Ecology

1.
Baldrian, P. et al. Enzyme activities and microbial biomass in topsoil layer during spontaneous succession in spoil heaps after brown coal mining. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 2107–2215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.019 (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Gómez-Sagasti, M. T. et al. Microbial monitoring of the recovery of soil quality during heavy metal phytoremediation. Water Air Soil Poll. 223, 3249–3262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-012-1106-8 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Yang, Y. Z., Liu, S., Zheng, D. & Feng, S. Effect of cadmium, zinc and lead on soil enzymes activities. J. Environ. Sci. 18, 1135–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60051-X (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Sheoran, V., Sheoran, A. S. & Poonia, P. Soil reclamation of abandoned mine land by revegetation: A review. Int. J. Soil Sedim. Water 3, 1–20 (2010).
Google Scholar 

5.
Vahed, H., Shahinrokhsar, P. & Rezaei, M. Influence of some soil properties and temperature on urease activity in wetland rice soils. Am.-Euras. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 11, 310–313 (2011).
Google Scholar 

6.
Błońska, E. & Januszek, K. Usability of enzyme activity in the estimation of forest soil quality. Folia For. Polonica Ser. A 55, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2013-0003 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Zhang, T., Wan, S., Kang, Y. & Feng, H. Urease activity and its relationships to soil physiochemical soil properties in a highly saline-sodic soil. J. Soil Sci. Plant. Nut. 14, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-95162014005000025 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Zhang, Y. et al. Soil bacterial and fungal diversity differently correlated with soil biochemistry in alpine grassland ecosystems in response to environmental changes. Sci. Rep. 7, 43077. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43077 (2017).
ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Zhang, Q. M. et al. Effects of fomesafen on soil enzyme activity, microbial population, and bacterial community composition. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 2801–2812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3581-9 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Sarathchandra, S., Perrott, K. & Upsdell, M. Microbiological and biochemical characteristics of a range of New Zealand soils under established pasture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 16, 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(84)90109-3 (1984).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Fernández-Calviño, D. et al. Enzyme activities in vineyard soils long-term treated with copper-based fungicides. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 2119–2127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.007 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Bartelt-Ryser, J., Joshi, J., Schmid, B., Brandl, H. & Balser, T. Soil feedbacks of plant diversity on soil microbial communities and subsequent plant growth. Perspect. Plant. Ecol. 7, 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2004.11.002 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kao-Kniffin, J. T. & Balser, T. C. Elevated CO2 differentially alters belowground plant and soil microbial community structure in reed canary grass-invaded experimental wetlands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.08.024 (2007).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Root biomass and exudates link plant diversity with soil bacterial and fungal biomass. Sci. Rep. 7, 44641. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44641 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Broughton, L. C. & Gross, K. L. Patterns of diversity in plant and soil microbial communities along a productivity gradient in a Michigan old-field. Oecologia 125, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000456 (2000).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Stephan, A., Meyer, A. H. & Schmid, B. Plant diversity affects culturable soil bacteria in experimental grassland communities. J. Ecol. 86, 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2000.00510.x (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Zak, D. R., Holmes, W. E., White, D. C., Peacock, A. D. & Tilman, D. Plant diversity, soil microbial communities, and ecosystem function: Are there any links?. Ecology 84, 2042–2050. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0433 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Plant diversity effects on soil microorganisms support the singular hypothesis. Ecology 91, 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2338.1 (2010).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Lange, M. et al. Biotic and abiotic properties mediating plant diversity effects on soil microbial communities in an experimental grassland. PLoS ONE 9, e96182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096182 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Wu, J. et al. Vegetation degradation impacts soil nutrients and enzyme activities in wet meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Sci. Rep. 10, 21271. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78182-9 (2020).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Mocek-Płóciniak, A. Utilisation of enzymatic activity for the evaluation of the impact of anthropogenic changes caused by heavy metals in soil environment. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 4, 1–10 (2010).
Google Scholar 

22.
Kot, A. & Frąc, M. Methods used in the evaluation of the organic wastes influence on soil microbial activity. Post. Mikrobiol. 53, 183–193 (2014).
Google Scholar 

23.
Kuziemska, B. Enzymatic activity of nickel contaminated soils. Teka. Kom. Ochr. Kszt. Środ. Przyr. 11, 77–89 (2014).
Google Scholar 

24.
Kourtev, P. S., Ehrenfeld, J. G. & Haggblom, M. Exotic plant species alter the microbial community structure and function in the soil. Ecology 83, 3152–3166. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083(3152:epsatm)2.0.co;2 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Pei, S. F., Fu, H. & Wan, C. G. Changes in soil properties and vegetation following exclosure and grazing in degraded Alxa desert steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 124, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.08.008 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Wang, C., Wang, G., Liu, W. & Wu, P. The effect of plant-soil-enzyme interaction on plant composition, biomass, diversity of alpine meadows in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Int. J. Ecol. 2011, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/180926 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Wyszkowska, J. Effect of soil contamination with Treflan 480 EC on biochemical properties of soil. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 11, 71–78 (2002).
CAS  Google Scholar 

28.
Aon, M. A. & Colaneri, A. C. II. Temporal and spatial evolution of enzymatic activities and physico-chemical properties in an agricultural soil. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 18, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-1393(01)00161-5 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Li, J. J., Zheng, Y. M., Yan, J. X., Li, H. J. & He, J. Z. Succession of plant and soil microbial communities with restoration of abandoned land in the Loess Plateau, China. J. Soil. Sediment 13, 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0652-z (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Heděnec, P. et al. Enzyme activity of topsoil layer on reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining sites. Biol. Commun. 62, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu03.2017.103 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Lia, J., Zhoub, X., Yan, J., Lia, H. & He, J. Effects of regenerating vegetation on soil enzyme activity and microbial structure in reclaimed soils on a surface coalmine site. Appl. Soil Ecol. 87, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.11.010 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Kompała-Bąba, A. et al. Do the dominant plant species impact the substrate and vegetation composition of post-coal mining spoil heaps?. Ecol. Eng. 143, 105685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105685 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Kowarik, I. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. Pollut. 159, 1974–1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022 (2011).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34.
Frouz, J. & Nováková, A. Development of soil microbial properties in topsoil layer during spontaneous succession in heaps after brown coal mining in relation to humus microstructure development. Geoderma 129, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.12.033 (2005).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Frouz, J. et al. The effect of topsoil removal in restored heathland on soil fauna, topsoil microstructure and cellulose: Implication for ecosystem restoration. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3963–3978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9692-5 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Cabała, J. M., Cmiel, S. R. & Idziak, A. F. Environmental impact of mining activity inthe Upper Silesian Coal Basin (Poland). Geol. Belg. 7, 225–229 (2004).
Google Scholar 

37.
Kompała-Bąba, A. et al. Vegetation diversity on coal mine spoil heaps—How important is the texture of the soil substrate?. Biologia 74, 419–436. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-019-00218-x (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Woźniak, G. Diversity of vegetation on coal-mine heaps of the Upper Silesia (Poland) (Instytut Botaniki im. W. Szafera, 2010).
Google Scholar 

39.
Bąba, W. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) root colonization dynamics of Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench. in grasslands and post-industrial sites. Ecol. Eng. 95, 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.07.013 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Pietrzykowski, M., Socha, J. & van Doorn, N. S. Linking heavy metal bioavailability (Cd, Cu, Zn and Pb) in Scots pine needles to soil properties in reclaimed mine areas. Sci. Total Environ. 470, 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.008 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

41.
Braun-Blanquet, J. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde 3rd edn. (Springer, 1964).
Google Scholar 

42.
Bonham, C. D. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation 2nd edn. (Wiley, 2013).
Google Scholar 

43.
Tichý, L. & Holt, J. JUICE Program for Management, Analysis and Classifications of Ecological Data (Masaryk University, 2006).
Google Scholar 

44.
Ge, G. F. et al. Geographical and climatic differences in long-term effect of organic and inorganic amendments on soil enzymatic activities and respiration in field experimental stations of China. Ecol. Complex. 6, 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.02.001 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Wolińska, A. & Stępniewska, Z. Dehydrogenase Activity in the Soil Environment in Dehydrogenases 183–210 (Intech Open, 2012).
Google Scholar 

46.
Lemanowicz, J. Dynamics of phosphorus content and the activity of phosphatase in forest soil in the sustained nitrogen compounds emissions zone. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 25, 33773–33782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3348-5 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Haroni, N. N., Zarafshar, M., Badehian, Z., Sharma, A. & Bader, M. K. F. Tree seedlings suffer oxidative stress but stimulate soil enzyme activity in oil sludge-contaminated soil in a species-specific manner. Trees 34, 1267–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-020-01996-7 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Banks, M. et al. The Effect of Plants on the Degradation and Toxicity of Petroleum Contaminants in Soil: A Field Assessment in Phytoremediation 75–96 (Springer, 2003).
Google Scholar 

49.
Schinner, F., Öhlinger, R., Kandeler, E. & Margasin, R. Methods in Soil Biology (Springer-Verlag, 1996).
Google Scholar 

50.
Alef, K. & Nannipieri, P. Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry (Academic Press, 1995).
Google Scholar 

51.
Wyszkowska, J. & Wyszkowski, M. Effect of cadmium and magnesium on enzymatic activity in soil. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 12, 473–479 (2003).
CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Bending, G. D., Turner, M. K., Rayns, F., Marie-Claude Marx, M.-C. & Wood, M. Microbial and biochemical soil quality indicators and their potential for differentiating areas under contrasting agricultural management regimes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1785–1792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.04.035 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Rodriguez-Loinaz, G., Onaindia, M., Amezaga, I., Mijangos, I. & Garbisu, C. Relationship between vegetation diversity and soil functional diversity in native mixed-oak forests. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.04.015 (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Bednarek, R., Dziadowiec, H., Pokojska, U. & Prusinkiewicz, Z. Ecological and Soil Studies (PWN, 2005).
Google Scholar 

55.
Saetre, P. Decomposition, microbial community structure, and earthworm effects along a birch–spruce soil gradient. Ecology 79, 834–846. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079(0834:DMCSAE)2.0.CO;2 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Orwin, K. H., Wardle, D. A. & Greenfield, L. G. Context-dependent changes in the resistance and resilience of soil microbes to an experimental disturbance for three primary plant chronosequences. Oikos 112, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.13813.x (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
ter Braak, C. J. F. & Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination, Version 5.0 (Microcomputer Power, 2012).
Google Scholar 

58.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

59.
Dell Inc. Dell Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13. software.dell.com.

60.
Fontaine, S., Mariotti, A. & Abbadie, L. The priming effect of organic matter: A question of microbial competition?. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 837–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00123-8 (2003).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Chodak, M. & Niklińska, M. Effect of texture and tree species on microbial properties of mine soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.08.002 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Chodak, M. & Niklińska, M. The effect of different tree species on the chemical and microbial properties of reclaimed mine soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 46, 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-010-0462-z (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Ciarkowska, K., Solek-Podwika, K. & Wieczorek, J. Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil-rehabilitation processes at a zinc and lead ore mining and processing area. J. Environ. Manage. 132, 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.022 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

