Ecology

1.
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Boivin, N. L. et al. Ecological consequences of human niche construction: examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 6388–6396 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

3.
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Hagen, M. et al. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. In Advances in Ecological Research Vol. 46 (eds Jacob, U. & Woodward, G.) 89–210 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2012).
Google Scholar 

5.
Gallego-Zamorano, J. et al. Combined effects of land use and hunting on distributions of tropical mammals. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1271–1280 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 439–447 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Estrada, A., Raboy, B. E. & Oliveira, L. C. Agroecosystems and primate conservation in the tropics: a review. Am. J. Primatol. 74, 696–711 (2012).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Bhagwat, S. A., Willis, K. J., Birks, H. J. B. & Whittaker, R. J. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 261–267 (2008).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Galán-Acedo, C. et al. The conservation value of human-modified landscapes for the world’s primates. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–8 (2019).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

10.
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. et al. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1404–1420 (2020).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Kshettry, A., Vaidyanathan, S., Sukumar, R. & Athreya, V. Looking beyond protected areas: identifying conservation compatible landscapes in agro-forest mosaics in north-eastern India. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 22, e00905 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Osborn, F. V. & Hill, C. M. Techiques to reduce crop loss: human and technical dimensions in Africa. In People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-existence? 72–85 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).

13.
McLennan, M. R. & Asiimwe, C. Cars kill chimpanzees: case report of a wild chimpanzee killed on a road at Bulindi, Uganda. Primates J. Primatol. 57, 377–388 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Chapman, C. A. et al. Do food availability, parasitism, and stress have synergistic effects on red colobus populations living in forest fragments?. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131, 525–534 (2006).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Goldberg, T. L., Gillespie, T. R., Rwego, I. B., Estoff, E. L. & Chapman, C. A. Forest fragmentation as cause of bacterial transmission among nonhuman primates, humans, and livestock, Uganda. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 14, 1375–1382 (2008).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
McLennan, M. R., Hyeroba, D., Asiimwe, C., Reynolds, V. & Wallis, J. Chimpanzees in mantraps: lethal crop protection and conservation in Uganda. Oryx 46, 598–603 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Kalema-Zikusoka, G., Rubanga, S., Mutahunga, B. & Sadler, R. Prevention of Cryptosporidium and GIARDIA at the human/gorilla/livestock interface. Front. Public Health 6, (2018).

18.
Kenney, J., Allendorf, F. W., McDougal, C. & Smith, J. L. D. How much gene flow is needed to avoid inbreeding depression in wild tiger populations?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20133337 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Willems, E. P. & Hill, R. A. Predator-specific landscapes of fear and resource distribution: effects on spatial range use. Ecology 90, 546–555 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Coleman, B. T. & Hill, R. A. Living in a landscape of fear: the impact of predation, resource availability and habitat structure on primate range use. Anim. Behav. 88, 165–173 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Palmer, M. S., Fieberg, J., Swanson, A., Kosmala, M. & Packer, C. A ‘dynamic’ landscape of fear: prey responses to spatiotemporal variations in predation risk across the lunar cycle. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1364–1373 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22.
Laundré, J. W., Hernandez, L. & Ripple, W. J. The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol. J. 3, (2010).

23.
Theuerkauf, J. & Rouys, S. Habitat selection by ungulates in relation to predation risk by wolves and humans in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 1325–1332 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Ciuti, S. et al. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7, e50611 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Nowak, K., Wimberger, K., Richards, S. A., Hill, R. A. & le Roux, A. Samango monkeys (Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus) manage risk in a highly seasonal, human-modified landscape in Amathole Mountains, South Africa. Int. J. Primatol. 38, 194–206 (2017).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Zanette, L. Y. & Wilmers, C. C. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1578–1586 (2019).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Carter, N. H., Shrestha, B. K., Karki, J. B., Pradhan, N. M. B. & Liu, J. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 15360–15365 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Carter, N. H., Jasny, M., Gurung, B. & Liu, J. Impacts of people and tigers on leopard spatiotemporal activity patterns in a global biodiversity hotspot. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3, 149–162 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Lamb, C. T. et al. The ecology of human–carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 17876–17883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922097117 (2020).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30.
Bryson-Morrison, N., Tzanopoulos, J., Matsuzawa, T. & Humle, T. Activity and habitat use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in the anthropogenic landscape of Bossou, Guinea, West Africa. Int. J. Primatol. 38, 282–302 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
de Almeida-Rocha, J. M., Peres, C. A. & Oliveira, L. C. Primate responses to anthropogenic habitat disturbance: a pantropical meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 215, 30–38 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Galán‐Acedo, C., Arroyo‐Rodríguez, V., Cudney‐Valenzuela, S. J. & Fahrig, L. A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure. Biol. Rev. 94, 1605–1618 (2019).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Garriga, R. M. et al. Factors influencing wild chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) relative abundance in an agriculture-swamp matrix outside protected areas. PLoS ONE 14, e0215545 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Hockings, K. J., Anderson, J. R. & Matsuzawa, T. Road crossing in chimpanzees: a risky business. Curr. Biol. 16, R668–R670 (2006).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Estrada, A. et al. Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: why primates matter. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600946 (2017).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group. Regional action plan for the conservation of western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) 2020–2030. (2020).

37.
Kalan, A. K. et al. Environmental variability supports chimpanzee behavioural diversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 4451 (2020).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Hockings, K. J., Anderson, J. R. & Matsuzawa, T. Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat. Anim. Behav. 83, 801–810 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
McLennan, M. R. & Hockings, K. J. Wild chimpanzees show group differences in selection of agricultural crops. Sci. Rep. 4, 5956 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Kalan, A. K. et al. Novelty response of wild African apes to camera traps. Curr. Biol.  29, 1211–1217.e3 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Hockings, K. J. & McLennan, M. R. From forest to farm: systematic review of cultivar feeding by chimpanzees—management implications for wildlife in anthropogenic landscapes. PLoS ONE 7, e33391 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Hockings, K. J., Anderson, J. R. & Matsuzawa, T. Use of wild and cultivated foods by chimpanzees at Bossou, Republic of Guinea: feeding dynamics in a human-influenced environment. Am. J. Primatol. 71, 636–646 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
McLennan, M. R. Diet and feeding ecology of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Bulindi, Uganda: foraging strategies at the forest–farm interface. Int. J. Primatol. 34, 585–614 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
McLennan, M. R. & Ganzhorn, J. U. Nutritional characteristics of wild and cultivated foods for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Primatol. 38, 122–150 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Matthews, A. & Matthews, A. Survey of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in Southwestern Cameroon. Primates 45, 15–24 (2004).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46.
Morgan, D. et al. African apes coexisting with logging: comparing chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) and gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) resource needs and responses to forestry activities. Biol. Conserv. 218, 277–286 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Krief, S. et al. Wild chimpanzees on the edge: nocturnal activities in croplands. PLoS ONE 9, e109925 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

48.
Riley, E. P. & Priston, N. E. C. Macaques in farms and folklore: exploring the human–nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol. 72, 848–854 (2010).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Parathian, H. E., McLennan, M. R., Hill, C. M., Frazão-Moreira, A. & Hockings, K. J. Breaking through disciplinary barriers: human–wildlife interactions and multispecies ethnography. Int. J. Primatol. 39, 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-018-0027-9 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Fuentes, A. & Gamerl, S. Disproportionate participation by age/sex classes in aggressive interactions between long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and human tourists at Padangtegal monkey forest, Bali, Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol. 66, 197–204 (2005).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
McLennan, M. R. & Hockings, K. J. The aggressive apes? Causes and contexts of great ape attacks on local persons. In Problematic Wildlife (ed. Angelici, F. M.) 373–394 (Springer, Cham, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22246-2_18.

52.
Hill, C. M. & Webber, A. D. Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human–wildlife conflict scenarios. Am. J. Primatol. 72, 919–924 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
McLennan, M. R. & Hill, C. M. Troublesome neighbours: changing attitudes towards chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a human-dominated landscape in Uganda. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 219–227 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Mito, Y. & Sprague, D. S. The Japanese and Japanese monkeys: dissonant neighbors seeking accommodation in a shared habitat. In The Macaque Connection: Cooperation and Conflict Between Humans and Macaques (eds Radhakrishna, S. et al.) 33–51 (Springer, Berlin, 2013).
Google Scholar 

55.
Morzillo, A., de Beurs, K. & Martin-Mikle, C. A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems. Ecol. Soc. 19, (2014).

56.
Martin, J. et al. Coping with human disturbance: spatial and temporal tactics of the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Can. J. Zool. 88, 875–883 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Hockings, K. J. et al. Chimpanzees share forbidden fruit. PLoS ONE 2, e886 (2007).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Duvall, C. S. Human settlement ecology and chimpanzee habitat selection in Mali. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 699 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Hockings, K. J., Parathian, H., Bessa, J. & Frazão-Moreira, A. Extensive overlap in the selection of wild fruits by chimpanzees and humans: implications for the management of complex social-ecological systems. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, (2020).

60.
Nowak, K., Hill, R. A., Wimberger, K. & le Roux, A. Risk-taking in samango monkeys in relation to humans at two sites in South Africa. In Ethnoprimatology: Primate Conservation in the 21st Century (ed. Waller, M. T.) 301–314 (Springer, Berlin, 2016).
Google Scholar 

61.
INE. Recenseamento Geral da População e Habitação: População por Região, Sector e Localidades por Sexo Censo 2009. 160 (2009).

62.
Heinicke, S. et al. Characteristics of positive deviants in western chimpanzee populations. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, (2019).

63.
Bersacola, E. Zooming in on Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Primate Community Responses in a Shared Agroforest Landscape in Guinea-Bissau (Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, 2020).
Google Scholar 

64.
Bessa, J., Sousa, C. & Hockings, K. J. Feeding ecology of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) inhabiting a forest-mangrove-savanna-agricultural matrix at Caiquene-Cadique, Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. Am. J. Primatol. 77, 651–665 (2015).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Hockings, K. J. et al. Leprosy in wild chimpanzees. bioRxiv 2020.11.10.374371 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.10.374371.

66.
Hockings, K. J. & Sousa, C. Differential utilization of cashew—a low-conflict crop—by sympatric humans and chimpanzees. Oryx 46, 375–381 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Calenge, C. The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Schmid, F. & Schmidt, A. Nonparametric estimation of the coefficient of overlapping—theory and empirical application. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 50, 1583–1596 (2006).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Ridout, M. S. & Linkie, M. Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 14, 322–337 (2009).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Hijmans, R. J. Raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. (2020).

