloxicam tablets in a gelatin capsule (3.5 g; Torpac Inc., Fairfield, NJ). For Day 0 calves, meloxicam was given after the startle test had occurred later that same day (maximum 12 h later) to ensure the calf was in a drug-free state during the test. Sham-disbudded calves received the same treatment, with the exception that the iron was ambient temperature and the gelatin capsule was empty. Sham calves did not receive meloxicam because the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act limits nontherapeutic off-label use of this drug22. SJJA performed all disbudding procedures.ArenaWe tested calves individually in a single 10-min period in a shaded outdoor arena bedded with 10 to 15 cm of sand. The arena was divided into a waiting pen (2.0 × 1.5 m) and a test pen (3.0 × 5.5 m) constructed of 0.9 m high wire panels (MidWest Homes for Pets Foldable Metal Exercise pen, Muncie, IN). A rolling gate provided access between the pens (Fig. 1).Figure 1Aerial view of the arena used for startle tests, including the position of the milk bottle and speaker used to broadcast the startle noise. Figure is drawn to scale.Full size imageA bottle containing 500 mL of the calves’ regular milk replacer was secured to the panel opposite the entrance to the test pen. The bottle was fitted with a rubber teat positioned 80 cm above the ground. Between calves, a fresh bottle was placed in the arena and urine and feces were removed with a shovel.Testing procedureCalves were habituated to the arena for 15 min daily between 700 and 1100 h for 3 consecutive days before the startle test. Calves were brought to the arena in the same order each day, with order balanced across treatments. During habituation, no startle stimulus was delivered, but otherwise the same procedure followed on test days was applied.The startle test occurred between 1530 and 1800 h (Supplementary Video S1). The calf was transported from her home pen to the waiting pen in a cart (Caf-Cart, Raytec, Ephrata, PA). The test began when the gate providing access to the test pen was opened and ended after 10 min. The gate was closed behind the calf after she had entered so that the waiting pen was inaccessible during the test. Three observers were seated quietly 3.5 m away from the pen during the test, and were partially concealed behind a tree branch. One observer remotely controlled the speaker broadcasting the startle noise, while the other two observers were present to respond if a calf escaped from the arena (only one calf jumped out, on the first day of habituation, and was promptly escorted back into the pen). Calves showed no apparent responses to the observers and had no visual contact with other animals.As soon as the calf’s mouth was within a tongue’s reach of the teat, a 0.4 s, 105 ± 2 dB burst of white-noise was emitted through a wireless speaker (OT4200 Big Turtle Shell, Outdoor Tech, Laguna Hills, CA) mounted directly behind the bottle. The noise was created using an online signal generator23. We measured the sound level using a decibel meter (BAFX Products, Milwaukee, WI) held 30 cm in front of the bottle, approximating the distance of the calf’s ears to the source.Behavioural data collectionTests were recorded with a camcorder (HC-V180, Panasonic, Kadoma, Japan) positioned on a tripod approximately 3 m away from of the pen. One trained observer, blinded to the treatments, scored behaviours in all videos taken of the startle test and the third day of habituation (Table 1). Videos were analysed using BORIS (Behavioural Observation Research Interactive Software24). Intra-observer reliability was calculated using 12 randomly selected videos of the startle test (Intraclass correlation coeffcient ≥ 0.95).Table 1 Behavioural definitions used to evaluate calves’ responses in an arena test.Full size tableAccelerometers (Hobo Pendant G Acceleration Data Logger, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA) were used to assess the magnitude of the startle response. On habituation and test days, we fitted calves with a triaxial accelerometer set to record acceleration in the x-, y-, and z-axis every 0.05 s. The accelerometer was placed in a pouch, strapped around the right hind leg, and secured with Vet Wrap (Co-Flex, Andover Coated Products Inc., Salisbury, MA) while the calf was in the waiting pen of the arena, immediately before the gate to the test pen was opened. Data were downloaded using HOBOware Pro Software (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA). To calculate the magnitude of the startle response, we summed total acceleration in all 3 axes over the startle duration for that calf. Total acceleration was calculated as the square root of the sum of squared acceleration in each axis25. No startle response was recorded for one calf who did not approach the bottle on the test day.All calves were weighed the morning of the startle test (mean ± SD; Day 0: 56 ± 10 kg; Day 21: 55 ± 9 kg; Sham: 55 ± 11 kg).Wound healing and sensitivityWe measured sensitivity via mechanical nociceptive thresholds around the horn bud area 1 to 2 h after the startle test using a digital algometer fitted with a 4-mm-diameter round rubber tip (ProdPlus; TopCat Metrology Ltd., Little Downham, UK). The calf was restrained in the head device in her home pen and blindfolded to reduce responses to visual cues. We then applied an increasing amount of force to the edge of the disbudding wound, or intact horn bud for sham calves, as described previously13. The test ended when the calf moved her head or a maximum cut-off point of 10 N was reached. We repeated the test if a fly landed on the head, a loud noise occurred, or the calf urinated or defecated. If a test was interrupted 3 times, it was abandoned (0% of tests).Wound sensitivity was tested at the lateral and caudal edges of each wound or the equivalent location on sham calves. The order of test sites was: left lateral, left caudal, right caudal, and right lateral. To ensure force was applied at a consistent rate, personnel operating the algometer were trained and met a set of rigorous criteria before performing the tests13. We calculated the rate that force was applied in each test from video recordings (0.29 ± 0.10 N/s; 2% of videos missing). If force was increased at a rate  0.6 N/s or video was missing, the data were excluded (3% of tests). Due to the nature of the tests, the operator of the algometer was not blind to treatment.We took digital photographs of the wound with a DSLR camera (D5300; Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) after sensitivity testing was completed. Photos were taken 15 cm from the wound. One person scored the photos for tissues present in the wound bed using a 0/1 scoring system13. Due to the clear differences in Day 0 and Day 21 wounds, the scorer was not blind to treatment.Statistical analysisDue to the presence of zeros in the data, we used zero-inflated beta regressions to assess the effect of treatment (Sham, Day 0, Day 21) on the proportion of time suckling on the third day of habituation and during the startle test. A zero-inflated beta regression is a mixture of two models: a beta model for estimating non-zero proportions and a logistic model for estimating the probability of zeroes26. This approach allowed us to infer treatment effects on both the occurrence and duration of suckling. General linear models were used to test the effect of treatment on the duration of the startle response and its magnitude as measured from the accelerometer data.We analyzed the effects of treatment on latency to approach the bottle and latency to return after startling using parametric survival regression models with a log-logistic distribution. Days on which the calf did not perform the behaviour within the allotted time (15 min for habituation, 10 min for startle test) were handled as right-censored data.We ran a general linear model to test the effect of treatment on wound sensitivity. A preliminary analysis indicated that there was no effect of side (left vs right) or location (caudal vs lateral) on wound sensitivity, so we averaged data for each calf into one score.Data were analysed in R, version 3.5.227. General linear models were fitted using the “lm” function in base R. We confirmed homogeneity of variance and normality using residuals vs fits plots and Q-Q plots, respectively. Beta and survival regressions were performed with the “glmmTMB” function in the glmmTMB package version 1.0.028, and the “survreg” function in the survival package version 2.3829, respectively. If treatment effects were identified in any of the models (P  More