64.
Zhang, W. Y., Yao, D. X., Zhang, Z. G., Yang, Q. & An, S. K. Characteristics of soil enzymes and the dominant species of repair trees in the reclamation of coal mine area. J. Coal Sci. Eng. 19, 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12404-013-0223-3 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Šantrůčková, H., Jaroslav, V., Picek, T. & Kopáček, J. Soil biochemical activity and phosphorus transformations and losses from acidified forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.07.015 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Abakumov, E. & Frouz, J. Humus accumulation and humification during soil development in post-mining soil. In Soil Biota and Ecosystem Development in Post Mining Sites (ed. Frouz, J.) (CRC Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 

67.
Stefanowicz, A. M., Kapusta, P., Błońska, A., Kompała-Bąba, A. & Woźniak, G. Effects of Calamagrostis epigejos, Chamaenerion palustre and Tussilago farfara on nutrient availability and microbial activity in the surface layer of spoil heaps after hard coal mining. Ecol. Eng. 83, 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.06.034 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Markowicz, A., Woźniak, G., Borymski, S., Piotrowska-Seget, Z. & Chmura, D. Links in the functional diversity between soil microorganisms and plant communities during natural succession in coal mine spoil heaps. Ecol. Res. 30, 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1301-3 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R. & Fierer, N. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community composition at the continental scale. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 5111–5120. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00335-09 (2009).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

70.
Wang, A. S., Angle, J. S., Chaney, R. L., Delorme, T. A. & McIntosh, M. Changes in soil biological activities under reduced soil pH during Thlaspi caerulescens phytoextraction. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1451–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.001 (2006).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Lee, S. S. et al. Heavy metal immobilization in soil near abandoned mines using eggshell waste and rapeseed residue. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 20, 1719–1726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1104-9 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Olander, L. P. & Vitousek, P. M. Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry 49, 175–190 (2000).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Geisseler, D., Horwath, W. & Scow, K. Soil moisture and plant residue addition interact in their effect on extracellular enzyme activity. Pedobiologia 54, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2010.10.001 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Patrzałek, A. The properties of initial soil arising at the dumping site of carboniferous waste. Zesz. Nauk. Polit. Śl. Górnictwo 248, 151–156 (2001).
Google Scholar 

75.
Šourková, M. et al. Soil development and properties of microbial biomass succession in reclaimed postmining sites near Sokolov (Czech Republic) and near Cottbus (Germany). Geoderma 129, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.12.032 (2005).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Ellhottová, D., Krištůlek, V., Malý, S. & Frouz, J. Rhizosphere effect of colonizer plant species on the development of soil microbial community during primary succession on postmining sites. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 40, 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620802693193 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Finkenbein, P., Kretschmer, K., Kuka, K., Klotz, S. & Heilmeier, H. Soil enzymes activities as bioindicators for substrate quality in revegetation of a subtropical coal mining dump. Soil Biol. Biochem. 56, 87–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.012 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Tischer, A., Blagodatskaya, E. & Harmer, U. Extracellular enzyme activities in a tropical mountain rainforest region of southern Ecuador affected by low soil P status and land-use change. Appl. Soil Ecol. 74, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.09.007 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Liu, Y. et al. Long-term forest succession improves plant diversity and soil quality but not significantly increase soil microbial diversity: Evidence from the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Eng. 142, 105631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105631 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Tscherko, D., Hammesfahr, U., Marx, M. C. & Kandeler, E. Shifts in rhizosphere microbial communities and enzyme activity of Poa alpina across an alpine chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1685–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.07.004 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Orwin, K. H. et al. Linkages of plant traits to soil properties and the functioning of temperate grassland. J. Ecol. 98, 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01679.x (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Han, X. M. et al. Effects of vegetation type on soil microbial community structure and catabolic diversity assessed by polyphasic methods in North China. J. Environ. Sci. China 19, 1228–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1001-0742(07)60200-9 (2007).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

83.
Lambers, H., Mougel, C., Jaillard, B. & Hinsinger, P. Plant-microbe-soil interactions in the rhizosphere: An evolutionary perspective. Plant Soil 321, 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0042-x (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

84.
De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Gyssels, G. & Knapen, A. Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoil during concentrated flow. Geomorphology 76, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.10.002 (2006).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Mueller, K., Tilman, D., Fornara, D. & Hobbie, S. Root depth distribution and the diversity-productivity relationship in a long-term grassland experiment. Ecology 94, 787–793. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1399.1 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Ravenek, J. M. et al. Long-term study of root biomass in a biodiversity experiment reveals shifts in diversity effects over time. Oikos 123, 1528–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01502 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Gil-Sotres, F., Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leirós, M. C. & Seoane, S. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.003 (2005).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

88.
Tan, X., Chang, S. X. & Kabzems, R. Soil compaction and forest floor removal reduced microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a boreal aspen forest soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 44, 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-007-0229-3 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Nanippieri, P., Giagnoni, L., Landi, L. & Renella, G. Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. In Phosphorus in Action (eds Bünemann, E. K. et al.) 215–244 (Springer, 2011).
Google Scholar 

90.
Sakurai, M., Wasaki, J., Tomizawa, Y., Shinano, T. & Osaki, M. Analysis of bacterial communities on alkaline phosphatase genes in soil supplied with organic matter. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 54, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00210.x (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Mariotte, P. et al. Subordinate plant species impact on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands: Findings from a removal experiment. Perspect. Plant. Ecol. 15, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2012.12.003 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

92.
Zhang, C. B. et al. Effects of plant diversity on nutrient retention and enzyme activities in a full-scale constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 1686–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.001 (2010).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

93.
Allison, V. J., Condron, L. M., Peltzer, D. A., Richardson, S. J. & Turner, B. L. Changes in enzyme activities and soil microbial community composition along carbon and nutrient gradients at the Franz Josef chronosequence, New Zealand. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1770–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.02.006 (2007).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

Extensive hydrodynamic model validation
To provide a comprehensive validation of the modeled surge-tide-wave dynamics during Sandy, this study made use of all available field data from an extensive network of coastal water level gauges and wave buoys in the study region, as well as hundreds of HWMs and many rapid deployment surge sensors (SI Fig. S1). The good agreements between simulated and observed water levels and waves were quantified in terms of the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (CORR).
Storm tide
Available data included those from hundreds of permanent and temporary surge sensors from NOAA (SI Fig. S2), Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System (HRECOS), and USGS. Statistics (SI Table S1) showed excellent agreement between the time series of simulated and measured storm tide data. The averaged RMSE at USGS temporary sites was 0.20 m and the averaged CORR was 0.94. CH3D-SSMS successfully reproduced the surge and tides with high confidence in not only the open ocean but also the complex estuarine system during Sandy (SI Fig. S3) with a maximum coastal storm tide at NY Bight of 3.36 m and NJ coast of 3.27 m.
High water marks and inundation
A total of 526 out of 653 independent HWM locations were located within the study region, most of which clustered in NJ and NY coastal areas. 83.7% (440 out of 526) of HWMs were captured by the CH3D-SSMS model grid and compared with the surveyed values. The model results had 0.33 m RMSE and 0.87 CORR (SI Fig. S4). When only “good” and “excellent” HWMs (rated by USGS) were used, the RMSE dropped to 0.30 m, and CORR increased to 0.90. The noticeable data disagreements (Fig. SI 4) were caused by the inconsistency of surveyed data.
Wave
During Sandy, four wave-buoys within the domain recorded the wave data: two at the apex of NY Bight, and another two in Long Island Sound (LIS). The significant wave height (H_{sig}) and peak wave period (T_{p}) simulated by the Simulating Waves Nearshore (SWAN) model in the CH3D-SSMS were compared with measured data and Wave Watch III (WW3) operational run results (SI Fig. S5)25,26. SWAN more accurately captured the evolution of (H_{sig}) in NY Bight and LIS. Maximum significant wave height over land was as high as 2.17 m at NY Bight and 2.60 m along NJ coast.
Impact of wetland on surge and wave during super storm sandy
To estimate the value of the coastal wetlands in reducing flood, we calculated the following four metrics for inundation: the Average Inundation Height ((AIH)), the Maximum Inundation Height ((MIH)), the Total Inundation Area ((TIA)), and the Total Inundation Volume ((TIV)) with and without wetlands. The (TIA) and (TIV) are defined as

$$ TIA = iint_{{{text{Landward}};{text{area}}}} {dxdy} , $$
(1)

$$ TIV = iint_{{{text{Landward}};{text{area}}}} [H_{max} left( {x,y} right) – H_{0} left( {x,y} right)]dxdy, $$
(2)

where (H_{max} left( {x,y} right)) and (H_{0} left( {x,y} right)) are the maximum water level and the land elevation at land cells (left( {x,y} right)), respectively11,12. The wave analysis was carried out by calculating the average wave height ((AWH)), the maximum wave height ((MWH)), and the total wave energy ((TWE)) which is defined as

$$ TWE = iint_{{{text{Landward}};{text{area}}}} [frac{1}{8}rho_{w} g{ }left( {H_{{rms,max{ }}} } right)^{2} ]dxdy, $$
(3)

where (H_{rms max}) is the maximum root-mean-square wave height over the flooded land. The wave energy, instead of wave height, is more directly related to the wave-induced structure loss.
We define the relative inundation reduction ((RIR)) as the difference in (TIV) (value without wetland minus value with wetland), divided by the (TIV) with wetland. The relative wave reduction ((RWR)) is defined accordingly using the (TWE). The inundation and wave analysis were carried out at the regional level (SI Table S2) and zip-code resolution (Figs. 1, S6, S7).
Figure 1

Zip-code resolution wetland’s effect on (TIV) and (TWE) during Sandy in 2012. Map showing zip-code resolution avoidance in (A) (TIV) and (B) (TWE) during Sandy without wetlands, as a percentage of those for the with-wetland scenario. Dark red values show zip-code with the most wetland benefit while dark blue areas have the least wetland benefit. Negative values indicate that the presence of wetland would increase (TIV)/(TWE) and positive values indicate that wetland would lower (TIV)/(TWE). The map is produced using ESRI ArcGIS Pro 2.7 (https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview).