71.
Khorozyan, I., Stanton, D., Mohammed, M., Al-Rail, W. & Pittet, M. Patterns of co-existence between humans and mammals in Yemen: some species thrive while others are nearly extinct. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 1995–2013 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Sousa, J., Barata, A. V., Sousa, C., Casanova, C. C. N. & Vicente, L. Chimpanzee oil-palm use in southern Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. Am. J. Primatol. 73, 485–497 (2011).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73.
Tutin, C. E. G. et al. Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lope Reserve, Gabon [and discussion]. Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 334, 179–186 (1991).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Yamakoshi, G. Dietary responses to fruit scarcity of wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: possible implications for ecological importance of tool use. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 106, 283–295 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

75.
Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D. & Wrangham, R. W. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) modify grouping and vocal behaviour in response to location-specific risk. Behaviour 144, 1621–1653 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
Lindshield, S., Danielson, B. J., Rothman, J. M. & Pruetz, J. D. Feeding in fear? How adult male western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) adjust to predation and savanna habitat pressures. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 163, 480–496 (2017).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

77.
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Sousa, J., Vicente, L., Gippoliti, S., Casanova, C. & Sousa, C. Local knowledge and perceptions of chimpanzees in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. Am. J. Primatol. 76, 122–134 (2014).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

79.
Sharma, K. et al. Conservation and people: towards an ethical code of conduct for the use of camera traps in wildlife research. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1, e12033 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Sun, C. et al. Tree phenology in a tropical montane forest in Rwanda. Biotropica 28, 668–681 (1996).
Article  Google Scholar 

81.
McLennan, M. R. Chimpanzee Ecology and Interactions with People in an Unprotected Human-Dominated Landscape at Bulindi, Western Uganda (Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, 2010).
Google Scholar 

82.
Jenks, K. E. et al. Using relative abundance indices from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses—an example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 4, 113–131 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

83.
O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F. & Wibisono, H. T. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim. Conserv. Forum 6, 131–139 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

84.
Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 71, 319–392 (2009).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Blangiardo, M., Cameletti, M., Baio, G. & Rue, H. Spatial and spatio-temporal models with R-INLA. Spat. Spatio-Temporal Epidemiol. 4, 33–49 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Cameletti, M., Lindgren, F., Simpson, D. & Rue, H. Spatio-temporal modeling of particulate matter concentration through the SPDE approach. AStA Adv. Stat. Anal. 97, 109–131 (2013).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Lindgren, F., Rue, H. & Lindström, J. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73, 423–498 (2011).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

88.
Bakka, H. et al. Spatial modeling with R-INLA: a review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 10, e1443 (2018).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Noor, A. M. et al. The changing risk of Plasmodium falciparum malaria infection in Africa: 2000–10: a spatial and temporal analysis of transmission intensity. Lancet 383, 1739–1747 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Rue, H. et al. Bayesian computing with INLA: a review. Annu. Rev. Stat. Its Appl. 4, 395–421 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Cressie, N. & Wikle, C. K. Statistics for Spatio-Temporal Data (Wiley, Hoboken, 2015).
Google Scholar 

92.
Lindgren, F. & Rue, H. Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. J. Stat. Softw. 63, 1–25 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

93.
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P. & Linde, A. V. D. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 64, 583–639 (2002).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

94.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

1.
Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D. & Conroy, M. J. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations (Academic Press, New York, 2002).
Google Scholar 
2.
Lindenmayer, D. B. & Likens, G. E. Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 482–486 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
MacKenzie, D. I. et al. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83, 2248–2255 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Buckland, S. T., Rexstad, E. A., Marques, T. A. & Oedekoven, C. S. Distance Sampling: Methods and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 2015).
Google Scholar 

5.
Royle, J. A. N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60, 108–115 (2004).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Kéry, M. & Royle, J. A. Applied Hierarchical Modelling in Ecology (Academic Press, New York, 2016).
Google Scholar 

7.
Ariefiandy, A. et al. Evaluation of three field monitoring-density estimation protocols and their relevance to Komodo dragon conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 2473–2490 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Romano, A. et al. Conservation of salamanders in managed forests: methods and costs of monitoring abundance and habitat selection. For. Ecol. Manag. 400, 12–18 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Chandler, R. B., Royle, J. A. & King, D. I. Inference about density and temporary emigration in unmarked populations. Ecology 92, 1429–1435 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Dail, D. & Madsen, L. Models for estimating abundance from repeated counts of an open metapopulation. Biometrics 67, 577–587 (2011).
MathSciNet  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Augustynczik, L. D. et al. Diversification of forest management regimes secures tree microhabitats and bird abundance under climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 2717–2730 (2019).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Peterman, W. E. & Semlitsch, R. D. Fine-scale habitat associations of a terrestrial salamander: the role of environmental gradients and implications for population dynamics. PLoS ONE 8, e62184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062184 (2013).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13.
Balestrieri, R. et al. A guild-based approach to assessing the influence of beech forest structure on bird communities. For. Ecol. Manage. 356, 216–223 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Barker, R. J., Schofield, M. R., Link, W. A. & Sauer, J. R. On the reliability of N-mixture models for count data. Biometrics 74, 369–377 (2017).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Link, W. A., Schofield, M. R., Barker, R. J. & Sauer, J. R. On the robustness of N-mixture models. Ecology 99, 1547–1551 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Kéry, M. Identifiability in N-mixture models: a large-scale screening test with bird data. Ecology 99, 281–288 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Priol, P. M. Using dynamic N-mixture models to test cavity limitation on northern flying squirrel demographic parameters using experimental nest box supplementation. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2165–2177 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Basile, M. et al. Measuring bird abundance—a comparison of methodologies between capture/recapture and audio-visual surveys. Avocetta 40, 55–61 (2016).
Google Scholar 

19.
Ficetola, G. F. et al. N-mixture models reliably estimate the abundance of small vertebrates. Sci. Rep. 8, 10357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28432-8 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Costa, A., Oneto, F. & Salvidio, S. Time-for-space substitution in N-mixture modeling and population monitoring. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 737–741 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Yamaura, Y. et al. Modelling community dynamics based on species-level abundance models from detection/nondetection data. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 67–75 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Dennis, E. B., Morgan, B. J. & Ridout, M. S. Computational aspects of N-mixture models. Biometrics 71, 237–246 (2015).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Duarte, A., Adams, M. J. & Peterson, J. T. Fitting N-mixture models to count data with unmodeled heterogeneity: bias, diagnostics, and alternative approaches. Ecol. Model. 374, 51–59 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Costa, A., Romano, A. & Salvidio, S. Reliability of multinomial N-mixture models for estimating abundance of small terrestrial vertebrates. Biodiv. Conserv. 29, 2951–2965 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Ficetola, G. F., Romano, A., Salvidio, S. & Sindaco, R. Optimizing monitoring schemes to detect trends in abundance over broad scales. Anim. Conserv. 21, 221–231 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Fiske, I. & Chandler, R. unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J. Stat. Soft. 43, 1–23 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Kéry, M., Royle, J.A., & Meredith, M. Package AHMbook version 0.1.4 (2016).

28.
MacKenzie, D. I. & Bailey, L. L. Assessing the fit of site-occupancy models. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 9, 300–318 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Knape, J. et al. Sensitivity of binomial N-mixture models to overdispersion: the importance of assessing model fit. Met. Ecol. Evol. 9, 2102–2114 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Mazerolle, M. J. AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.1-1 (2017).

31.
McIntyre, A. P. Empirical and simulation evaluations of an abundance estimator using unmarked individuals of cryptic forest-dwelling taxa. For. Ecol. Manage. 286, 129–136 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Veech, J. A., Ott, J. R. & Troy, J. R. Intrinsic heterogeneity in detection probability and its effect on N-mixture models. Met. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1019–1028 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Gervasi, V. A preliminary estimate of the apennine brown bear population size based on hair-snag sampling and multiple data source mark–recapture huggins models. Ursus 19, 105–121 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Welsh, H. N. & Conroy, M. J. A Case for using plethodontid salamanders for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of North American forests. Conserv. Biol. 15, 558–569 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Warton, D. I., Stoklosa, J., Guillera-Arroita, G., MacKenzie, D. I. & Welsh, A. H. Graphical diagnostics for occupancy models with imperfect detection. Met. Ecol. Evol. 8, 408–419 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Lunghi, E. Environmental suitability models predict population density, performance and body condition for microendemic salamanders. Sci. Rep. 8, 7527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25704-1 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
Kopler, I. & Malkinson, D. Differential response of mammals to agricultural fences: the effects of species vagility and body size. Basic Appl. Ecol. 33, 79–88 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Hoffmann, B. D. & Broadhurst, L. M. The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia. NeoBiota 31, 1–18 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Dueñas, M. A. et al. The role played by invasive species in interactions with endangered and threatened species in the United States: a systematic review. Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 3171–3183 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 81, 163–182 (2006).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Ricciardi, A. & MacIsaac, H. J. Impacts of biological invasions on freshwater ecosystems. Fifty Years Invas. Ecol. Legacy Charles Elton https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444329988.ch16 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Moorhouse, T. P. & Macdonald, D. W. Are invasives worse in freshwater than terrestrial ecosystems?. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2, 1–8 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Rosewarne, P. J. et al. Feeding behaviour, predatory functional responses and trophic interactions of the invasive Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) and signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus). Freshw. Biol. 61, 426–443 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Dick, J. T. A. et al. Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biol. Invasions 16, 735–753 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Dick, J. T. A. et al. Invader Relative Impact Potential: a new metric to understand and predict the ecological impacts of existing, emerging and future invasive alien species. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1259–1267 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Cuthbert, R. N., Dickey, J. W. E., Coughlan, N. E., Joyce, P. W. S. & Dick, J. T. A. The Functional Response Ratio (FRR): advancing comparative metrics for predicting the ecological impacts of invasive alien species. Biol. Invasions 21, 2543–2547 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Devin, S., Piscart, C., Beisel, J. N. & Moreteau, J. C. Life History Traits of the Invader Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in the Moselle River. France. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 89, 21–34 (2004).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Nentwig, W., Bacher, S., Kumschick, S., Pyšek, P. & Vilà, M. More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe. Biol. Invasions 20, 1611–1621 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D. C. Is Great Britain heading for a Ponto-Caspian invasional meltdown?. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 41–49 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Kramer, A. M. et al. Suitability of Laurentian Great Lakes for invasive species based on global species distribution models and local habitat. Ecosphere 8, e01883 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Van Riel, M. C. et al. Trophic relationships in the Rhine food web during invasion and after establishment of the Ponto-Caspian invader Dikerogammarus villosus. Hydrobiologia 565, 39–58 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
MacNeil, C., Boets, P., Lock, K. & Goethals, P. L. M. Potential effects of the invasive ‘killer shrimp’ (Dikerogammarus villosus) on macroinvertebrate assemblages and biomonitoring indices. Freshw. Biol. 58, 171–182 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Dodd, J. A. et al. Predicting the ecological impacts of a new freshwater invader: Functional responses and prey selectivity of the ‘killer shrimp’, Dikerogammarus villosus, compared to the native Gammarus pulex. Freshw. Biol. 59, 337–352 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Bruijs, M. C. M., Kelleher, B., Van Der Velde, G. & De Vaate, A. B. Oxygen consumption, temperature and salinity tolerance of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus: Indicators of further dispersal via ballast water transport. Arch. fur Hydrobiol. 152, 633–646 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Pöckl, M. Strategies of a successful new invader in European fresh waters: Fecundity and reproductive potential of the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus in the Austrian Danube, compared with the indigenous Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli. Freshw. Biol. 52, 50–63 (2007).