Full size image

If the wetlands were absent during Sandy, the (RIR) of the entire model domain would have been 4% and the (RWR) would have been 19%. Breaking the entire model domain into 6 regions (Table S2): South NJ (SNJ), Central NJ (CNJ), North NJ (NNJ), CT, Long Island (LI), and Mainland NY (MNY), it was found that the (RIR) during sandy was low ( 50%) (RWR), while LI. CNJ and SNJ had significant (~ 25–50%) (RWR). The regions with the highest (RIR) and (RWR) were closest to the storm landfall location.
Benefit of wetland on surge and wave for the 1% annual chance flood
The maximum 1% annual chance maximum flood elevation (Fig. S9) was 5.15 m for NY Bight while 5.34 m for the NJ coast. The 1% annual chance maximum wave height (Fig. S9) overland is 2.24 m at NY Bight and 1.90 m at NJ coast. All the regions had moderate (RIR) except for SNJ which had a significant (RIR) due to highest (25.4%) wetland cover (see Table S2) and NNJ experienced significant (RWR) while the remaining regions had moderate values. CT ranked 2nd in (RIR ) although it has less wetland cover than CNJ because the mostly woody wetlands in CT are more effective in buffering storm surge than the marshes in NJ and NY. On the other hand, CT ranked 3rd in (RWR) due to the blocking of offshore wave energy by LI. (RIR) and (RWR) are found to be functions of storm characteristics, wetland type, and cover, and local conditions. Fig. S10 shows the percent wetland cover, RIR (relative TIV reduction), and RWR (relative wave energy reduction) in six regions (New York, North New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, Central New Jersey, and South New Jersey) during 1% annual chance events. As the wetland cover increases from less than 5% (NY, NNJ, and LI) to more than 10% in CNJ and SNJ, RIR and RWR generally increase, showing the increasing role of wetland in reducing inundation and wave. Relative reduction in inundation and wave energy are modest, between 10 and 30%. NNJ has properties behind the relatively sparse marsh, followed by woody wetland which protects properties behind them. Connecticut has less wetland than Central Jersey, but the mostly woody wetland is more effective in reducing flood and wave.
Benefit of wetlands on reducing residential structure loss
The monetary loss of residential structures was estimated using the simulated inundation and wave results while employing damage functions from the United States Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) North Atlantic Comprehensive Coastal Study (NACCS) and was validated using the NFIP building loss payouts aggregated by zip-code21,24. Direct simulation of wave-induced damage requires understanding and calculation of wave loads on structures using a depth- and phase-resolving model, which is beyond the capability of the models used in this study. Therefore, in this paper, we did not directly simulate wave-induced damage, but are accounting for wave-induced change in total water level which results in increase in estimated damage based on depth-damage functions. Overall, 96 coastal zip-codes in the state of NJ were used to validate the estimated loss. The model showed a correlation coefficient (CORR = 0.69) between simulated structure losses and NFIP payouts (Fig. 2). In NJ, as of 2019, the total NFIP payout was $3.9 billion USD, in comparison to the estimated total structure loss of $3.6 billion USD (SI Table S3), with an absolute error of 7.7%. This good agreement, plus the good agreement between the simulated and observed surge and wave reported earlier, confirms the validity of our “dynamics-based” loss assessment.
Figure 2

Economic model validation at zip-code resolution. Simulated losses during Sandy in NJ using the USACE damage functions versus FEMA NFIP payouts. Results were aggregated by zip-code and the corresponding correlation coefficient is 0.69 (R2 = 0.47). Validation use transformed structure loss ((PL_{T})) instead of the structure loss ((PL)). The figure is produced using MATLAB R2020 (https://www.mathworks.com/).

Full size image

We define the structural loss reduction ((SLR)) as the structural loss without wetland minus the structural loss with wetland, and the relative structural loss reduction ((RSLR)) as the ratio between (SLR) and the loss with wetland. A state-level analysis of structure loss in NJ showed a (RSLR) of 8.5%, 26.0%, and 52.3% for Sandy, BS storm, and 1% chance flood/wave, respectively (Table S3). Analysis of losses due to flood and wave indicated that for Sandy and the 1% event, most of the loss came from flood, while most of the loss in the BS storm came from waves. Avoided wave-induced loss was comparable to the avoided flood-induced loss during the BS storm and the 1% event, but much higher during Sandy, suggesting that NJ wetlands are more effective in reducing wave-induced loss vs. flood-induced loss. Results from the zip-code scale analysis during Sandy (Fig. 3) showed less variability: for most north NJ, (RSLR) ranged from 10 to 100% except for those along the Hudson River that had small increased loss (negative avoided loss). Most zip-codes in SNJ had (RSLR) between 5% and more than 100%. (RSLR) during the BS storm (Fig. S11) was more notable: ~ 50–100% for north NJ, 0–100% for central NJ. The 1% flood event (Fig. 4) showed an average RSLR  > 25% for NJ.
Figure 3

Percent structural loss reduction during Sandy. Map showing zip-code resolution avoided loss (difference in loss without wetlands and loss with wetlands) during Sandy, as a percentage of the loss of the with-wetland scenario. Dark red values show zip-code with the highest wetland benefit, while dark blue areas have the least benefit. Negative values indicate that the presence of wetland would increase structural losses and positive values indicate that wetland would lower the structural losses. The results are shown for the NJ coastal zip-codes affected by Sandy. This study shows that the percent avoided loss in this figure does not always represent the actual wetland value for loss reduction because areas with few structures and losses could give misleadingly high values of percent avoided loss, as shown in south NJ. The primary purpose is for comparison with a similar figure in NAR17. The map is produced using ESRI ArcGIS Pro 2.7 (https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview).

Full size image

Figure 4

Effect of wetlands on structural losses over zip code scale during the 1% annual event. Map showing zip code resolution difference in losses if the wetlands were absent, as a percentage of the wetland present scenario. Dark red values show zip code with the highest benefit of having wetlands while dark blue areas show the least benefited area. Negative values indicate that the presence of wetland would increase structural losses and positive values indicate that wetland would lower the structural losses. The map is produced using ESRI ArcGIS Pro 2.7 (https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview).

Full size image

The above results showed that the value of coastal wetlands for flood/wave protection varies significantly with the storm. While wetlands may be more effective in reducing wave loss in some storms but flood loss in other storms, they may be ineffective in extreme storms. The 1% annual chance flood and wave event, which resulted from an ensemble of many less extreme but more frequent storms28, provides a more reasonable integrated scenario for the loss analysis. This is similar to the preferred use of the 1% flood map, instead of the flood map associated with a single design storm, for assessing the flood risk in any coastal region.
As shown in Fig. 5, in zip-codes with larger wetland coverage area in SNJ, wetlands could only prevent  $60,000 annual loss. On the other hand, wetlands in north NJ zip-codes with smaller wetland coverage area would increase the loss. The annual loss in most of the zip-codes is  More

A new biodiversity decade is about to start and hopefully will achieve just progress for both people and the planet.

In October 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) signed up to a promising 10-year framework, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, which represented a major step to ensure that by 2050 biodiversity would be ‘valued, conserved, restored and wisely used’ in a world where people live in harmony with nature, according to the vision stated in the strategic plan. Underpinning the plan were the so-called 20 Aichi targets aiming to articulate the specific areas of intervention to achieve a set of broad strategic goals — addressing the causes of biodiversity loss and promoting its sustainable use, safeguarding ecosystems, ensuring all would benefit from biodiversity and promoting implementation through participatory planning. The CBD referred to the targets as ambitious but achievable. A decade later, in October 2020, signatories to the CBD were due to discuss progress towards the Aichi targets at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in Kunming, China, but the meeting was postponed until May 2021 due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the lead up to the meeting, research efforts and wider debates about the Aichi targets have intensified and have all sent a strong and unequivocal message: the state of biodiversity is now worrying more than ever; the Aichi targets have largely not been met. What went wrong? Some feel the problem lays with the ever-lasting challenge of measuring living nature, others refer to inadequate national implementation strategies. Answering the question for CBD members is of critical importance. As COP 15 to the CBD is also the gathering where the parties will agree on a post-2020 biodiversity framework, it is crucial for them to learn from past mistakes. Indeed, the parties have been working to define a new framework and a new set of targets, this time for 2030. Back in October, in preparation for the COP, a revised draft of the new set of biodiversity targets was released. Waiting for the final deliberations in China, some experts have already raised concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed new framework. More specifically, some point to the lack of recognition of the role of agro-ecosystems in conservation, reflecting on the challenges of protecting more land in regions under pressure to feed a growing population (for example, Sub-Saharan Africa). Aichi target 11 required that by 2020 at least 17% of terrestrial areas and 10% of marine areas across the world, especially those of critical importance for biodiversity, should be conserved and equitably managed. Alarmed by lack of progress towards the target, prominent conservationists proposed to ramp up the ambition and protect half of the Earth’s surface to halt biodiversity decline. A study by Mehrabi and colleagues assessed the food production costs of the proposal and found that globally about 23–25% of non-food calories and 3–29% of food calories could be lost. Another study by Schleicher and co-authors found that in the event of including all ecoregions in the proposal there would be substantial socio-economic impacts as over one billion people currently live in areas that would be protected under Half Earth. Both articles, part of a joint collection with Nature Ecology & Evolution, shed light on the challenges of reconciling development needs with biodiversity protection. Some possible solutions to this challenge are controversial; for example, biodiversity offsetting, which refers to actions intended to deliver biodiversity gains as a way of compensating for development impacts. In another study in the collection, Damiens et al. analysed policy documents produced between 1958 and 2019 and showed that biodiversity offsetting was historically promoted through approaches encouraging economic growth with no consideration of biocultural limits. They showed also that, recently, more transformative approaches include offsetting as a tool to transition towards economic systems respectful of planetary boundaries, but their success hinges on realizing quite challenging governance changes.

Credit: Ines Porada / Alamy Stock Photo

Realizing the CBD vision by 2050 requires acknowledging the need of transformative change. What does it mean in practice? It means understanding as best we can the complexity of human–nature interactions. But it also means accepting that there is a lot we don’t know and most probably won’t have enough time to know if we don’t act now. Against this backdrop, the biodiversity community can influence the debate about what should happen in order to sustainably manage living nature. How? Perhaps, as Wyborn and colleagues suggest in their paper, also part of the collection, they could use some imagination to visualize how the future will unfold from the choices made today. There are multiple possible paths to set the world on course to live in harmony with nature — none is perfect, all are possible. This variety reflects diverse values and relations with biodiversity that in turn drive choices. Rather than shying away from it, the biodiversity community should embrace the challenge fully in order to define new priorities for both research and action. More

1.
Slobodkin LB. Prudent predation does not require group selection. Am Nat. 1974;108:665–78.
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Williams PD. Unhealthy herds: some epidemiological consequences of host heterogeneity in predator-host-parasite systems. J Theor Biol. 2008;253:500–7.
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Packer C, Holt RD, Hudson PJ, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP. Keeping the herds healthy and alert: Implications of predator control for infectious disease. Ecol Lett. 2003;6:797–802.
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Lima-Mendez G, Faust K, Henry N, Decelle J, Colin S, Carcillo F, et al. Determinants of community structure in the global plankton interactome. Science 2015;348:1262073.
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Skovgaard A. Dirty tricks in the plankton: Diversity and role of marine parasitic protists. Acta Protozool. 2014;53:51–62.
Google Scholar 

6.
Jephcott TG, Sime-Ngando T, Gleason FH, Macarthur DJ. Host-parasite interactions in food webs: Diversity, stability, and coevolution. Food Webs. 2016;6:1–8.
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Nelson DM, Tréguer P, Brzezinski MA, Leynaert A, Quéguiner B. Production and dissolution of biogenic silica in the ocean: Revised global estimates, comparison with regional data and relationship to biogenic sedimentation. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 1995;9:359–72.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Timmermans KR, Veldhuis MJ, Brussaard CP. Cell death in three marine diatom species in response to different irradiance levels, silicate, or iron concentrations. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2007;46:253–61.
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Pinto E, Van Nieuwerburgh L, De Barros MP, Pedersén M, Colepicolo P, Snoeijs P. Density-dependent patterns of thiamine and pigment production in the diatom Nitzschia microcephala. Phytochemistry. 2003;63:155–63.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Manoylov KM. Intra- and interspecific competition for nutrients and light in diatom cultures. J Freshw Ecol. 2009;24:145–57.
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Houston DC, Cooper JE. The digestive tract of the whiteback griffon vulture and its role in disease transmission among wild ungulates. J Wildl Dis. 1975;11:306–13.
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Schaller G. The Serengeti lion: a study of predator-prey relations. London: University of Chicago Press; 1972.