19.
Rolla, M., Consuegra, S. & de Leaniz, C. G. Predator recognition and anti-predatory behaviour in a recent aquatic invader, the killer shrimp (Dikerogammarus villosus). Aquat. Invasions 15, 482–496 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Kobak, J., Rachalewski, M. & Bącela-Spychalska, K. Conquerors or exiles? Impact of interference competition among invasive Ponto-Caspian gammarideans on their dispersal rates. Biol. Invasions 18, 1953–1965 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Rewicz, T., Grabowski, M., MacNeil, C. & Bącela-Spychalska, K. The profile of a ‘perfect’ invader – the case of killer shrimp. Dikerogammarus villosus. Aquat. Invasions 9, 267–288 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Hellmann, C. et al. The trophic function of Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) in invaded rivers: a case study in the Elbe and Rhine. Aquat. Invasions 10, 385–397 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Platvoet, D., Van Der Velde, G., Dick, J. T. A. & Li, S. Flexible omnivory in Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) (Amphipoda) – Amphipod Pilot Species Project (AMPIS) Report 5. Crustaceana 82, 703–720 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Taylor, N. G. & Dunn, A. M. Size matters: predation of fish eggs and larvae by native and invasive amphipods. Biol. Invasions 19, 89–107 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Alford, R. A. Ecology: Bleak future for amphibians. Nature 480, 461–462 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Alroy, J. Current extinction rates of reptiles and amphibians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508681112 (2015).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
González-del-Pliego, P. et al. Phylogenetic and Trait-Based Prediction of Extinction Risk for Data-Deficient Amphibians. Curr. Biol. 29, 1557–1563.e3 (2019)

28.
Fisher, M. C. & Garner, T. W. J. Chytrid fungi and global amphibian declines. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 332–343 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Hayes, T. B., Falso, P., Gallipeau, S. & Stice, M. The cause of global amphibian declines: a developmental endocrinologist’s perspective. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 921–933 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Bellard, C., Genovesi, P. & Jeschke, J. M. Global patterns in threats to vertebrates by biological invasions. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2454 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (2020).

32.
Nunes, A. L. et al. A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of alien species on native amphibians. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2528 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Ilhéu, M., Bernardo, J. & Fernandes, S. Biological invaders in inland waters: Profiles, distribution, and threats. Biol. invaders Inl. waters profiles, Distrib. Threat. 2, 543–558 (2007).

34.
Kats, L. B. & Ferrer, R. P. Alien predators and amphibian declines: Review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers. Distrib. 9, 99–110 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Beebee, T. J. C. & Griffiths, R. A. The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology?. Biol. Conserv. 125, 271–285 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
National Biodiversity Network. NBN Atlas. Nbn (2017).

37.
Uehlinger, U., Wantzen, K. M., Leuven, R. S. E. W. & Arndt, H. The Rhine River Basin. in Rivers of Europe 199–245 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-369449-2.00006-0

38.
Koester, M., Bayer, B. & Gergs, R. Is Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea, Gammaridae) a ‘killer shrimp’ in the River Rhine system?. Hydrobiologia 768, 299–313 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Gergs, R. & Rothhaupt, K. O. Invasive species as driving factors for the structure of benthic communities in Lake Constance. Germany. Hydrobiologia 746, 245–254 (2014).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Haubrock, P. J. et al. Shared histories of co-evolution may affect trophic interactions in a freshwater community dominated by alien species. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7, 355 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Marguillier, S. Stable isotope ratios and food web structure of aquatic ecosystems. (1998).

42.
Dick, J. T. A. & Platvoet, D. Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus eliminates both native and exotic species. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 267, 977–983 (2000).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Bollache, L., Dick, J. T., Farnsworth, K. D. & Montgomery, W. I. Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biol Lett 4, 166–169 (2008).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
MacNeil, C. et al. The Ponto-Caspian ‘killer shrimp’, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), invades the British Isles. Aquat. Invasions 5, 441–445 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Worischka, S. et al. Food consumption of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus in field mesocosms and its effects on leaf decomposition and periphyton. Aquat. Invasions 13, 261–275 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Jourdan, J. et al. Pronounced species turnover, but no functional equivalence in leaf consumption of invasive amphipods in the river Rhine. Biol. Invasions 18, 763–774 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Fries, G. & Der Tesch, F. W. Einfluss der Massenvorkommens von Gammarus tigrinus Sexton auf Fische und niedere Tierwelt in der Weser. Arch. für Fischer Wiss. 16, 133–150 (1965).
Google Scholar 

48.
Hudgens, B. & Harbert, M. Amphipod Predation on Northern Red-Legged Frog (Rana Aurora) Embryos. Northwest. Nat. 100, 126 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Räsänen, K., Pahkala, M., Laurila, A. & Merilä, J. Does Jelly Envelope Protect the Common Frog Rana Temporaria Embryos From Uv-B Radiation?. Herpetologica 59, 293–300 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Ward, D. & Sexton, O. J. Anti-Predator Role of Salamander Egg Membranes. Copeia 1981, 724 (1981).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Henrikson, B.-I. Predation on amphibian eggs and tadpoles by common predators in acidified lakes. Ecography (Cop.) 13, 201–206 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Duellman, W. E. (William E. & Trueb, L. Biology of amphibians. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).

53.
Latham, D., Jones, E. & Fasham, M. Amphibians. in Handbook of Biodiversity Methods: Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring (eds. Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M. & Shaw, P.) (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

54.
Tinsley, R. C., Stott, L. C., Viney, M. E., Mable, B. K. & Tinsley, M. C. Extinction of an introduced warm-climate alien species, Xenopus laevis, by extreme weather events. Biol. Invasions 17, 3183–3195 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Rall, B. C. et al. Universal temperature and body-mass scaling of feeding rates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2923–2934 (2012).

56.
Glazier, D. S. A unifying explanation for diverse metabolic scaling in animals and plants. Biol. Rev. 85, 111–138 (2010).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Mayer, G., Waloszek, D., Maier, G. & Maas, A. Mouthparts of the Ponto-Caspian Invader Dikerogammarus Villosus (Amphipoda: Pontogammaridae). J. Crustac. Biol. 28, 1–15 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Vucic-Pestic, O., Rall, B. C., Kalinkat, G. & Brose, U. Allometric functional response model: Body masses constrain interaction strengths. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 249–256 (2010).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

60.
Maazouzi, C., Piscart, C., Legier, F. & Hervant, F. Ecophysiological responses to temperature of the ‘killer shrimp’ Dikerogammarus villosus: Is the invader really stronger than the native Gammarus pulex? Comp. Biochem. Physiol. – A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 159, 268–274 (2011).

61.
Álvarez, D. & Nicieza, A. G. Differential success of prey escaping predators: tadpole vulnerability or predator selection??. Copeia 2009, 453–457 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Ward, A. & Webster, M. Sociality. in Sociality: The Behaviour of Group-Living Animals 1–8 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28585-6_1

63.
Price, P. W., Denno, R. F., Eubanks, M. D., Finke, D. L. & Kaplan, I. Insect Ecology: Behaviour, Populations and Communities. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

64.
Juliano, S. A. Nonlinear Curve Fitting: Predation and Functional Response Curves. in Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments (eds. Cheiner, S. M. & Gurven, J.) 178–196 (Chapman and Hall, 2001).

65.
Barrios-O’Neill, D. et al. Fortune favours the bold: A higher predator reduces the impact of a native but not an invasive intermediate predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 693–701 (2014).

66.
Sentis, A. & Boukal, D. S. On the use of functional responses to quantify emergent multiple predator effects. Sci. Rep. 8, (2018).

67.
Médoc, V., Albert, H. & Spataro, T. Functional response comparisons among freshwater amphipods: ratio-dependence and higher predation for Gammarus pulex compared to the non-natives Dikerogammarus villosus and Echinogammarus berilloni. Biol. Invasions 17, 3625–3637 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Laverty, C., Nentwig, W., Dick, J. & Lucy, F. Alien aquatics in Europe: assessing the relative environmental and socio-economic impacts of invasive aquatic macroinvertebrates and other taxa. Manag. Biol. Invasions 6, 341–350 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

69.
Dickey, J. W. E. et al. On the RIP: using Relative Impact Potential to assess the ecological impacts of invasive alien species. NeoBiota 55, 27–60 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Gallardo, B., Errea, M. P. & Aldridge, D. C. Application of bioclimatic models coupled with network analysis for risk assessment of the killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus. Great Britain. Biol. Invasions 14, 1265–1278 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D. C. Priority setting for invasive species management by the water industry. Water Res. 178, 115771 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

72.
Gosner, K. L. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos larvae. Herpetodologists’ Leag. 16, 183–190 (1960).
Google Scholar 

73.
Currie, S. P., Combes, D., Scott, N. W., Simmers, J. & Sillar, K. T. A behaviorally related developmental switch in nitrergic modulation of locomotor rhythmogenesis in larval Xenopus tadpoles. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 1446–1457 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Müller, J. C., Schramm, S. & Seitz, A. Genetic and morphological differentiation of Dikerogammarus invaders and their invasion history in Central Europe. Freshw. Biol. 47, 2039–2048 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Blackman, R. C. et al. Detection of a new non-native freshwater species by DNA metabarcoding of environmental samples – first record of gammarus fossarum in the UK. Aquat. Invasions 12, 177–189 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

76.
van der Velde, G. et al. Environmental and morphological factors influencing predatory behaviour by invasive non-indigenous gammaridean species. Biol. Invasions 11, 2043–2054 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Dick, J. T. A. et al. Parasitism may enhance rather than reduce the predatory impact of an invader. Biol. Lett. 6, 636–638 (2010).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Iltis, C., Spataro, T., Wattier, R. & Médoc, V. Parasitism may alter functional response comparisons: a case study on the killer shrimp Dikerogammarus villosus and two non-invasive gammarids. Biol. Invasions 20, (2018).

79.
Welton, J. S. Life-history and production of the amphipod Gammarus pulex in a Dorset chalk stream. Freshw. Biol. 9, 263–275 (1979).
Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Oertli, B. Leaf litter processing and energy flow through macroinvertebrates in a woodland pond (Switzerland). Oecologia 96, 466–477 (1993).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

81.
Lods-Crozet, B. & Reymond, O. Bathymetric expansion of an invasive gammarid (Dikerogammarus villosus, Crustacea, Amphipoda) in Lake Léman. J. Limnol. 65, 141–144 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Harkness, J. B. The relationships between stressors, macroinvertebrate community structure and leaf processing in stream ecosystems. (University of Sheffield, 2008).

83.
Leberfinger, K. & Herrmann, J. Secondary production of invertebrate shredders in open-canopy, intermittent streams on the island of land, southeastern Sweden. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 29, 934–944 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

84.
Lods-Crozet, B. Long-term biomonitoring of invertebrate neozoans in Lake Geneva. Arch. des Sci. 67, 101–108 (2014).
Google Scholar 

85.
Johns, T., Smith, D. C., Homann, S. & England, J. A. Time-series analysis of a native and a non-native amphipod shrimp in two English rivers. BioInvasions Rec. 7, 101–110 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Clinton, K. E., Mathers, K. L., Constable, D., Gerrard, C. & Wood, P. J. Substrate preferences of coexisting invasive amphipods, Dikerogammarus villosus and Dikerogammarus haemobaphes, under field and laboratory conditions. Biol. Invasions 20, 2187–2196 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Haas, G., Brunke, M. & Streit, B. Fast Turnover in Dominance of Exotic Species in the Rhine River Determines Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function: An Affair Between Amphipods and Mussels. in Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management 426–432 (2002). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9956-6_42

88.
Krisp, H. & Maier, G. Consumption of macroinvertebrates by invasive and native gammarids: A comparison. J. Limnol. 64, 55–59 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

89.
Mulattieri, P. Etude de l’impact des aménagements riverains sur les macroinvertébrés benthiques des rives genevoises du Léman. (Université de Genève, 2006).

90.
Platvoet, D., Dick, J. T. A., MacNeil, C., van Riel, M. C. & van der Velde, G. Invader-invader interactions in relation to environmental heterogeneity leads to zonation of two invasive amphipods, dikerogammarus villosus (sowinsky) and gammarus tigrinus sexton: Amphipod pilot species project (ampis) report 6. Biol. Invasions 11, 2085–2093 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Tricarico, E. et al. The killer shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), is spreading in Italy. Aquat. Invasions 5, 211–214 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

92.
Muskó, I. B., Balogh, C., Tóth, Á. P., Varga, É. & Lakatos, G. Differential response of invasive malacostracan species to lake level fluctuations. Hydrobiologia 590, 65–74 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

93.
Hellmann, C., Schöll, F., Worischka, S., Becker, J. & Winkelmann, C. River-specific effects of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) on benthic communities. Biol. Invasions 19, 381–398 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

94.
GBIF.org. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Choice Reviews Online 41, 41–5289–41–5289 (2004).

95.
INaturalist.org. iNaturalist. (2020). Available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/. (Accessed: 16th October 2020)

96.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2018).

97.
Pritchard, D. W., Paterson, R. A., Bovy, H. C. & Barrios-O’Neill, D. frair: an R package for fitting and comparing consumer functional responses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1528–1534 (2017).

98.
Rogers, D. Random Search and Insect Population Models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 369 (1972).
Article  Google Scholar 

99.
Bolker, B. & R Core Team. bbmle: Tools for General Maximum Likelihood Estimation. R package version 1.0.20. (2017).

100.
Laverty, C. et al. Assessing the ecological impacts of invasive species based on their functional responses and abundances. Biol. Invasions 19, 1653–1665 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

101.
Cuthbert, R. N., Dick, J. T. A., Callaghan, A. & Dickey, J. W. E. Biological control agent selection under environmental change using functional responses, abundances and fecundities; the Relative Control Potential (RCP) metric. Biol. Control 121, 50–57 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

102.
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50, 346–363 (2008).
MathSciNet  PubMed  MATH  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

1.
Lafferty, K. D. et al. Parasites in food webs: The ultimate missing links. Ecol. Lett. 11, 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01174.x (2008).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Welicky, R. L., Demopoulos, A. W. J. & Sikkel, P. C. Host-dependent differences in resource use associated with Anilocra spp. parasitism in two coral reef fishes, as revealed by stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses. Mar. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12413 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Kuris, A. M. et al. Ecosystem energetic implications of parasite and free-living biomass in three estuaries. Nature 454, 515–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06970 (2008).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Dunne, J. A. et al. Parasites affect food web structure primarily through increased diversity and complexity. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001579 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Poulin, R. Parasite species richness in New Zealand fishes: A grossly underestimated component of biodiversity?. Divers. Distrib. 10, 31–37 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Justine, J.-L. Parasite biodiversity in a coral reef fish: Twelve species of monogeneans on the gills of the grouper Epinephelus maculatus (Perciformes: Serranidae) off New Caledonia, with a description of eight new species of Pseudorhabdosynochus (Monogenea: Diplectanidae). Syst. Parasitol. 66, 81 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Lafferty, K. D. & Kuris, A. M. Trophic strategies, animal diversity and body size. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 507–513 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Minagawa, M. & Wada, E. Stepwise enrichment of 15N along food chains: Further evidence and the relation between δ15N and animal age. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48, 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(84)90204-7 (1984).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Fry, B. Food web structure on Georges Bank from stable C, N, and S isotopic compositions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33, 1182–1190. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1988.33.5.1182 (1988).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Post, D. M. Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: Models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83, 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0703:usitet]2.0.co;2 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
McCutchan, J. H., Lewis, W. M. Jr., Kendall, C. & McGrath, C. C. Variation in trophic shift for stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. Oikos 102, 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12098.x (2003).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Caut, S., Angulo, E. & Courchamp, F. Variation in discrimination factors (Δ15N and Δ13C): The effect of diet isotopic values and applications for diet reconstruction. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01620.x (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Pinnegar, J. K., Campbell, N. & Polunin, N. V. C. Unusual stable isotope fractionation patterns observed for fish host–parasite trophic relationships. J. Fish Biol. 59, 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02355.x (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Thieltges, D. W., Goedknegt, M. A., O’Dwyer, K., Senior, A. M. & Kamiya, T. Parasites and stable isotopes: A comparative analysis of isotopic discrimination in parasitic trophic interactions. Oikos 128, 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06086 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Deudero, S., Pinnegar, J. K. & Polunin, N. V. C. Insights into fish host-parasite trophic relationships revealed by stable isotope analysis. Dis. Aquat. Org. 52, 77–86 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Power, M. & Klein, G. M. Fish host–cestode parasite stable isotope enrichment patterns in marine, estuarine and freshwater fishes from northern Canada. Isot. Environ. Health Stud. 40, 257–266 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Navarro, J. et al. Isotopic discrimination of stable isotopes of nitrogen (δ15N) and carbon (δ13C) in a host-specific holocephalan tapeworm. J. Helminthol. 88, 371–375 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Kamiya, E., Urabe, M. & Okuda, N. Does atypical 15N and 13C enrichment in parasites result from isotope ratio variation of host tissues they are infected?. Limnology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-019-00596-w (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Kanaya, G. et al. Application of stable isotopic analyses for fish host–parasite systems: An evaluation tool for parasite-mediated material flow in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. Ecol. 53, 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-019-09684-6 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Gilbert, B. M. et al. You are how you eat: Differences in trophic position of two parasite species infecting a single host according to stable isotopes. Parasitol. Res. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-020-06619-1 (2020).

21.
Demopoulos, A. W. & Sikkel, P. C. Enhanced understanding of ectoparasite–host trophic linkages on coral reefs through stable isotope analysis. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 4, 125–134 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Jenkins, W. G., Demopoulos, A. W., Nicholson, M. D. & Sikkel, P. C. Stable isotope dynamics of herbivorous reef fishes and their ectoparasites. Diversity 12, 429 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Jenkins, W. G., Demopoulos, A. W. J. & Sikkel, P. C. Host feeding ecology and trophic position significantly influence isotopic discrimination between a generalist ectoparasite and its hosts: Implications for parasite–host trophic studies. Food Webs 16, e00092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2018.e00092 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
International Helminth Genomes, C. Comparative genomics of the major parasitic worms. Nat. Genet. 51, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0262-1 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Tyagi, R., Rosa, B. A., Lewis, W. G. & Mitreva, M. Pan-phylum comparison of nematode metabolic potential. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0003788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003788 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Yohannes, E., Grimm, C., Rothhaupt, K.-O. & Behrmann-Godel, J. The effect of parasite infection on stable isotope turnover rates of δ15N, δ13C and δ34S in multiple tissues of Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis. PLoS ONE 12, e0169058. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169058 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Behrmann-Godel, J. & Yohannes, E. Multiple isotope analyses of the pike tapeworm Triaenophorus nodulosus reveal peculiarities in consumer–diet discrimination patterns. J. Helminthol. 89, 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X13000849 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Nachev, M. et al. Understanding trophic interactions in host-parasite associations using stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Parasites Vectors 10, 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2030-y (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Goedknegt, M. A. et al. Trophic relationship between the invasive parasitic copepod Mytilicola orientalis and its native blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) host. Parasitology 145, 814–821. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182017001779 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30.
Persson, M. E., Larsson, P. & Stenroth, P. Fractionation of δ15N and δ13C for Atlantic salmon and its intestinal cestode Eubothrium crassum. J. Fish Biol. 71, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01500.x (2007).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
McMahon, K. W. & McCarthy, M. D. Embracing variability in amino acid δ15N fractionation: Mechanisms, implications, and applications for trophic ecology. Ecosphere 7, e01511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1511 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Brouwers, J. F., Smeenk, I. M., van Golde, L. M. & Tielens, A. G. The incorporation, modification and turnover of fatty acids in adult Schistosoma mansoni. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 88, 175–185 (1997).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Briand, M. J., Bonnet, X., Goiran, C., Guillou, G. & Letourneur, Y. Major sources of organic matter in a complex coral reef lagoon: Identification from isotopic signatures (δ13C and δ15N). PLoS ONE 10, e0131555–e0131555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131555 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

34.
Greenwood, N. D. W., Sweeting, C. J. & Polunin, N. V. C. Elucidating the trophodynamics of four coral reef fishes of the Solomon Islands using δ15N and δ13C. Coral Reefs 29, 785–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0626-1 (2010).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Hussey, N. E. et al. Rescaling the trophic structure of marine food webs. Ecol. Lett. 17, 239–250 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
McMahon, K. W., Thorrold, S. R., Elsdon, T. S. & McCarthy, M. D. Trophic discrimination of nitrogen stable isotopes in amino acids varies with diet quality in a marine fish. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10081 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Mill, A. C., Pinnegar, J. K. & Polunin, N. V. C. Explaining isotope trophic-step fractionation: Why herbivorous fish are different. Funct. Ecol. 21, 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01330.x (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Kulbicki, M., Guillemot, N. & Amand, M. A general approach to length-weight relationships for New Caledonian lagoon fishes. Cybium 29, 235–252 (2005).
Google Scholar 

39.
Woodland, D. J. Revision of the fish family Siganidae with descriptions of two new species and comments on distribution and biology. Indo-Pacific Fishes, Vol. 19 (Bishop Museum, 1990).