13.
Krumm CE, Conner MM, Hobbs NT, Hunter DO, Miller MW. Mountain lions prey selectively on prion-infected mule deer. Biol Lett. 2010;6:209–11.
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Pole A, Gordon IJ, Gorman ML, MacAskill M. Prey selection by African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in southern Zimbabwe. J Zool. 2004;262:207–15.
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Husseman JS, Murray DL, Power G, Mack C, Wenger CR, Quigley H. Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos. 2003;101:591–601.
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Lafferty KD. Fishing for lobsters indirectly increases epidemics in sea urchins. Ecol Appl. 2004;14:1566–73.
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Duffy MA, Hall SR, Tessier AJ, Huebner M. Selective predators and their parasitized prey: Are epidemics in zooplankton under top-down control? Limnol Oceanogr. 2005;50:412–20.
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Hudson PJ, Dobson AP, Newborn D. Do parasites make prey vulnerable to predation? Red grouse and parasites. J Anim Ecol. 1992;61:681.
Article  Google Scholar  More

The “consumer first” pattern of spatial self-organization is the minority pattern
We first determined which of the two patterns of spatial self-organization (i.e., the “producer first” or “consumer first” pattern (Fig. 1B, C)) is the minority pattern. We reasoned that the minority pattern is the one likely to be caused by genetic or nongenetic variants. When we performed range expansion experiments using equivalent initial cell densities of the producer and consumer (i.e., initial producer and consumer proportions of 0.5), the “consumer first” pattern was clearly the minority pattern (Fig. 1B). Among nine independent replicates, we observed mean numbers of 64 “producer first” patterns (SD = 9, n = 9) and 20 “consumer first” patterns per range expansion (SD = 4, n = 9), and the mean number of “producer first” patterns was significantly greater than the mean number of “consumer first“ patters (two-sample two-sided t test; P = 1 × 10−6, n = 9). Overall, “consumer first” patterns accounted for 24% (SD = 4%, n = 9) of the total number of patterns per range expansion. We therefore conclude that the “consumer first” pattern is indeed the minority pattern, and thus the pattern likely to be caused by genetic or phenotypic variants.
The number of “consumer first” patterns depends on initial cell densities
If the “consumer first” pattern were caused by genetic variants, then the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion should depend on the initial cell densities of the producer or consumer. For example, if a genetic variant of the consumer causes the emergence of the “consumer first” pattern, then increasing the initial cell density of the consumer should increase the number of the causative variants of the consumer, and thus promote the emergence of more “consumer first” patterns.
To test this, we varied the initial producer proportion while holding the total initial cell density of the producer and consumer constant, thus allowing us to avoid potential confounding effects that may result from modifying the total initial cell density. We then quantified the mean number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged per range expansion as a function of the initial producer proportion. When we tested an initial producer proportion of 0.5 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.5), we observed the characteristic emergence of the two different patterns, where the “consumer first” pattern was the minority pattern (Fig. 2B). When we tested an initial producer proportion of 0.98 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.02), the “consumer first” pattern completely disappeared while the “producer first” pattern occupied the entire expansion area (Fig. 2A). In contrast, when we tested an initial producer proportion of 0.001 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.999), the “producer first” pattern completely disappeared while the “consumer first” pattern occupied the entire expansion area (Fig. 2C). We then repeated the experiment across a range of initial producer proportions and observed a decreasing monotonic relationship between the mean number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged per range expansion and the initial producer proportion (Fig. 3). We could model the decreasing relationship with a Poisson regression using the natural logarithm as the link function (intercept = 3.76, slope = −4.15, P for both parameters = 2 × 10−16, n = 9) (black line; Fig. 3). Thus, the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion does indeed depend on the initial cell densities of the producer and consumer.
Fig. 2: Effect of the initial producer proportion on the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion after 4 weeks.

The producer expressed the cyan fluorescent protein-encoding ecfp gene (blue) while the consumer expressed the green fluorescent protein-encoding egfp gene (green). Initial producer proportions include (A) 0.98, (B) 0.5, and (C) 0.001. The total initial cell densities of producer and consumer were identical across all of the tested initial producer proportions.

Full size image

Fig. 3: Effect of the initial producer proportion on the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion after 4 weeks.

Each data point is the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged for an independent range expansion. The black line is the fit of a Poisson regression model to the data. The gray area is the 95% confidence interval of Poisson distributions with λ = predicted value of the Poisson regression fit. The green line is the expected relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns and the initial producer proportion if the “consumer first” pattern were caused by genetic variants of the consumer. The blue line is the expected relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns and the initial producer proportion if the “consumer first” pattern were caused by genetic variants of the producer. The total initial cell densities of producer and consumer were identical across all of the tested initial proportions.

Full size image

Genetic variants as a cause of the observed pattern diversification
While we found that the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion depends on the initial cell densities of the producer and consumer (Fig. 3), the log-linear form of the decreasing relationship is inconsistent with the “consumer first” pattern being caused by genetic variants. Consider initial producer proportions of 0.02. 0.05, or 0.1 (i.e., initial consumer proportions of 0.98, 0.95, or 0.9). At these initial producer proportions, the initial cell density of the consumer is approximately twofold greater (1.96-, 1.90-, and 1.8-fold, respectively) than that for an initial producer proportion of 0.5 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.5). If genetic variants of the consumer cause the emergence of the “consumer first” pattern, we would therefore expect approximately twofold more “consumer first” patterns to emerge per range expansion. More generally, we would expect the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion to decrease linearly as the initial producer proportion increases (i.e., as the initial consumer proportion decreases) (Fig. 3, green line) (see the Supplementary Text for the formulation of this expectation). We did not observe either of these expectations. First, at initial producer proportions of 0.02, 0.05, or 0.1 (i.e., initial consumer proportions of 0.98, 0.95, or 0.9), the number of “consumer first” patterns was not approximately twofold greater than at an initial producer proportion of 0.5 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.5). Instead, it was three to fivefold greater (Fig. 3) (one-sample two-sided t test; P = 6 × 10−5, n = 3). Second, we experimentally observed a decreasing log-linear relationship (black line; Fig. 3) rather than the expected decreasing linear relationship (green line; Fig. 3) between the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged per range expansion and the initial producer proportion. Thus, we conclude that genetic variants of the consumer are unlikely to cause the emergence of the two patterns of spatial self-organization.
Our analysis above assumes that the “consumer first” pattern is caused by genetic variants of the consumer. However, it is plausible that the “consumer first” pattern is instead caused by genetic variants of the producer. The form of the relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged per range expansion and the initial cell densities of the producer and consumer, however, is again inconsistent with this hypothesis (Fig. 3). If genetic variants of the producer cause the emergence of the “consumer first” pattern, then we would expect the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion to increase as the initial producer proportion increases (blue line; Fig. 3). Stated alternatively, increasing the initial producer proportion will increase the abundance of the causative variants of the producer, and thus increase the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge. However, we observed the opposite outcome, where the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerged per range expansion decreased as the initial producer proportion increased (black line; Fig. 3). Thus, we conclude that genetic variants of the producer are also unlikely to cause the emergence of the two different patterns of spatial self-organization.
While the above analyses provide circumstantial evidence that genetic variants do not cause the simultaneous emergence of the two different patterns of spatial self-organization, we sought to provide more conclusive evidence of this by testing whether the “consumer first” pattern is heritable. To achieve this, we obtained a collection of isolates purified from prior “consumer first” patterns. We then mixed the isolates together (one producer with one consumer; initial producer and consumer proportions of 0.5) and repeated the range expansion experiment. Finally, we counted the numbers of “consumer first” patterns that emerged during the second range expansion and compared the numbers to those for pairs of the ancestral strains (producer and consumer). If the emergence of the “consumer first” pattern were heritable, we would expect more “consumer first” patterns when using pairs of isolates purified from prior “consumer first” patterns.
We found that pairs of isolates (producer and consumer) purified from prior “consumer first” patterns do not behave differently when compared to pairs of the ancestral strains (producer and consumer). Among ten independent range expansions for a pair of isolates (producer and consumer) purified from a prior “consumer first” pattern, we found that the “consumer first” pattern completely covered the expansion area for one of the ten replicates (Supplementary Fig. S3a). However, among ten independent range expansions for the pair of ancestral strains (producer and consumer), we found that the “consumer first” pattern also completely covered the expansion area for one of the ten replicates (Supplementary Fig. S3b). Overall, among the remaining nine independent range expansions, we did not detect more “consumer first” patterns per range expansion for the pair of isolates (producer and consumer) purified from a prior “consumer first” pattern than for the pair of ancestral strains (producer and consumer) (two-sample two-sided t test; P = 0.27, n = 9). Moreover, we sequenced the genomes of four producer isolates and four consumer isolates purified from prior “consumer first” patterns and found only one putative genetic difference in a single consumer isolate when compared to their respective ancestors (Supplementary Text and Supplementary Table S3). Thus, the “consumer first” pattern is not heritable, and its emergence is therefore not caused by genetic variants.
Neighborhood effects as a cause for the observed pattern diversification
If the simultaneous emergence of the two different patterns of spatial self-organization is not caused by genetic variants, what then could be the cause? We argue that one plausible cause is neighborhood effects that emerge due to local differences in the initial spatial positionings of otherwise identical individuals. Consider random initial distributions of producer and consumer cells across a surface (initial producer and consumer proportions of 0.5; Fig. 4B). At some spatial locations, producer cells may initially lie sufficiently close to the expansion frontier such that the consumer cells do not physically impede their expansion (white arrow; Fig. 4B). The producer cells would then expand first while the consumer cells would expand afterwards, giving rise to the “producer first” pattern (white arrow; Fig. 4B). However, at other spatial locations, producer cells may initially lie behind a cluster of consumer cells such that the consumer cells physically impede the expansion of the producer cells (green arrow; Fig. 4B). Indeed, we observed this experimentally at an intermediate timepoint of expansion (Supplementary Fig. S4). These clusters of consumer cells can occur purely as a consequence of the random initial spatial positionings of those cells, a process known as Poisson clumping [55]. The producer cells would then shove the consumer cells forward as they expand, giving rise to the “consumer first” pattern (green arrow; Fig. 4B). This hypothesis assumes that cell shoving is the dominant form of cell movement in the densely packed expanding microbial colonies produced by our synthetic microbial community, which is an assumption supported by numerous experimental and theoretical investigations [17, 53, 56,57,58,59,60].
Fig. 4: Conceptual model for how local differences in the initial spatial positionings of individual cells could promote diversification in patterns of spatial self-organization.

The producer is blue while the consumer is green. The initial producer proportion is (A) approximating to 1, (B) 0.5, or (C) approximating to 0. White arrows indicate “producer first” patterns and green arrows indicate “consumer first” patterns. The horizontal panels from left to right depict pattern formation over time.