40.
Moléana, T. Etude de la reproduction, de l’alimentation et de la composition en acides gras du picot rayé Siganus lineatus. Application à la domestication d’une nouvelle espèce tropicale pour la piscuculture marine (Nouvelle-Calédonie; Aqualagon SARL), PhD Thesis, Université de la Nouvelle-Calédonie (2016).

41.
Justine, J.-L., Briand, M. J. & Bray, R. A. A quick and simple method, usable in the field, for collecting parasites in suitable condition for both morphological and molecular studies. Parasitol. Res. 111, 341–351 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Pinnegar, J. K. & Polunin, N. V. C. Differential fractionation of δ13C and δ15N among fish tissues: Implications for the study of trophic interactions. Funct. Ecol. 13, 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00301.x (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Abrantes, K. & Sheaves, M. Incorporation of terrestrial wetland material into aquatic food webs in a tropical estuarine wetland. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 80, 401–412 (2008).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Briand, M. J., Bonnet, X., Guillou, G. & Letourneur, Y. Complex food webs in highly diversified coral reefs: Insights from δ13C and δ15N stable isotopes. Food Webs 8, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.07.002 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar  More

Results of risk assessment by the ITO3dE model
The results in the I dimension show that, overall, the distribution was high in the west and low in the northeast and the southeast in all three periods (Fig. 3, I, II, III; Table 2), and this tallies with the topography of Chongqing. The northwestern and central regions of Chongqing are mainly hilly and slightly mountainous, while the southeastern and northeastern regions represent the Dabashan Mountain system and the Daloushan Mountain system, respectively. Thus, farmland in Chongqing is mainly distributed in the western regions as well as in regions with extensive flat areas, such as Dianjiang and Liangping. Some regions in Dianjiang, Yongchuan, Dazu, Shapingba, Wansheng, and Jiangbei show relatively high risks, but the risk level is still medium. Hence, it can be concluded that the risk level in the I dimension during 2005–2015 is, overall, not high. Considering there are too many single-factor graphs, we omitted these graphs, but provide the following description: Among the three single factors, I1 has the highest value, and I1 and I2 both present a first increasing and then decreasing trend (the maximum values of I1 in 2005, 2010, and 2015 were 3.38, 4.08, and 2.78, respectively, and those of I2 in 2005, 2010, and 2015 were 2.71, 3.37, and 2.48, respectively). For the I1 results, the risk levels of the regions with higher levels in 2005, such as Yongchuan, Fuling, and Liangping, showed a certain decrease in 2015, but the risk levels of some regions such as Pengshui, Qianjiang, and Xiushan showed an increasing trend. The risk grade of I2 was relatively lower than that of I1, but overall, the spatiotemporal variation trend was consistent with that of I1, except for the increasing trend of the risk level of Qianjiang. Basically, the risk grade of I3 was zero; only the risk level of Bishan was in the medium risk status, while those of Hechuan and Fengdu were low.
Figure 3

Result distribution map of I, T, and O dimensions of Chongqing in 2005, 2010, 2015.

Full size image

Table 2 Statistical results of I, T, and O dimensions in 2005–2015.
Full size table

Spatially, the results in the T dimension presented, overall, an opposite distribution pattern when compared to the I dimension, that is, with low levels in the western regions and high levels in the northeastern and southeastern regions (Fig. 3, IV, V, VI; Table 2). The annual differences in the T dimension data are mainly determined by the variations in the factors I4 and I7, which showed relatively higher risk levels in all three periods. The values of I4 in the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 were 1.42–5.78, 0.84–6.12, and 0.14–6.93, respectively, while those of I7 were 0, 0–5.38, and 0–5.06, respectively. Because Chongqing is a typical mountainous city with purple soil33, high-risk and extremely high-risk regions, I5 and I6, are widely distributed across the city. In addition, due to the introduction of the factor I8, the water areas had a higher risk level, which is consistent with the actual situation of AGNPS.
The results in the O dimension showed a smaller interannual variation, with a low overall risk level (Fig. 3, VII, VIII, IX; Table 2). The O dimension levels were mainly affected by the spatial changes in the paddy field area. As mentioned above, during the 10 years, the area of paddy fields in Chongqing was nearly reduced by half, which led to the decrease in the spatial distribution of I12 and an increased risk in counties such as Kaizhou, Fengjie, Liangping, and Changshou. Spatially, Yongchuan, Shapingba, Bishan, Dianjiang, Changshou, and Kaizhou showed higher risk levels, and the risk levels of Kaizhou, Fengjie, Wanzhou, Liangping, and Changshou showed a significantly increasing trend. The high risk values of I9 were mainly distributed in Yongchuan, Shapingba, Jiangbei, Changshou, Dianjiang, and Liangping, with Shapingba showing the highest value of 3.75, while Chengkou, Wushan, Fengjie, Shizhu, and Xiushan had lower values. The high risk values of I10 were mainly distributed in the western regions and were below the medium risk levels. The risk values in 2010 were higher than those in 2005 or 2015, but did not surpass 3.0, and the high values were mainly distributed in the western regions as well as in Dianjiang, Wanzhou, and Liangping. The risk values of I11 were all below 3.0, and the highest value of 2.78 was found for Fengjie; higher values were mainly distributed in the northeastern and southeastern counties. The high risk values of I12 were mainly distributed in the northeastern and southeastern counties, which mostly have only small areas of paddy fields.
Figure 4 shows the data on AGNPS risks during 2005–2015 in Chongqing. The risk distribution trends in 2005, 2010, and 2015 were basically consistent and in the ranges of 0.40–2.28, 0.41–2.57, and 0.41–2.28, respectively. The maximum risk values were all below 3.0 for the three periods. Regions with medium levels were mostly distributed in the western regions of Chongqing (Dazu, Jiangjin, etc.) as well as in the counties Dianjiang, Liangping, Kaizhou, Wanzhou, and Zhongxian. Larger spatial differences were observed among different counties or different parts of a certain county; for example, the middle flatland part and the mountain systems at the two sides in Liangping or the northwestern and southeastern parts in Shizhu.
Figure 4

Spatiotemporal distribution graph of the evaluation results of agricultural NPSP risks in Chongqing during 2005–2015: (a) 2005; (b) 2010; (c) 2015.

Full size image

Spatiotemporal change results of risk by transition matrix analysis
By assigning no risk, low risk, and medium risk levels with 1, 2, and 3, respectively, in GIS, we can obtain the spatiotemporal transition matrix according to the formula of the transition matrix. Figure 5 shows the spatiotemporal transition situation of the AGNPS risk evaluation in Chongqing. Basically, high levels show no changes, and the proportions of ‘no-risk no-change’, ‘low-risk no-change’, and ‘medium-risk no-change’ situations were 10.86%, 33.42%, and 17.25%, respectively, accounting for 61.53% of the total area of Chongqing. Among these, the ‘no-risk no-change’ situation was mainly distributed in Rongchang, the east of Nanchuan, Shizhu, Pengshui, and Qianjiang; the ‘low-risk no-change’ situation was widely distributed in Wulong, the southeast of Fengdu, the south of Nanchuan, and the northeastern counties of Chongqing, while the ‘medium-risk no-change’ situation was mainly distributed in Shapingba, Yongchuan, Dianjiang, the north of Nanchuan, and Kaizhou.
Figure 5

Spatiotemporal transition situation of agricultural NPSP risks in Chongqing during 2005–2015.

Full size image

During 2005–2015, the proportions of risk increase, risk decline, and risk fluctuation were 13.45%, 17.66%, and 7.36%, respectively. Risk increases mainly occurred in central Jiangjin, central Fengdu, Pengshui, Qianjiang, the midwest of Yunyang, central Liangping, Wuxi, Wushan, and Chengkou, while risk declines were mainly observed for the main urban area of Chongqing, northern Tongliang, Dazu, Youyang, and Xiushan. Risk fluctuation was concentrated in Jiangjin, Bishan, Fuling, and Youyang.
Results of risk concentration degree by Kernel density analysis
Figure 6 shows the kernel density analysis results of the medium-risk regions. As seen in the figures, the peak values of the kernel density at these three periods were all around 1,110, suggesting that the maximum gathering degree of medium-risk pattern spots basically showed no changes. The spatial distribution of kernel density at these three periods showed a consistent trend, but the distribution differences at different periods were significant. In 2005, medium-risk regions were mainly concentrated in Shapingba, southern Dazu, central Yongchuan, eastern Beibei, Dianjiang, central Kaizhou, northwestern Shizhu, northern Nanchuan, central Wanzhou, southwestern Zhongxian, and southeastern Xiushan, while in 2010, such regions mainly occurred in Shapingba, eastern Jiangjin, southeastern Beibei, northern Nanchuan, northeastern Changshou, Dianjiang, northern Fuling, northern Fengdu, northeastern Shizhu, northeastern Liangping, central Kaizhou, Wanzhou, northeastern Pengshui, and eastern Xiushan. In 2015, medium-risk regions were mainly concentrated in Shapingba, Yongchuan, central Jiangjin, northwestern Nanchuan, northeastern Beibei, Dianjiang, Liangping, the junction of Fuling and Fengdu, central Kaizhou, northern Yunyang, eastern Pengshui, southeastern Qianjiang, and central Xiushan.
Figure 6

Kernel density graphs of medium-risk areas in Chongqing during 2005–2015: (a) 2005; (b) 2010; (c) 2015.

Full size image

To further explore the distribution of regions with the high-risk gathering zones (Table 3), we conducted a separate analysis on the regions with kernel density values higher than 1,000 (the kernel density values of these regions were divided into 10 grades with equal intervals, and the 10th grade had values from 1,000 to 1,110).
Table 3 Distribution of regions with high-risk gathering zones.
Full size table

Results of hot and cold spots by Getis-Ord Gi* analysis
Applying Getis-Ord Gi* analysis is helpful to clearly identify high-value hot spots (Hot Spot-99% Confidence) and low-value cold spots (Cold Spot-99% Confidence). Figure 7 shows the Getis-Ord Gi* analysis results; the overall variation trends of high-value hot spots and low-value cold spots were consistent in all periods, with significant distribution differences. The regions located in the high-value hot spot zones in all three periods were Yongchuan, Shapingba, Dianjiang, Liangping, northwestern Fengdu, and Zhongxian, while those located in the low-value cold spot zones were Chengkou, Wuxi, Wushan, Pengshui, and Rongchang. Throughout the 10 years, the high-value hot spot zones showed significant diffusion in Fengjie, Yunyang, Kaizhou, central Qianjiang, and northern Nanchuan, while the low-value cold spot zones showed significant diffusion in some parts of the midwestern counties such as central Fuling and southern Yubei. These high-value hot spots or low-value cold spots were mainly distributed in the above-mentioned regions and their surrounding areas and showed significant “gathering trends”. The spatiotemporal variation trend of the distribution of these high-value hot spots or low-value cold spots can reflect the variation tendencies of hot spots or cold spots in different regions. Over time, the high-value hot spot zones gradually migrated towards the northeastern counties of Chongqing, while the low-value cold spot zones in the midwestern counties presented an obvious diffusion trend. The low-value cold spot zones in the northeastern regions gradually decreased, while those in the southeastern regions tended to become more fragmented. These results indicate that the high-value hot spot zones gradually dominated the northeastern regions, while the low-value cold spot zones gradually dominated the midwestern regions.
Figure 7

Getis-Ord Gi analysis results in Chongqing during 2005–2015.

Full size image More

1.
Roy, P., Tokuyasu, K., Orikasa, T., Nakamura, N. & Shiixa, T. A Review of life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass. JARQ 46, 41–57 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Palmer, M. M., Forrester, J. A., Rothstein, D. E. & Mladenoff, D. J. Establishment phase greenhouse gas emissions in short rotation woody biomass plantations in the Northern Lake States, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 62, 26–36 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
González-García, S., Iribarren, D., Susmozas, A., Dufour, J. & Murphy, R. J. Life cycle assessment of two alternative bioenergy systems involving Salix spp. biomass: bioethanol production and power generation. Appl. Energy 95, 111–122 (2012).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

4.
Mizsey, P. & Racz, P. Cleaner production alternatives: biomass utilisation options. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 767–770 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Igliński, B., Cichosz, M., Skrzatek, M. & Buczkowski, R. Potencjał energetyczny biomasy na gruntach ugorowanych i nieużytkach w Polsce. Inżynieria i Ochrona Środowiska 21, 79–87 (2018).
Google Scholar 

6.
Stolarski, M., Szczukowski, S. & Tworkowski, J. Biopaliwa z biomasy wieloletnich roślin energetycznych. Energetyka 1, 77–80 (2008).
Google Scholar 

7.
Murphy, F., Devlin, G. & McDonnell, K. Energy requirements and environmental impacts associated with the production of short rotation willow (Salix sp.) chip in Ireland. GCB Bioenergy 6, 727–739 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
El Bassam, N. Handboook for Bioenergy Crops. Earthscan, London, 544 (2010).

9.
Eisenbies, M. H., Volk, T. A., Posselius, J., Foster, Ch. & Shi, S. Evaluation of a single-pass, cut and chip harvest system on commercial-scale, short-rotation shrub willow biomass crops. BioEnergy Res. 7(4), 1506–1518 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Nathan, J., Sleight, N. & Volk, T. A. Recently Bred Willow (Salix spp.) Biomass crops show stable yield trends over three rotations at two sites. BioEnergy Res. 9, 782–797 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Djomo, S. N., Kasmioui, O. E. & Ceulemans, R. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. GCB Bioenergy 3(3), 181–197 (2011).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Hammar, T., Ericsson, N., Sundberg, C. & Hansson, P. A. Climate impact of willow grown for bioenergy in Sweden. BioEnergy Res. 7, 1529–1540 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Argus, G. W. Infrageneric classification of Salix (Salicaceae) in the new world. Syst. Bot. Monogr. 52, 101–121 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Keoleian, G. A. & Volk, T. A. Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental, and economic performance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 24, 385–406 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Christersson, L., Sennerby-Forsse, L. & Zsuffa, L. The role and significance of woody biomass plantations in Swedish agriculture. For. Chron. 69, 687–693 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Schroeder, W., Kort, J., Savoie, P. & Preto, F. Biomass harvest from natural willow rings around prairie wetlands. BioEnergy Res. 2, 99–105 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Abrahamson, L. P., Volk, T. A. & Smart, L. P. Shrub Willow Producers Handbook (SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, 2010).
Google Scholar 

18.
Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A. & Volk, T. A. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenerg. 25, 147–165 (2003).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Volk, T. A., Verwijst, T., Tharakan, P. J., Abrahamson, L. P. & White, E. H. Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2(8), 411–418 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Rowe, R. L., Street, N. R. & Taylor, G. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 271–290 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Lippke, B. et al. Comparing life-cycle carbon and energy impacts for biofuel, wood product, and forest management alternatives. Forest Prod. J. 62, 247–257 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Caputo, J. et al. Incorporating uncertainty into a life cycle assessment (LCA) model of short-rotation willow biomass (Salix spp) crops. BioEnergy Res. 7(1), 48–59 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Davis, S. C. et al. Impact of second-generation biofuel agriculture on greenhouse-gas emissions in the corngrowing regions of the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 69–74 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Arevalo, C. B. M., Bhatti, J. S., Chang, S. X. & Skidders, D. Land use change effects on ecosystem carbon balance: from agricultural to hybrid poplar plantation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 342–349 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Pietrzykowski, M. et al. Carbon sink potential and allocation in above-and below-ground biomass in willow coppice. J. For. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-019-01089-3 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Langholtz, M. et al. Economic comparative advantage of willow biomass in the Northeast USA. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 13(1), 74–85 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Kimming, M. et al. Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and power plants. Comp. Life Cycle Assess. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 1572–1581 (2011).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Fargione, J. E., Plevin, R. J. & Hill, J. D. The ecological impact of biofuels. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. 41, 351–377 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Zhao, F., Wu, J., Wang, L., Liu, S., Wei, X., Xiao, J., Qiu, L., & Sun, P. Multi-environmental impacts of biofuel production in the US Corn Belt: a coupled hydro-biogeochemical modeling approach. J. Clea. Prod. 251, 119561, ISSN 0959-6526 (2020).

30.
Wu, Y., Liu, S. & Li, Z. Identifying potential areas for biofuel production and evaluating the environmental effects: a case study of the James River Basin in the Midwestern United States. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 4, 875–888 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Wu, Y. et al. Bioenergy production and environmental impacts. Geosci. Lett. 5, 14 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Meehan, T. D., Hurlbert, A. H. & Gratton, C. Bird communities in future bioenergy landscapes of the Upper Midwest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 18533–18538 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33.
Murphy, R., Woods, J., Black, M. & McManus, M. Global developments in the competition for land from biofuels. Food Policy 36, 52–61 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Styles, D., Borjesson, P., d’Hertefeldt, T., Birkhofer, K., Dauber, J., Adams, P., & Vaneeckhaute, C. Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification (2019).

35.
Zhang, Y. K. & Schilling, K. E. Increasing streamflow and baseflow in Mississippi River since the 1940s: effect of land use change. J. Hydrol. 324, 412–422 (2006).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Pacaldo, R. S., Volk, T. A. & Briggs, R. D. No significant differences in soil organic carbon contents along a chronosequence of shrub willow biomass crop fields. Biomass Bioenerg. 58, 136–142 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 345–360 (2002).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Gelfand, I., Snapp, S. S. & Robertson, G. P. Energy efficiency of conventional, organic, and alternative cropping systems for food and fuel at a site in the US Midwest. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 4006–4011 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Zenone, T. et al. CO2 fluxes of transitional bioenergy crops: effect of land conversion during the first year of cultivation. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 3, 401–412 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Henner, D., Smith, P., Davies, C., McNamara, N., Balkovic, J. Sustainable whole system: Miscanthus, Willow and Poplar bioenergy crops for carbon stabilisation and erosion control in agricultural systems. In Geophysical Research Abstracts 21 (2019).

41.
Bouwman, A. F., van Grinsven, J. M. & Eickhout, B. Consequences of the cultivation of energy crops for the global nitrogen cycle. Ecol. Appl. 20, 101–109 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

42.
Galloway, J. N. et al. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320, 889–892 (2008).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238 (2008).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44.
Searchinger, T. et al. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

45.
Sikora, J. et al. The impact of a controlled-release fertilizer on greenhouse gas emissions and the efficiency of the production of Chinese cabbage. Energies 8(13), 2063 (2020).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
Tonini, D. & Astrup, T. LCA of biomass-based energy systems: a case 2008 study for Denmark. Appl. Energy 99, 234–246 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Caserini, S., Livio, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M. & Rigamonti, L. LCA of domestic and centralized biomass combustion: the case of Lombardy (Italy). Biomass Bioenerg. 34, 474–482 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Kowalczyk, Z. Environmental impact of potato cultivation on plantations covering areas of various sizes. In Web of Conferences, E3S Web Conferences, 2019, XXII International Scientific Conference POLSITA, Progress of Mechanical Engineering Supported by Information Technology Vol. 132 (2019).

49.
Kowalczyk, Z. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of potato production. In Web of Conferences, E3S Web Conferences, 2019, XXII International Scientific Conference POLSITA Progress of Mechanical Engineering Supported by Information Technology Vol. 132 (2019).

50.
Roy, P. et al. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90, 1–10 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Klein, D., Wolf, Ch., Schulz, Ch. & Weber-Blaschke, G. 20 years of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the forestry sector: state of the art and a methodical proposal for the LCA of forest production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 556–575 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Cherubini, F. GHG balances of bioenergy systems—overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns. Renew. Energy 35(7), 1565–1573 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Supasri, T. et al. Life cycle assessment of maize cultivation and biomass utilization in northern Thailand. Sci. Rep. 10, 3516 (2020).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Turconi, R., Boldrin, A. & Astrup, T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 555–565 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Finnveden, G. et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91(1), 1–21 (2009).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Guidi Nissim, W., Pitre, F. E., Teodorescu, T. I. & Labrecque, M. Long-term biomass productivity of willow bioenergy plantations maintained in southern Quebec Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 56, 361–369 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Kowalczyk, Z. & Kwaśniewski, D. Life cycle assessment (LCA) in energy willow cultivation on plantations with varied surface area. Agric. Eng. 23(4), 11–19 (2019).
Google Scholar 

58.
Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138–147 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
IPCC Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, QinD, PlattnerGK, TignorM, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1535 (2013).