Full size image

Importantly, this hypothesis is qualitatively consistent with our experimentally observed relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion and the initial proportions of the producer and consumer (Fig. 3). If producer cells initially far outnumber consumer cells, then the “consumer first” pattern should become less numerous (Fig. 4A). This is because there are fewer consumer cells present to create the necessary cell clusters that physically impede the expansion of the producer cells, and the producer cells can therefore expand immediately giving rise to the “producer first” pattern (Fig. 4A). In contrast, if the consumer cells initially far outnumber producer cells, then the “consumer first” pattern should become more numerous (Fig. 4C). This is because there are more consumer cells present to create the necessary cell clusters that physically impede the expansion of the producer cells, and the producer cells must therefore shove the consumer cells forward giving rise to the “consumer first” pattern (Fig. 4C).
This hypothesis is also consistent with quantitative features of our experimentally observed relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion and the initial proportions of the producer and consumer (Fig. 3). The initial spatial distributions of producer and consumer cells can be thought of as realizations of a Poisson point process. Such a process by chance produces clusters of consumer cells whose occurrence is described by a Poisson distribution with mean and variance λ. The mean number of consumer clusters and variance depend on the initial proportion of the consumer in a log-linear manner. As the initial proportion of the consumer increases, the probability for a consumer cluster to occur also increases. This, in turn, increases the probability that a “consumer first” pattern will form and increases the variance in the expected number of “consumer first” patterns. We found that this Poisson process accurately captures key features of our experimental data. First, the relationship between the number of “consumer first” patterns and the initial consumer proportion is modeled very well by a Poisson regression (Fig. 3). Second, the variance in the number of “consumer first” patterns increases as the experimentally observed number of “consumer first” patterns increases (Fig. 3). Third, the 95% confidence intervals of the Poisson distributions with λ equal to the predicted value of the Poisson regression matches the spread of the experimentally observed number of “consumer first” patterns (Fig. 3). In summary, the log-linear shape and the increasing variance of the data are thus consistent with our hypothesis that Poisson clumping due to the random initial spatial positionings of individuals causes the ‘consumer first’ pattern and promotes the observed diversification in patterns of spatial self-organization.
To provide further evidence that neighborhood effects due to local differences in the initial spatial positionings of individuals can promote diversification in patterns of spatial self-organization, we performed mathematical simulations with an individual-based model that accounts for cell shoving during range expansion. The original model and its adaptions to range expansion are described in detail elsewhere [17, 53]. We further adapted the model to simulate the emergence of spatial self-organization during expansion of our own synthetic microbial community [20]. In this study, we applied the model for two purposes. First, we asked whether the model could simulate the simultaneous emergence of the two different patterns of spatial self-organization in the absence of spatial heterogeneity in the initial abiotic environment. Second, we varied the initial producer proportion and evaluated the consequences on the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge during range expansion. Note that our implementation of the model does not incorporate genetic or stochastic phenotypic heterogeneity or demographic effects. However, our implementation does account for heterogeneity in the initial spatial positionings of individuals, as we randomly distributed individuals of the producer and consumer across the inoculation area prior to the onset of community expansion.
Our simulations revealed three important outcomes. First, when we tested an initial producer proportion of 0.98 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.02), we found rare localized spatial areas where consumer cells were pushed forward by producer cells (Fig. 5A and Supplementary Movie S1). These cells maintained a spatial position at the expansion frontier for a prolonged period of time and formed a characteristic “consumer first” pattern (Fig. 5A and Supplementary Movie S1). Second, at this initial producer proportion, both “producer first” and “consumer first” patterns emerged simultaneously, from the very origin of expansion, and at the same length scale, even though the initial abiotic environment was spatially homogeneous and all individuals were subject the same deterministic rules (Fig. 5A and Supplementary Movie S1). Finally, when we decreased the initial producer proportion to 0.02 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.98), the number of consumer cells that maintained a position at the expansion frontier increased, thus indicating the formation of more “consumer first” patterns (Fig. 5B and Supplementary Movie S2). All three of these observations are consistent with our experimental observations and, importantly, did not require the consideration of heterogeneity in the initial abiotic environment, genetic or stochastic phenotypic heterogeneity within populations, or demographic effects. Thus, neighborhood effects due to local differences in the initial spatial positionings of individuals are sufficient alone to promote pattern diversification and result in the emergence of two different patterns of spatial self-organization.
Fig. 5: Individual-based modeling simulations of the effect of the initial producer proportion on the number of “consumer first” patterns that emerge per range expansion.

The producer is blue while the consumer is green. Initial producer proportions are (A) 0.98 (see Supplementary Movie S1) and (B) 0.02 (see Supplementary Movie S2). The initial abiotic environment was spatially homogeneous and genetic heterogeneity, stochastic phenotypic heterogeneity, and demographic effects were not incorporated into the model. Producer and consumer cells were distributed randomly around the center prior to the onset of expansion and the total initial cell densities of producer and consumer were identical across all of the simulations. The white arrows indicate “producer first” patterns and the green arrow indicates a “consumer first” pattern.

Full size image

The different patterns of spatial self-organization have different community properties
We finally asked whether the different patterns of spatial self-organization have different community-level properties. More specifically, we tested whether the different patterns have different expansion speeds. Two features of our previous experimental observations already point towards this being the case. First, the “consumer first” patterns (green arrows; Fig. 1C) extend further in the radial direction of expansion than do the “producer first” patterns (white arrows; Fig. 1C). This is readily observed at the expansion frontier, where the “consumer first” patterns tend to protrude outwards in the radial direction (Fig. 1C). Second, the “consumer first” patterns increase in width in the direction of expansion (green arrows; Fig. 1C). Both of these features are consistent with faster expansion speeds [61, 62].
To further test this, we varied the initial producer proportion, and thus varied the ratio of “consumer first” to “producer first” patterns (Fig. 3), and quantified the expansion radii over time. We found that the initial expansion speeds were significantly faster for an initial producer proportion of 0.001 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.999) than for 0.98 (i.e., an initial consumer proportion of 0.02) (F-test; P = 1 × 10−5) (Fig. 6A). Thus, smaller initial producer proportions that promote the emergence of more ‘consumer first’ patterns result in faster expansion speeds. Moreover, when we varied the initial producer proportion between 0.02 and 0.98 (i.e., initial consumer proportions between 0.98 and 0.02), we found a decreasing relationship between the final expansion radius and the initial producer proportion (linear model: final expansion radius ~ initial producer proportion; slope = −263, R2 = 0.42, P = 2 × 10−4, n = 9) (Fig. 6B). Thus, smaller initial producer proportions that promote the emergence of more “consumer first” patterns result in a greater extent of community expansion over the time-course of the experiment. Together, our data demonstrate that the different patterns of spatial self-organization do indeed have different expansion speeds.
Fig. 6: Effect of the initial producer proportion on expansion properties.

A Effect on the initial expansion speed. B Effect on the final expansion radius. Each data point is the expansion radius for an independent range expansion. The lines are linear models and the gray areas are the 95% confidence intervals. The total initial cell densities of producer and consumer were identical across all of the tested initial producer proportions. The final expansion radii were measured after 4 weeks of incubation.

Full size image More

1.
Rosati, A. G. & Cognition, F. Reviving the ecological intelligence hypothesis. Trends Cognit. Sci. 21(9), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.011 (2017) (ISSN 1879307X).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Kuhn, S. L., Raichlen, D. A. & Clark, A. E. What moves us? How mobility and movement are at the center of human evolution. Evolut. Anthropol. 25(3), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21480 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Pacheco-Cobos, L. et al. Nahua mushroom gatherers use area-restricted search strategies that conform to marginal value theorem predictions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(21), 10339–10347. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814476116 (2019) (ISSN 10916490).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Viswanathan, G. M. et al. Optimizing the success of random searches. Nature 401(6756), 911–914. https://doi.org/10.1038/44831 (1999) (ISSN 00280836).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
Bartumeus, F. Lévy processes in animal movement: an evolutionary hypothesis. Fractals 15(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X07003460 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Bartumeus, F. et al. Foraging success under uncertainty: search tradeoffs and optimal space use. Ecol. Lett. 19(11), 1299–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12660 (2016).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Sims, D. W. et al. Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour. Nature 451(7182), 1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06518 (2008).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

8.
Bartumeus, F., Peters, F., Pueyo, S., Marrasé, C. & Catalan, J. Helical Lévy walks: adjusting searching statistics to resource availability in microzooplankton. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(22), 12771–12775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2137243100 (2003).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

9.
Boyer, D., Crofoot, M. C. & Walsh, P. D. Non-random walks in monkeys and humans. J. R. Soc. Interface 9(70), 842–847. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0582 (2012) (ISSN 17425662).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Brown, C. T., Liebovitch, L. S. & Glendon, R. Lévy flights in dobe Ju/’hoansi foraging patterns. Hum. Ecol. 35(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9083-4 (2007) (ISSN 03007839).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Raichien, D. A. et al. Evidence of Lévy walk foraging patterns inhuman hunter-gatherers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(2), 728–733. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318616111 (2014).
CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

12.
Kölzsch, A. et al. Experimental evidence for inherent lévy search behaviour in foraging animals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282(1807), 20150424. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0424 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kramer, D. L. & McLaughlin, R. L. The behavioral ecology of intermittent locomotion. Am. Zool. 41(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/41.2.137 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Bartumeus, F. & Levin, S.A. Fractal reorientation clocks: Linking animal behavior to statistical patterns of search. Technical Report 49, (2008). https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/49/19072.full.pdf.

15.
Bazazi, S., Bartumeus, F., Hale, J. J. & Couzin, I. D. Intermittent motion in desert locusts: behavioural complexity in simple environments. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8(5), e1002498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002498 (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

16.
Reynolds, A. Liberating Lévy walk research from the shackles of optimal foraging (2015). ISSN 15710645.

17.
Grove, M., Lycett, S.J. & Chauhan, P.R. The Quantitative Analysis of Mobility: Ecological Techniques and Archaeological Extensions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6861-6 (2010). ISBN 9781441968609.

18.
Bond, A. B. & Kamil, A. C. Spatial heterogeneity, predator cognition, and the evolution of color polymorphism in virtual prey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(9), 3214–3219. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509963103 (2006) (ISSN 00278424).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

19.
Spaethe, J., Tautz, J. & Chittka, L. Do honeybees detect colour targets using serial or parallel visual search?. J. Exp. Biol. 209(6), 987–993. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02124 (2006) (ISSN 00220949).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
de Froment, A. J., Rubenstein, D. I. & Levin, S. A. An extra dimension to decision-making in animals: the three-way trade-off between speed, effort per-unit-time and accuracy. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10(12), e1003937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003937 (2014).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Campos, D., Méndez, V. & Bartumeus, F. Optimal intermittence in search strategies under speed-selective target detection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(2), 028102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.028102 (2012) (ISSN 00319007).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

22.
Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P. & Cohen, J. D. The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol. Rev. 113(4), 700–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.700 (2006).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Chittka, L., Skorupski, P. & Raine, N. E. Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(7), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.010 (2009) (ISSN 01695347).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Nityananda, V. & Chittka, L. Modality-specific attention in foraging bumblebees. R. Soc. Open Sci.https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150324 (2015).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Chittka, L. & Raine, N.E. Recognition of flowers by pollinators, 8 (2006). ISSN 13695266.

26.
Zhang, M. et al. Finding any Waldo with zero-shot invariant and efficient visual search. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06217-x (2018).
CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

27.
Viswanathan, G. M., Da Luz, M. G. E., Raposo, E. P. & Eugene Stanley, H. The Physics of Foraging: An Introduction to Random Searches and Biological Encounters Vol. 9781107006 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511902680.
Google Scholar 

28.
Wilson, R. P., Quintana, F. & Hobson, V. J. Construction of energy landscapes can clarify the movement and distribution of foraging animals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279(1730), 975–980. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1544 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Ross, C. T. & Winterhalder, B. Sit-and-wait versus active-search hunting: a behavioral ecological model of optimal search mode. J. Theor. Biol. 387, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.09.022 (2015) (ISSN 10958541).
MathSciNet  Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

30.
Gameiro, R. R., Kaspar, K., König, S. U., Nordholt, S. & König, P. Exploration and exploitation in natural viewing behavior. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02526-1 (2017) (ISSN 20452322).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
LaScala-Gruenewald, D. E., Mehta, R. S., Liu, Yu. & Denny, M. W. Sensory perception plays a larger role in foraging efficiency than heavy-tailed movement strategies. Ecol. Model. 404(October 2018), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.02.015 (2019) (ISSN 03043800).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Mugan, U. & MacIver, M. A. Spatial planning with long visual range benefits escape from visual predators in complex naturalistic environments. Nat. Commun. 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16102-1 (2020) (ISSN 20411723).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Kerster, B. E., Rhodes, T. & Kello, C. T. Spatial memory in foraging games. Cognition 148, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.015 (2016) (ISSN 18737838).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34.
Martínez-García, R., Calabrese, J. M. & López, C. Online games: a novel approach to explore how partial information influences human random searches. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 40029. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40029 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

35.
Kalff, C. & Hills, T. Human foraging behavior: a virtual reality investigation on area restricted search in humans. Search 32(32), 168–173 (2006).
Google Scholar 

36.
Kamil, A. C., Krebs, J. R. & Pulliam, H. R. Foraging Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1839-2 (1987). ISBN 9781461290278.

37.
Korn, C. W. & Bach, D. R. Heuristic and optimal policy computations in the human brain during sequential decision-making. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02750-3 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Zollner, P.A. & Lima, S.L. Search Strategies for Landscape-Level Interpatch Movements. Technical Report 3 (1999).

39.
Zurick, D., Valli, É., Farkas, R. & Troyer, H. Land of pure vision: The sacred geography of Tibet and the Himalaya. University Press of Kentucky (2014). ISBN 9780813145594.

40.
Kaushal, M. Divining the landscape-the Gaddi and his land. India Int. Centre Q. 27, 31–40 (2001).
Google Scholar 

41.
Minetti, A. E., Moia, C., Roi, G. S., Susta, D. & Ferretti, G. Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes. J. Appl. Physiol. 93(3), 1039–1046. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01177.2001 (2002).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Reynolds, A. M. Optimal random Lévy-loop searching: New insights into the searching behaviours of central-place foragers. Epl 82(2), 20001. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/82/20001 (2008).
CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

43.
Ydenberg, R. C., Welham, C. V. J., Schmid-hempel, R., Schmid-hempel, P. & Beauchamp, G. Time and energy constraints and the relationships between currencies in foraging theory. Technical Report1, (1994).

44.
Bracis, C., Gurarie, E., Van Moorter, B. & Andrew Goodwin, R. Memory effects on movement behavior in animal foraging. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0136057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136057 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Spencer, W. D. Home ranges and the value of spatial information. J. Mammal. 93(4), 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1644/12-mamm-s-061.1 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Sims, D. W., Humphries, N. E., Hu, N., Medan, V. & Berni, J. Optimal searching behaviour generated intrinsically by the central pattern generator for locomotion. eLife 8, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50316 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Reynolds, A., Ceccon, E., Baldauf, C., Medeiros, T. K. & Miramontes, O. Lévy foraging patterns of rural humans. PLoS ONE 13(6), e0199099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199099 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Seuront, L. & Eugene Stanley, H. Anomalous diffusion and multifractality enhance mating encounters in the ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(6), 2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322363111 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

49.
Wearmouth, V. J. et al. Scaling laws of ambush predator “waiting” behaviour are tuned to a common ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2997 (2014).

50.
Reynolds, A. M., Ropert-Coudert, Y., Kato, A., Chiaradia, A. & MacIntosh, A. J. J. A priority-based queuing process explanation for scale-free foraging behaviours. Anim. Behav. 108, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.07.022 (2015) (ISSN 00033472).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Raposo, E. P. et al. Dynamical robustness of lévy search strategies. Phys. Rev/. Lett. 91, 24. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.240601 (2003).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Vazquez, A. Impact of memory on human dynamics. Physica A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 373, 747–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2006.04.060 (2007) (ISSN 03784371).
Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

53.
Stephens, D. W. Decision ecology: foraging and the ecology of animal decision making. Cognit. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 8(4), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.4.475 (2008) (ISSN 15307026).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Bell, W.J. Searching Behavior: the Behavioral Ecology of Finding Resources. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/85.1.108 (1990). ISBN 9789401053723.

55.
Pyke, G.H. Animal Movements—An Optimal Foraging Theory Approach, Vol. 2. 2nd edn Elsevier, (2019). ISBN 9780128132517. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.90160-2

56.
Namboodiri, V. M. K., Levy, J. M., Mihalas, S., Sims, D. W. & Hussain Shuler, M. G. Rationalizing spatial exploration patterns of wild animals and humans through a temporal discounting framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(31), 8747–8752. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601664113 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

57.
Humphries, N. E. & Sims, D. W. Optimal foraging strategies: Lévy walks balance searching and patch exploitation under a very broad range of conditions. J. Theor. Biol. 358, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.05.032 (2014).
Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

58.
Bartumeus, F. et al. Superdiffusion and encounter rates in diluted, low dimensional worlds. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 157(1), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2008-00638-6 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Nurzaman, S.G., Matsumoto, Y., Nakamura, Y., Shirai, K., Koizumi, S. & Ishiguro, H. An adaptive switching behavior between levy and brownian random search in a mobile robot based on biological fluctuation. In IEEE/RSJ 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2010 – Conference Proceedings, pages 1927–1934. IEEE, 10 https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2010.5651671 (2010). ISBN 9781424466757. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5651671/.

60.
Mason, W. & Suri, S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 (2012).
Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

61.
Ross, J., Irani, L., Six Silberman, M., Zaldivar, A. & Tomlinson, B. Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, pages 2863–2872, New York, New York, USA, https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753873 (2010). ACM Press. ISBN 9781605589312. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1753846.1753873.

62.
Hamilton, M. J., Lobo, J., Rupley, E., Youn, H. & West, G. B. The ecological and evolutionary energetics of hunter-gatherer residential mobility. Evolut. Anthropol. 25(3), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21485 (2016) (ISSN 15206505).
Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Sakiyama, T. & Gunji, Y. P. Emergent weak home-range behaviour without spatial memory. R. Soc. Open Sci.https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160214 (2016).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

64.
Bénichou, O., Coppey, M., Moreau, M., Suet, P. H. & Voituriez, R. Optimal search strategies for hidden targets. Phys. Rev. Lett.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.198101 (2005).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Nathan, R., Getz, W.M., Revilla, E., Holyoak, M., Kadmon, R., Saltz, D. & Smouse, P.E. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research, 12 (2008). ISSN 00278424. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19060196, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2614714.

66.
Hills, T. Animal foraging and the evolution of goal-directed cognition. Cognit. Sci. 30(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_50 (2006).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Purcell, B. A. & Kiani, R. Hierarchical decision processes that operate over distinct timescales underlie choice and changes in strategy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(31), E4531–E4540. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524685113 (2016) (ISSN 10916490).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68.
Jeffrey Brantingham, P. et al. Measuring forager mobility. Curr. Anthropol. 47(3), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1086/503062 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Farnsworth, K. D. & Beecham, J. A. How do grazers achieve their distribution? A continuum of models from random diffusion to the ideal free distribution using biased random walks. Am. Nat. 153(5), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1086/303192 (1999) (ISSN 00030147).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

70.
Wilke, A. & Barrett, H. C. The hot hand phenomenon as a cognitive adaptation to clumped resources. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30(3), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.11.004 (2009) (ISSN 10905138).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Hills, T. T. Animal foraging and the evolution of goal-directed cognition. Cognit. Sci. 30(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_50 (2006).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Rhodes, T., Kello, C. T. & Kerster, B. Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to heavy tails in visual foraging. Vis. Cognit. 22(6), 809–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.918070 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Levin, S. A. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73(6), 1943–1967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941447 (1992) (ISSN 00129658).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Mobbs, D., Trimmer, P.C., Blumstein, D.T. & Dayan, P. Foraging for foundations in decision neuroscience: Insights from ethology. Technical Report 7, (2018). www.nature.com/nrn.

75.
Schulz, E., Wu, C. M., Huys, Q. J. M., Krause, A. & Speekenbrink, M. Generalization and search in risky environments. Cognit. Sci. 42(8), 2592–2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12695 (2018) (ISSN 15516709).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Hart, Y. et al. Creative exploration as a scale-invariant search on a meaning landscape. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 5411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07715-8 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

77.
Shlesinger, M. F. Mathematical physics: search research. Nature 443(7109), 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/443281a (2006).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

78.
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R. & Newman, M. E. J. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4), 661–703. https://doi.org/10.1137/070710111 (2009).
MathSciNet  Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar  More

1.
FAO. United Nations Food Agricultural Organisation. High Level Expert Forum (FAO, Rome, 2009).
Google Scholar 
2.
Puig-Montserrat, X. et al. Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: Linking agroecosystems structure to ecological functions. Mamm. Biol. 80, 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.03.008 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Cleveland, C. J. et al. Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0238:Evotpc]2.0.Co;2 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Boyles, J. G., Cryan, P. M., McCracken, G. F. & Kunz, T. H. Conservation. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332, 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201366 (2011).
Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
Naylor, R. L. & Ehrlich, P. R. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (ed. Daily, G. C.) 151–174 (Island Press, New York, 1997).
Google Scholar 

6.
Losey, J. E. & Vaughan, M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56, 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:Tevoes]2.0.Co;2 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Power, A. G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 365, 2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Maine, J. J. & Boyles, J. G. Bats initiate vital agroecological interactions in corn. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 12438–12443. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505413112 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

9.
Tremblay, A., Mineau, P. & Stewart, R. K. Effects of bird predation on some pest insect populations in corn. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00247-4 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Van Bael, S. A. et al. Birds as predators in tropical agroforestry systems. Ecology 89, 928–934 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Grass, I., Lehmann, K., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. Insectivorous birds disrupt biological control of cereal aphids. Ecology 98, 1583–1590. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1814 (2017).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Karp, D. S. et al. Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1339–1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12173 (2013).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13.
Maas, B. et al. Bird and bat predation services in tropical forests and agroforestry landscapes. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 91, 1081–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12211 (2016).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Cohen, Y., Bar-David, S., Nielsen, M., Bohmann, K. & Korine, C. An appetite for pests: Synanthropic insectivorous bats exploit cotton pest irruptions and consume various deleterious arthropods. Mol. Ecol. 29, 1185–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15393 (2020).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Chaplin-Kramer, R., de Valpine, P., Mills, N. J. & Kremen, C. Detecting pest control services across spatial and temporal scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 181, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.007 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Speakman, J. R. & Thomas, D. W. In Bat ecology (eds Kunz, T. H. & Fenton, M. B.) 430–490 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003).
Google Scholar 

17.
Norberg, U. M. Avian Energetics and Nutritional Ecology 199–249 (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
Google Scholar 

18.
Nyffeler, M., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Whelan, C. J. Insectivorous birds consume an estimated 400–500 million tons of prey annually. Sci. Nat. 105, 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-018-1571-z (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Sekercioglu, C. H. Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.007 (2006).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Mols, C. M. M. & Visser, M. E. Great tits can reduce caterpillar damage in apple orchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00761.x (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Van Bael, S. A., Bichier, P. & Greenberg, R. Bird predation on insects reduces damage to the foliage of cocoa trees (Theobroma cacao) in western Panama. J. Trop. Ecol. 23, 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467407004440 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Federico, P. et al. Brazilian free-tailed bats as insect pest regulators in transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Ecol. Appl. 18, 826–837. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0556.1 (2008).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
McCracken, G. F. et al. Bats track and exploit changes in insect pest populations. PLoS ONE 7, e43839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043839 (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

24.
Kolkert, H., Andrew, R., Smith, R., Rader, R. & Reid, N. Insectivorous bats selectively source moths and eat mostly pest insects on dryland and irrigated cotton farms. Ecol. Evol. 10, 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5901 (2020).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Maas, B., Clough, Y. & Tscharntke, T. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1480–1487. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12194 (2013).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
Kalka, M. B., Smith, A. R. & Kalko, E. K. Bats limit arthropods and herbivory in a tropical forest. Science 320, 71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153352 (2008).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

27.
Williams-Guillen, K., Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. Bats limit insects in a neotropical agroforestry system. Science 320, 70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152944 (2008).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

28.
Kunz, T. H., de Torrez, E. B., Bauer, D., Lobova, T. & Fleming, T. H. In Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology (eds Ostfeld, R. S. & Schlesinger, W. H.) 1–38 (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 2011).
Google Scholar 

29.
Taylor, P. J., Grass, I., Alberts, A. J., Joubert, E. & Tscharntke, T. Economic value of bat predation services: A review and new estimates from macadamia orchards. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.015 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Redlich, S., Martin Emily, A. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Landscape-level crop diversity benefits biological pest control. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13126 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Hooks, C., Pandey, R. R., & Johnson, M. W. Unlikely guardians of cropping systems: Can birds and spiders protect broccoli from caterpillar pests? Insect Pests (2007).