60.
Joos, F. et al. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793–2825 (2013).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

61.
WMO Scientific assessment of ozone depletion. 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report 52 (World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 2011).
Google Scholar 

62.
Frischknecht, R., Braunschweig, A., Hofstetter, P. & Suter, P. Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Impact Asses Rev. 20, 159–189 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Van Zelm, R., Preiss, P., Van Goethem, T., Van Dingenen, R. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Regionalized life cycle impact assessment of air pollution on the global scale: damage to human health and vegetation. Atmos. Environ. 134, 129–137 (2016).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

64.
Roy, P. O. et al. Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: a systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci. Total Environ. 500, 270–276 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

65.
Helmes, R. J. K., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Henderson, A. D. & Jolliet, O. Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 646–654 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
VanZelm, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J. & VandeMeent, D. USES-LCA 2.0: aglobal nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(30), 282–284 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

67.
De Baan, L., Alkemade, R. & Köllner, T. Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1216–1230 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Curran, M., Hellweg, S. & Beck, J. Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy?. Ecol. Appl. 24, 617–632 (2014).
PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

69.
Döll, P. & Siebert, S. Global modelling of irrigation water requirements. Water Resour. Res. 38, 1037 (2002).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. PNAS 109, 3232–3237 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71.
Vieira, M. D. M., Ponsioen, T. C., Goedkoop, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Surplus ore potential as a scarcity indicator for resource extraction. J. Indus. Ecol. 21(2), 381–390 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Jungbluth, N., & Frischknecht, R. Cumulative energy demand. In Hischier, R., Weidema, B. (Eds) Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, St Gallen Ecoinvent Centre, pp. 33–40.

73.
Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F. et al. ReCiPe 2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level report I. Charact. RIVM Rep. 2016–0104 (2016).

74.
Spinelli, R., Schweier, J. & De Francesco, F. Harvesting techniques for non-industrial biomass plantations. Biosyst. Eng. 113, 319–324 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Kwaśniewski, D., Mudryk, K. & Wróbel, M. Zbiór wierzby energetycznej z użyciem piły łańcuchowej. Inżynieria Rolnicza 13, 271–277 (2006).
Google Scholar 

76.
Wiloso, E. I. et al. Production of sorghum pellets for electricity generation in Indonesia: a life cycle assessment. Biofuel Res. J. 27, 1178–1194 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Yang, Y. & Tilman, D. Soil and root carbon storage is key to climate benefits of bioenergy crops. Biofuel Res. J. 26, 1143–1148 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

78.
Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A., Mann, M. K. & Volk, T. A. Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renew. Energy 29(7), 1023–1042 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Fernandez-Tirado, F. & Parra-Lo´pez C, Calatrava-Requena JA, ,. methodological proposal for life cycle inventory of fertilization in energy crops: the case of Argentinean soybean and Spanish rapeseed. Biomass Bioenergy 58, 104–116 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Goglioa, P. & Owende, P. M. O. A screening LCA of short rotation coppice willow (Salix sp.) feedstock production system for small-scale electricity generation. Biosyst. Eng. 103, 389–394 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Han, J. & Zhang, Y. Land policy and land engineering. Land Use Policy 40, 64–68 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Liu, Y. S. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy. 74, 1–4 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Liu, Y. S., Li, J. T. & Yang, Y. Y. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 74, 5–14 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Yi, L. et al. Spatial-temporal change of major reserve resources of cultivated land in China in recent 30 years. Trans. CSAE (in Chinese) 29, 1–12 (2013).
Google Scholar 

5.
Zhang, Y., Li, Z. B. & Dong, Q. G. Analysis of water and nutrients leakage on barren gravel land with different structure of topsoil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32, 162–166 (2018).
Google Scholar 

6.
Wu, X. L. et al. Improvement of new farmland soil in loess area under different fertilization treatments. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 13, 99–104 (2015).
Google Scholar 

7.
Hu, S. G., Wang, J. & Wang, Z. Q. Characterization of quantity-quality grade conversion coefficient of supplementary cultivated land in Jianghan Plain, China. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 7841, 1–9 (2009).
Google Scholar 

8.
Liu, Y. S. et al. Progress of research on urbanrural transformation and rural development in China in the past decade and future prospects. J. Geogr. Sci. 26, 1117–1132 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Sun, Z. & Han, J. Effect of soft rock amendment on soil hydraulic parameters and crop performance in Mu Us Sandy Land, China. Field Crops Res. 222, 85–93 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Yang, J., Liu, L., Sun, C. M. & Liu, X. F. Soil components and fertility improvement of added cultivated land. Trans. CSAE 7, 102–105 (2008).
Google Scholar 

11.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., Long, H. & Cui, W. Community-based rural residential land consolidation and allocation can help to revitalize hollowed villages in traditional agricultural areas of China: Evidence from Dancheng County, Henan Province. Land Use Policy 39, 188–198 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Sağlam, M. & Selvi, K. C. Effects of different tillage managements on soil physical quality in a clayey soil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 1–12 (2015).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

13.
Márcio, R., Douglas, L. K. & Moorman, T. B. Tillage intensity effects on soil structure indicators—A US meta-analysis. Sustainability 12, 1–17 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Blanco-Moure, N., Moret-Fernández, D. & López, M. V. Dynamics of aggregate destabilization by water in soils under long-term conservation tillage in semiarid Spain. CATENA 99, 34–41 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Nunes, M. R., van Es, H. M., Schindelbeck, R., Ristow, A. J. & Ryan, M. No-till and cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield. Geoderma 328, 30–43 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Steele, M. K., Coale, F. J. & Hill, R. L. Winter annual cover crop impacts on no-till soil physical properties and organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 2164–2173 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Laura, T., Jacynthe, D. R. & Caron, J. Short-term improvement in soil physical properties of cultivated histosols through deep-rooted crop rotation and subsoiling. Agron. J. 111, 2084–2096 (2019).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

18.
Sun, X. F. et al. Subsoiling practices change root distribution and increase post-anthesis dry matter accumulation and yield in summer maize. PLoS ONE 12, 1–18 (2017).
Google Scholar 

19.
Huang, M., Liang, T., Wang, L. & Zhou, C. Effects of no-tillage systems on soil physical properties and carbon sequestration under long-term wheat–maize double cropping system. CATENA 128, 195–202 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Martínez, I. et al. Two decades of no-till in the Oberacker long-term field experiment: Part II. Soil porosity and gas transport parameters. Soil Tillage Res. 163, 130–140 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Suzuki, L. E. A. S., Reichert, J. M. & Reinert, D. J. Degree of compactness, soil physical properties and yield of soybean in six soils under no-tillage. Soil Res. 51, 311–321 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
López-Fando, C. & Pardo, M. T. Changes in soil chemical characteristics with different tillage practices in a semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res. 104, 278–284 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Song, K. et al. Effects of tillage and straw return on water-stable aggregates, carbon stabilization and crop yield in an estuarine alluvial soil. Rep. U.K. 9, 4586 (2019).
Google Scholar 

24.
Zhou, H., Li, B. G. & Lu, Y. Z. Micromorphological analysis of soil structure under no tillage management in the black soil zone of northeast china. J. Mt. Sci. 6, 173–180 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Chang, I., Im, J., Prasidhi, A. K. & Cho, G. C. Effects of Xanthan gum biopolymer on soil strengthening. Constr. Build. Mater. 74, 65–72 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Jiang, M., Zhang, F., Hu, H., Cui, Y. & Peng, J. Structural characterization of natural loess and remolded loess under triaxial tests. Eng. Geol. 181, 249–260 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Lin, B. & Cerato, A. B. Applications of SEM and ESEM in microstructural investigation of shale-weathered expansive soils along swelling-shrinkage cycles. Ecol. Eng. 177, 66–74 (2014).
Google Scholar 

28.
Mikha, M. M., Benjamin, J. G., Vigil, M. F. & Nielsen, C. Cropping intensity impacts on soil aggregation and carbon sequestration in the central Great Plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 1712–1719 (2010).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Sodhi, G. P., Beri, V. & Benbi, D. K. Soil aggregation and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in different fractions under long-term application of compost in rice-wheat system. Soil Tillage Res. 103, 412–418 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Mikha, M. M., Vigil, M. F. & Benjamin, J. G. Long-term tillage impacts on soil aggregation and carbon dynamics under wheat-fallow in the central Great Plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77, 594–605 (2013).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Matson, P., Lohse, K. A. & Hall, S. J. The globalization of nitrogen deposition: Consequences for terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 31, 113–119 (2002).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Li, X. G. et al. Nitrogen fertilization decreases the decomposition of soil organic matter and plant residues in planted soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 112, 47–55 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Hou, X. Q. et al. Effects of rotational tillage practices on soil properties, winter wheat yields and water-use efficiency in semi-arid areas of north-west China. Field Crops Res. 129, 7–13 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Chen, H. Q. et al. Effects of 11 years of conservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 106, 85–94 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Hernanz, J. L., Sánchez-Girón, V. & Navarrete, L. Soil carbon sequestration and stratification in a cereal/leguminous crop rotation with three tillage systems in semiarid conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 133, 114–122 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Mazzoncini, M. et al. Soil carbon and nitrogen changes after 28 years of no-tillage management under Mediterranean conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 77, 156–165 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Sombrero, A. & Benito, A. D. Carbon accumulation in soil. Ten-year study of conservation tillage and crop rotation in a semi-arid area of castile-leon, spain. Soil Tillage Res. 107, 64–70 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Bottinelli, N. et al. Tillage and fertilization practices affect soil aggregate stability in a Humic Cambisol of Northwest France. Soil Tillage Res. 170, 14–17 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Du, Z., Ren, T., Hu, C., Zhang, Q. & Blanco-Canqui, H. Soil aggregate stability and aggregate-associated carbon under different tillage systems in the north China plain. J. Integr. Agric. 12, 2114–2123 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Bhattacharyya, R., Prakash, V., Kundu, S., Srivastva, A. K. & Gupta, H. S. Soil aggregation and organic matter in a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas under different tillage and crop regimes. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 132, 126–134 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Tripathi, R. et al. Soil aggregation and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in different fractions after 41 years long-term fertilizer experiment in tropical rice-rice system. Geoderma 213, 280–286 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Meng, Q. et al. Distribution of carbon and nitrogen in water-stable aggregates and soil stability under long-term manure application in solonetzic soils of the Songnen plain, northeast China. J. Soil Sediment 14, 1041–1049 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. F. & Denef, K. A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 79, 7–31 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Gu, X., An, T. T., Li, S. Y., Li, H. & Wang, J. K. Effects of application of straw on organic carbon in brown soil aggregates by δ13c method. J. Soil Water Conserv. 28, 243–247 (2014).
Google Scholar 

45.
Cremeens, D. L. Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. Geoarchaeology 19, 507–509 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Wang, F., Tong, Y. A., Zhang, J. S., Gao, P. C. & Coffie, J. N. Effects of various organic materials on soil aggregate stability and soil microbiological properties on the Loess Plateau of China. Plant Soil Environ. 59, 162–168 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Blanco-Canqui, H. & Lai, R. No-tillage and soil profile carbon sequestration: An onfarm assessment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 141, 355–362 (2007).
CAS  Google Scholar 