32.
Martin, E. A., Reineking, B., Seo, B. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Natural enemy interactions constrain pest control in complex agricultural landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 5534–5539. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215725110 (2013).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

33.
Karp, D. S. & Daily, G. C. Cascading effects of insectivorous birds and bats in tropical coffee plantations. Ecology 95, 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1012.1 (2014).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34.
Barbaro, L. et al. Avian pest control in vineyards is driven by interactions between bird functional diversity and landscape heterogeneity. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12740 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Rey Benayas, J. M., Meltzer, J., de las Heras-Bravo, D. & Cayuela, L. Potential of pest regulation by insectivorous birds in Mediterranean woody crops. PLoS ONE 12, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180702 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Morrison, E. B. & Lindell, C. A. Birds and bats reduce insect biomass and leaf damage in tropical forest restoration sites. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1526–1534 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Ndanganga, P. K., Njoroge, J. B. M. & Vickery, J. Quantifying the contribution of birds to the control of arthropod pests on kale, Brassica oleracea acephala, a key crop in East African highland farmland. Int. J. Pest Manage. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2013.820005 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Tschumi, M., Ekroos, J., Hjort, C., Smith, H. G. & Birkhofer, K. Rodents, not birds, dominate predation-related ecosystem services and disservices in vertebrate communities of agricultural landscapes. Oecologia 188, 863–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4242-z (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

39.
Elkinton, J. S., Liebhold, A. M. & Muzika, R.-M. Effects of alternative prey on predation by small mammals on gypsy moth pupae. Popul. Ecol. 46, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-004-0175-y (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Dyrcz, A. Breeding biology and behaviour of the willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys) in the madang region Papua New Guinea. Emu 94, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9940017 (1994).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Adriano, S. & Calver, M. C. Diet of breeding willie wagtails (Rhipidura leucophrys) in suburban Western Australia. Emu 95, 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9950138 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Razeng, E. & Watson, D. M. What do declining woodland birds eat? A synthesis of dietary records. Emu 112, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU11099 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Brandl, R., Kristín, A. & Leisler, B. Dietary niche breadth in a local community of passerine birds: An analysis using phylogenetic contrasts. Oecologia 98, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00326096 (1994).
CAS  Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

44.
Kaplan, G. Australian Magpie: Biology and Behaviour of an Unusual Songbird (CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, 2019).
Google Scholar 

45.
Puckett, H. L., Brandle, J. R. & Johnson, R. J. Avian foraging patterns in crop field edges adjacent to woody habitat. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 131, 9–15 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Best, L. B., Whitmore, R. C. & Booth, G. M. Use of cornfields by birds during the breeding season: the importance of edge habitat. Am. Midl. Nat. 123, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2425762 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Hansen, N. A., Sato, C. F., Michael, D. R., Lindenmayer, D. B. & Driscoll, D. A. Predation risk for reptiles is highest at remnant edges in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13269 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Storch, I., Woitke, E. & Krieger, S. Landscape-scale edge effect in predation risk in forest-farmland mosaics of Central Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7005-2 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Douglas, D. J. T., Vickery, J. A. & Benton, T. G. Improving the value of field margins as foraging habitat for farmland birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01613.x (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. Foraging Theory (University Press, 1986).
Google Scholar 

51.
Denzinger, A. & Schnitzler, H.-U. Bat guilds, a concept to classify the highly diverse foraging and echolocation behaviors of microchiropteran bats. Front. Physiol. 4, 164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00164 (2013).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
Schnitzler, H.-U. & Kalko, E. K. V. Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Vol. 51 (SPIE, 2001).

53.
Neuweiler, G. Foraging, echolocation and audition in bats. Naturwissenschaften 71, 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00455897 (1984).
Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

54.
Fenton, M. B. The foraging behaviour and ecology of animal-eating bats. Can. J. Zool. 68, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-061 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Jantzen, M. K. & Fenton, M. B. The depth of edge influence among insectivorous bats at forest–field interfaces. Can. J. Zool. 91, 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2012-0282 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Estur, G. Cotton Exporter’s Guide. (International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO, 2007).

57.
RBG In State of the World’s Plants 2017 (ed. Willis, K.) 64–71 (Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 2017).
Google Scholar 

58.
Rencken, I. An Investigation of the Importance of Native and Non-Crop Vegetation to Beneficial Generalist Predators in Australian Cotton Agroecosystems PhD thesis, University of New England (2006).

59.
Holloway, J. C., Furlong, M. J. & Bowden, P. I. Management of beneficial invertebrates and their potential role in integrated pest management for Australian grain systems. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48, 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07424 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Schellhorn, N. A., Bianchi, F. J. & Hsu, C. L. Movement of entomophagous arthropods in agricultural landscapes: Links to pest suppression. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59, 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-161952 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

61.
Whitehouse, M. E. A., Wilson, L. J. & Fitt, G. P. A comparison of arthropod communities in transgenic Bt and conventional cotton in Australia. Environ. Entomol. 34, 1224–1241 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Smith, R., Reid, J., Scott-Morales, L., Green, S. & Reid, N. A baseline survey of birds in native vegetation on cotton farms in inland eastern Australia. Wildl. Res. 46, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18038 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Ford, G. & Thomson, N. Birds on Cotton Farms: A Guide to Common Species and Habitat Management (Cotton Catchment Communities CRC, Boca Raton, 2006).
Google Scholar 

64.
Whelan, C. J., Wenny, D. G. & Marquis, R. J. In Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology (eds Ostfeld, R. S. & Schlesinger, W. H.) 25–60 (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 2008).
Google Scholar 

65.
Rodríguez, A., Andrén, H. & Jansson, G. Habitat-mediated predation risk and decision making of small birds at forest edges. Oikos 95, 383–396 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Sekercioglu, C. H. Bird functional diversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. J. Ornithol. 153, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0869-4 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Greenop, A., Woodcock, B. A., Wilby, A., Cook, S. M. & Pywell, R. F. Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta-analysis. Ecology 99, 1771–1782. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2378 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

68.
Nelson, J. J. & Gillam, E. H. Selection of foraging habitat by female little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). J. Mammal. 98, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw181 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Rohner, C. & Krebs, C. J. Owl predation on snowshoe hares: Consequences of antipredator behaviour. Oecologia 108, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00334655 (1996).
Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

70.
Rockwell, C., Gabriel, P. O. & Black, J. M. Bolder, older, and selective: Factors of individual-specific foraging behaviors in Steller’s jays. Behav. Ecol. 23, 676–683. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars015 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Krebs, J. R. In Perspectives in Ethology (eds Bateson, P. P. G. & Klopfer, P. H.) 73–111 (Springer US, Berlin, 1973).
Google Scholar 

72.
Lövei, G. L. & Ferrante, M. A review of the sentinel prey method as a way of quantifying invertebrate predation under field conditions. Insect Sci. 24, 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12405 (2017).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

73.
Nagy, R. K., Schellhorn, N. A. & Zalucki, M. P. Fresh, frozen or fake: A comparison of predation rates measured by various types of sentinel prey. J. Appl. Entomol. 144, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12745 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Ravzanaadii, N., Kim, S.-H., Choi, W. H., Seong-Jin, H. & Kim, N. J. Nutritional value of mealworm, tenebrio molitor as food source. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 93–98 (2012).
Google Scholar 

75.
Barbaro, L., Giffard, B., Charbonnier, Y., van Halder, I. & Brockerhoff, E. G. Bird functional diversity enhances insectivory at forest edges: A transcontinental experiment. Divers. Distrib. 20, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12132 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Environment Australia. Revision of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) and Development of Version 5.0: Summary Report. (Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2000).

77.
OEH. NSW (Mitchell) Landscapes. Vol. version 3.1 (State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2002).

78.
Keith, D. A. Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: The Native Vegetation of NEW South Wales and the ACT (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2004).
Google Scholar 

79.
R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/, 2018).

80.
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 400. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000240890 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

81.
Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: Create Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects for ‘ggplot’ from Model Outputs (v0.16.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggeffects. (2017).

82.
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-level/mixed) Regression Models (v0.3.3). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2017).

83.
Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P. & Herve, M. Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means (v1.5.3). https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/emmeans (2019).