48.
Pikul, J. L. & Zuzel, J. F. Soil crusting and water infiltration affected by long-term tillage and residue management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1524–1530 (1994).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Kinoshita, R., Schindelbeck, R. R. & Harold, M. Quantitative soil profile-scale assessment of the sustainability of long-term maize residue and tillage management. Soil Tillage Res. 174, 34–44 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Das, A. et al. Tillage and cropping sequence effect on physico-chemical and biological properties of soil in Eastern Himalayas, India. Soil Tillage Res. 180, 182–193 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Xiao, J. et al. Comment on “The whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming”. Science 359, 0218 (2018).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Awe, G. O., Reichert, J. M. & Wendroth, O. O. Temporal variability and covariance structures of soil temperature in a sugarcane field under different management practices in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 150, 93–106 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Blanco-Canqui, H. & Ruis, S. J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 326, 164–200 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Li, J. et al. Effect of mixing ratio and planting years on the micro structure of soft rock and sand compound soil: A scanning electron microscope study. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17, 10599–10610 (2019).
Google Scholar 

55.
Zhang, W. et al. Residue incorporation enhances the effect of subsoiling on soil structure and increases soc accumulation. J Soils Sediments 20, 3537–3547 (2020).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Kinoshita, R., Schindelbeck, R. R. & van Es, R. M. Quantitative soil profile-scale assessment of the sustainability of long-term maize residue and tillage management. Soil Tillage Res. 174, 34–44 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Sharma, P., Singh, G. & Singh, R. P. Conservation tillage and optimal water supply enhances microbial enzyme (glucosidase, urease and phosphatase) activities in fields under wheat cultivation during various nitrogen management practices. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 59, 911–928 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Daveiga, M., Horn, R., Reinert, D. & Reichert, J. Soil compressibility and penetrability of an Oxisol from southern Brazil, as affected by long-term tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 92, 104–113 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Karlen, D. & Rice, C. Soil degradation: Will humankind ever learn?. Sustainability 7, 12490–12501 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Rabot, E., Wiesmeier, M., Schlüter, S. & Vogel, H. J. Soil structure as an indicator of soil functions: A review. Geoderma 314, 122–137 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Xue, B. et al. Effects of organic carbon and iron oxides on soil aggregate stability under different tillage systems in a rice–rape cropping system. CATENA 177, 1–12 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Bremner, J. M. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J. Agric. Sci. 55, 11–33 (1960).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Tiessen, H. & Moir, J. O. Total and organic carbon. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), Soil sampling and methods of analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 38, 187–199 (1993).
Google Scholar 

64.
Nimmo, J. R. & Perkins KS. Aggregates Stability and Size Distribution. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part4-Physical Methods, 317–328 (Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., Inc., Madison, 2002).

65.
Karami, A., Homaee, M., Afzalinia, S., Ruhipour, H. & Basirat, S. Organic resource management: Impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physico-chemical properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 148, 22–28 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Liu, Z. et al. Long-term effects of different planting patterns on greenhouse soil micromorphological features in the North China Plain. Sci. Rep. U.K. 6, 31118 (2016).
ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

67.
Zhu, G., Shangguan, Z. & Deng, L. Soil aggregate stability and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen in natural restoration grassland and Chinese red pine plantation on the Loess Plateau. CATENA 149, 253–260 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Tollrian, R. & Harvell, C. D. The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998).
Google Scholar 
2.
Ohgushi, T., Schmitz, O. J. & Holt, R. D. Trait-Mediated Indirect Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013).
Google Scholar 

3.
Ellers, J. & Stuefer, J. F. Frontiers in phenotypic plasticity research: new questions about mechanisms, induced responses, and ecological impacts. Evol. Ecol. 24, 523–526 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Mitchell, M. D., Bairos-Novak, K. R. & Ferrari, M. C. Mechanisms underlying the control of responses to predator odours in aquatic prey. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 1937–1946 (2017).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Stankowich, T. & Blumstein, D. T. Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 2627–2634 (2005).
Google Scholar 

6.
Brönmark, C. & Hansson, L.-A. Chemical Ecology in Aquatic Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).
Google Scholar 

7.
Middlemis Maher, J., Werner, E. E. & Denver, R. J. Stress hormones mediate predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in amphibian tadpoles. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20123075 (2013).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

8.
Dennis, S. R., LeBlanc, G. A. & Beckerman, A. P. Endocrine regulation of predator-induced phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 176, 625–635 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Matsunami, M. et al. Transcriptome analysis of predator- and prey-induced phenotypic plasticity in the Hokkaido salamander (Hynobius retardatus). Mol. Ecol. 24, 3064–3076 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Weiss, L. C. Sensory ecology of predator-induced phenotypic plasticity. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 12, 330 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

11.
Hawlena, D. & Schmitz, O. J. Physiological stress as a fundamental mechanism linking predation to ecosystem functioning. Am. Nat. 176, 537–556 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Auld, J. R. & Relyea, R. A. Adaptive plasticity in predator-induced defenses in a common freshwater snail: altered selection and mode of predation due to prey phenotype. Evol. Ecol. 25, 189–202 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Meuthen, D., Baldauf, S. A., Bakker, T. C. & Thünken, T. Neglected patterns of variation in phenotypic plasticity: age-and sex-specific antipredator plasticity in a cichlid fish. Am. Nat. 191, 475–490 (2018).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Schoeppner, N. M. & Relyea, R. A. Interpreting the smells of predation: how alarm cues and kairomones induce different prey defenses. Func. Ecol. 23, 1114–1121 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Hettyey, A. et al. The relative importance of prey-borne and predator-borne chemical cues for inducible antipredator responses in tadpoles. Oecologia 179, 699–710 (2015).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Fraker, M. E. et al. Characterization of an alarm pheromone secreted by amphibian tadpoles that induces behavioral inhibition and suppression of the neuroendocrine stress axis. Horm. Behav. 55, 520–529 (2009).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Hossie, T. J., Ferland-Raymond, B., Burness, G. & Murray, D. L. Morphological and behavioural responses of frog tadpoles to perceived predation risk: a possible role for corticosterone mediation?. Écoscience 17, 100–108 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
McDiarmid, R. W. & Altig, R. Tadpoles: the Biology of Anuran Larvae (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999).
Google Scholar 

19.
Relyea, R. A. Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85, 172–179 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Wilson, R. S., Kraft, P. G. & Van Damme, R. Predator-specific changes in the morphology and swimming performance of larval Rana lessonae. Func. Ecol. 19, 238–244 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Van Buskirk, J. & McCollum, S. A. Influence of tail shape on tadpole swimming performance. J. Exp. Biol. 203, 2149–2158 (2000).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Eidietis, L. Size-related performance variation in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpole tactile-stimulated startle response. Can. J. Zool. 83, 1117–1127 (2005).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Perotti, M. G., Pueta, M., Jara, F. G., Úbeda, C. A. & Moreno Azocar, D. L. Lack of functional link in the tadpole morphology induced by predators. Curr. Zool. 62, 227–235 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Mori, T. et al. The constant threat from a non-native predator increases tail muscle and fast-start swimming performance in Xenopus tadpoles. Biol. Open 6, 1726–1733 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Lindgren, B., Orizaola, G. & Laurila, A. Interacting effects of predation risk and resource level on escape speed of amphibian larvae along a latitudinal gradient. J. Evol. Biol. 31, 1216–1226 (2018).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Van Buskirk, J., Anderwald, P., Lüpold, S., Reinhardt, L. & Schuler, H. The lure effect, tadpole tail shape, and the target of dragonfly strikes. J. Herp. 37, 420–424 (2003).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Dijk, B., Laurila, A., Orizaola, G. & Johansson, F. Is one defence enough? Disentangling the relative importance of morphological and behavioural predator-induced defences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 237–246 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
Glennemeier, K. A. & Denver, R. J. Moderate elevation of corticosterone content affects fitness components in northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) tadpoles. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 127, 16–25 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Glennemeier, K. A. & Denver, R. J. Role for corticoids in mediating the response of Rana pipiens tadpoles to intraspecific competition. J. Exp. Zool. 292, 32–40 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Muir, A. M., Vecsei, P. & Krueger, C. C. A perspective on perspectives: methods to reduce variation in shape analysis of digital images. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 141, 1161–1170 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Fraker, M. E. & Luttbeg, B. Predator-prey space use and the spatial distribution of predation events. Behaviour 149, 555–574 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Denver, R. J. Hormonal correlates of environmentally induced metamorphosis in the western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 110, 326–336 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.6.1. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).

35.
Lenth, R. V. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J. Stat. Soft. 69, 1–33 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Therneau, T. M. & Lumley, T. R Package ‘survival’ version 3.1-8 (2019).

37.
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Relyea, R. A. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82, 541–554 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Berner, D. Size correction in biology: how reliable are approaches based on (common) principal component analysis?. Oecologia 166, 961–971 (2011).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Humphreys, R. K. & Ruxton, G. D. What is known and what is not yet known about deflection of the point of a predator’s attack. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 123, 483–495 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Blair, J. & Wassersug, R. J. Variation in the pattern of predator-induced damage to tadpole tails. Copeia 2000, 390–401 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Van Buskirk, J., Ferrari, M., Kueng, D., Näpflin, K. & Ritter, N. Prey risk assessment depends on conspecific density. Oikos 120, 1235–1239 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
McCoy, M. W. Conspecific density determines the magnitude and character of predator-induced phenotype. Oecologia 153, 871–878 (2007).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Van Buskirk, J. & McCollum, S. A. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. J. Evol. Biol 13, 336–347 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Van Buskirk, J. Phenotypic lability and the evolution of predator-induced plasticity in tadpoles. Evolution 56, 361–370 (2002).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Hossie, T., Landolt, K. & Murray, D. L. Determinants and co-expression of anti-predator responses in amphibian tadpoles: a meta-analysis. Oikos 126, 173–184 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Laughlin, D. C. & Messier, J. Fitness of multidimensional phenotypes in dynamic adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 487–496 (2015).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Steiner, U. K. & Van Buskirk, J. Predator-induced changes in metabolism cannot explain the growth/predation risk tradeoff. PLoS ONE 4, e6160 (2009).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

49.
Ferrari, M. C., Wisenden, B. D. & Chivers, D. P. Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 88, 698–724 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Luttbeg, B., Ferrari, M. C., Blumstein, D. T. & Chivers, D. P. Safety cues can give prey more valuable information than danger cues. Am. Nat. 195, 636–648 (2020).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Schmitz, O. J. Predator and prey functional traits: understanding the adaptive machinery driving predator–prey interactions. F1000Research 6, 1767 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar  More