84.
Szumilas, M. Explaining odds ratios. J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 19, 227–229 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar  More

This research presents HD-ClvR, which is a combination of three gene drives: homing, cleave-and-rescue and daisyfield. Our modelling indicates that HD-ClvR overcomes an important trade-off in current homing gene drive designs: the trade-off between resistance allele formation and gene drive efficiency. This strategy benefits from the efficiency of a homing gene drive and the evolutionary stability of cleave-and-rescue gene drive. Due to the inclusion of a daisyfield system, HD-ClvR is self-limiting and can be controlled by supplementation of gene drive animals.
HD-ClvR compared to other gene drives
Over recent years, many different gene drives have been published and developments have been geared towards both efficiency and safety38. An ongoing issue has been the development of resistance alleles. For CRISPR-based homing gene drive there are two fundamental approaches to combat resistance allele formation: careful gRNA targeting and gRNA multiplexing. When a gRNA targets a conserved sequence in a gene, resistance alleles are likely to disrupt gene function through NHEJ repair and will therefore reduce fitness39. Recently, population suppression was already shown to work with a carefully targeted homing gene drive in contained mosquito populations39, however, current data suggests that homing might be less efficient in mammals than in insects14. A recent paper has proposed the concept of ‘tethered homing gene drive’, which combines a threshold-dependent underdominance gene drive with a homing gene drive for improved suppression capabilities40. We use this concept in a different manner in HD-ClvR, by relying on a daisyfield rather than threshold-dependence for self-limitation. Very recently, two new papers have proposed a gene drive similar to HD-ClvR, but intented for population modification instead of suppression41,42. These studies also combine homing and cleave-and-rescue principles to combat resistance alleles and their modifications are able to persist stably in cage experiments, which is promising for HD-ClvR.
In addition to targeting conserved sequences, when gRNA multiplexing, resistant allele allele formation is reduced because multiple sites are targeted simultaneously. For homing gene drives, multiplexing has been shown to reduce homing efficiency when more than two gRNAs are used28. In contrast, cleave-and-rescue gene drives do not have this problem, as they do not use homing and can therefore multiplex gRNAs without any efficiency costs. HD-ClvR separates the elimination of resistance alleles and homing efficiency, and therefore gRNAs can be optimised for both goals separately.
To date, most gene drive research has focused on improving the efficiency, however, equally important is the development of strategies that allow for containment, or even reversibility, of the gene drives29,43. For contained gene drives, density dependence is often used, which requires large numbers of gene drive individuals to be released into a target population to spread44. Therefore, non-target populations are unlikely to be affected by this type of gene drive. However, a large single release of gene drive individuals can put significant pressure on the local ecosystem, and if a population is already at carrying capacity, it may lead to starvation or mass migration of the population. In contrast, HD-ClvR uses ongoing input in the form of gene drive animals to control the extent of population suppression and contain spread, while the total amount of gene drive animals necessary for release is similar to threshold-dependent gene drives. Therefore, the use of HD-ClvR seems more feasible than threshold-dependent gene drives. Although self-limitation comes with increased cost and labour relative to unlimited gene drives, we believe this is justified by the control and safety of HD-ClvR.
As stated above, the initial introduction frequency for a standard cleave-and-rescue gene drive in our randomly mating model was increased 10-fold over the other homing-based strategies. This increase is necessary due to the significant cost to the reproduction rate that is incurred when using a standard cleave-and-rescue gene drive. On average, cleave-and-rescue animals will produce 50% less offspring than wild-type animals21,24. This significantly slows the spread of the gene drive and due to density dependent dynamics, requires large initial releases of cleave-and-rescue animals for population suppression. With a homing-cleave-and-rescue drive, more offspring inherit the drive and there is less cost to the reproduction rate. Effectively, for homing-cleave-and-rescue, the reproduction rate of gene drive individuals is equal to the homing efficiency (plus half of the homing failure rate, where the gene drive is inherited by chance), which so far has been shown to range from 0.7 to 1 in different organisms14,39,45.
Supplementation
As animal supplementation is a critical component of HD-ClvR, our modelling investigated how daisyfield size and the level and placement of supplemented HD-ClvR animals effects efficiency and safety of population suppression. Optimisation of these parameters can significantly reduce cost and labour, as well as reduce the risk of unwanted impacts on non-target populations. We modelled our supplementation as a percentage of the total population size, therefore the number of individuals needed for supplementation increases linearly with population size. We also want to minimise the risk of non-target populations being impacted by the gene drive, and therefore, there is a trade-off between safety (size of the daisyfield) and cost and labour (level of supplementation required).
The least number of daisy elements that can suppress the population with a realistic level of supplementation, but does not cause any serious issues in non-target populations, should be objectively established through an in-depth risk assessment process. In a larger population however, the spread is slower than in a small one. Therefore, for improved safety and efficiency, gene drives are best applied in small sub-populations separately. The impact of a single introduction, such as a rogue deployment or migration, depends on the population size. The smaller the population, the bigger the impact. This it is a concern when the target population is much larger than the non-target population, but this is not the case for invasive UK grey squirrels and many other invasive species.
The appropriate daisyfield size also depends on the rate of NHEJ ((P_n)) of the gene drive system; the higher the ((P_n)), the more embryonic lethal offspring will arise and the sooner daisyfield burns out. To choose a safe number of daisy elements, we also need an estimate of how many animals a rogue party could obtain, potential breed and add into a non-target population for their own benefit. Overall, each target population and prospective gene drive strategy needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis and include an in-depth multidisciplinary risk assessment process.
When we consider the spatial aspects of a HD-ClvR supplementation programme, the picture becomes more complex. A key factor is the supplementation location of individuals. Obviously, supplementing individuals in a location where the population has already been suppressed will be ineffective. Therefore, different placement strategies can be adopted to keep placing individuals in a relevant area. A monitoring system where not only the size of the population is known, but also the location can significantly help HD-ClvR continue spreading and suppress a targeted population.
In this study, we modelled HD-ClvR using five different supplementation placement strategies in grey squirrel. These were: supplementation at the mean of population location, the mode of population location, randomly, randomly in 10 groups, and in a moving front (Fig. 6a). With supplementation at the mean of the population location, supplementation started in the middle of the population. After a few generations, a gap appears in the middle due to local suppression. The mean of the populations location still lies in the middle, as can be seen in Fig. 6c at 20 generations. Therefore, supplementation is not effective until the population is also suppressed in another location, thereby shifting the mean. Additionally, when there is a single large patch of the population left and additional smaller clusters, supplementation in the middle of the large patch allows the smaller clusters to recover, as can be seen in Fig. 6c after 64 generations.
With supplementation at the mode of the population location, we supplement in a location where there are many individuals. This placement strategy avoids the problem of supplementing in a location without individuals, either in a doughnut-like spatial population structure or in a multi-patch population. However, this placement strategy still allows small patches to form and recover. Supplementation at a random location theoretically means that supplementation happens uniformly, but in reality, this is not the case. Initially HD-ClvR spreads in multiple locations, but after the population is suppressed in certain regions, supplementation in those regions becomes ineffective. Therefore, at a later stage of population suppression this placement scheme becomes increasingly ineffective.
Supplementation at random locations is more effective when they are broken up into multiple groups (ten in our model). The gene drive spreads in many locations initially like the random single location placement scheme. After significant suppression of the population some but not all of the 10 groups supplemented are at ineffective locations. The groups that are placed at relevant locations are enough to keep the gene drive spreading. In our model supplementation in groups at random locations gets close to the speed at which a gene drive spreads in a non-spatial model.
The moving front placement scheme is very effective initially, as the gene drive spreads uniformly across the front. In this case, supplementation keeps ahead of where the populations is being suppressed. This placement strategy allows the population to recover behind the moving front after effective initial spread and near-complete suppression. To improve efficiency of the moving front strategy, it may be beneficial to include random supplementation behind the moving front to prevent animals from re-establishing.
Finally, in our spatial model, it was evident that there is more uncertainty in levels of population suppression than a randomly mating model leads us to believe. As can be seen in Fig. 6b, the 95% quantiles are broader than the quantiles in Fig. 3. Therefore, we conclude that to tailor the amount of supplementation, it is vital to closely monitor a population where a gene drive is used.
Assumptions and future work
Our model works under the following six assumptions. First, our model excludes some complexities of the optimal number of gRNAs for homing. Although our model suggests that multiplexing gRNAs for both the homing and cleave-and-rescue gene drives is most effective, a recent study using a more complex model and in vivo data shows that the optimal number of gRNAs to use for homing in Drosphilia melanogaster is two. They report a decrease in homing efficiency with more than two gRNAs due to reduced homology and Cas nuclease saturation28. Therefore, our gene drive with four gRNAs for both homing and cleave-and-rescue will likely be less efficient in such a complex model. We suggest using two homing gRNAs and four cleave- and-rescue gRNAs is likely most efficient, while still eliminating all resistance alleles28. It would be prudent to analyse our gene drive in this complex model as well to get a definitive estimate, as Cas saturation is thought to have an influence on gene drive efficiency when multiplexing is used28.
Second, we assumed there was no embryonic Cas-gRNA expression. Embryonic Cas-gRNA expression might be problematic as it leads to resistance allele formation and can interfere with the cleave-and-rescue mechanism by cleaving alleles from the wildtype parent. As our gene drive eliminates resistance alleles, embryonic Cas-gRNA expression may not inhibit spread, depending on the rate. Additionally, if the embryonic Cas-gRNA expression turns out to be more common in grey squirrel or other species, the cleave-and-rescue part of the gene drive can be harnessed with a double rescue mechanism to overcome this issue, as reported by Champer et al.24.
Third, we did not take other types of resistance alleles into account such as mutations rendering the CRISPR-Cas non-functional. As this is a universal assumption in gene drive research, we will have to await multigenerational studies to see if this is problematic.
Fourth, HD-ClvR has not been tested in vivo, which is our next step. The two recent papers testing a gene drive similar to HD-ClvR for population modification have performed in vivo tests in Drosophila melanogaster which showed very efficient conversion rates41. Proof-of-concept testing of HD-ClvR would likely initially occur in D. melanogaster and mouse models before progressing to squirrel studies. Recent reports have shown that the VASA promoter for Cas expression in homing gene drives is not optimal and further investigation to identify a meiosis-specific germline promoter is needed15. Furthermore, the integration of many daisies in a squirrel genome will be a molecular challenge and is a feat which has not yet been reported on in any species. This task could be achieved using either a random integration strategy, such as lentiviruses46 or a targeted integration strategy that exploits neutral repetitive sequences in the genome as target sites32. Also, non-model species might be difficult to genetically engineer, although grey squirrel embryology will likely follow the extensive knowledge on rodent and farmed animal embryology, and similar reagents and equipment could be used. An important consideration when engineering gene drive is that the modified animals maintain enough wild vigour to survive and breed in a wild population. Promising technologies for generating gene drive harbouring mammals with as little intervention as possible include in situ delivery of CRISPR reagents to the oviduct47.
Fifth, for our spatial modelling, we assumed that an estimation of population size could be made every year, although there is a significant amount of room for error in this estimate. Additionally, for some of our placement schemes, we assumed an accurate estimate of population location. As the random placement in groups scheme turned out most effective, this is not a problem so much as further potential for improvement. Another direction for future spatial work is the modelling of real landscapes, which are more complex than what we modelled in this study48. In complex landscapes, it might be that gene drive spread is slower or even regionally confined in some situations. Additionally, there might be spatial dynamics to gene drives in general such as ’chasing’, which is the perpetual escaping and chasing of wildtype and gene drive animals34. Further efforts are necessary to create a more realistic spatial model before we can consider using a gene drive.
A final consideration is that the ecological services the grey squirrel and other invasive species provide are largely unchartered. Ecologists need to investigate the ecological services that an invasive species performs and how an abrupt suppression of this invasive population might impact the ecosystem as a whole. We need to consider other restorative measures such as reintroducing native species to fragmented habitats, amongst other ecological interventions49. From a regulatory perspective, there is no tested legislative framework for the release of gene drive organisms; and with regard to our test animal it is currently illegal to breed grey squirrels in the UK. Developing these legislative frameworks alongside gene drive research is important. More importantly, the UK needs to continue to broaden public engagement and see whether the public is receptive to the deployment of gene drive technology in parallel to a financial overview of how much it would cost to apply gene drives reflecting our predicted need for supplementation.
Summary
HD-ClvR offers an efficient, self-limiting, and controllable gene drive strategy. We show that in the spatial model, complete population suppression is achieved approximately 5 years later than in the randomly mating population model. We then explored how the placement of supplemented animals could impact population suppression. Our results show that spatial dynamics of supplementation placement are not prohibitive to the spread of the gene drive, but that in fact, with an optimised strategy, spread at a rate equal to randomly mating population can be achieved. In our models, we have shown that grey squirrels have a spatial life history which facilitates the spread of a gene drive. Therefore, gene drives could be a valuable tool in the conservation toolbox. More