More stories

  • in

    Variable effects of vegetation characteristics on a recreation service depending on natural and social environment

    Study areaWe focused on hiking activity in the four main islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku) and nearby small islands connected to the main islands by a bridge (Fig. 1a). These islands lie between latitudes 31.0° and 45.5°N, and the total area is 361,000 km2. The islands are generally mountainous and tallest mountains in central Honshu exceed 3000 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1c). In Tokyo, mean monthly temperatures range between 5.2 °C in January and 26.4 °C in August, while they range between − 18.4 °C in January and 6.2 °C in August at the summit of the highest mountain, Mt. Fuji (3776 m a.s.l., Japan Meteorological Agency). In northern Honshu and Hokkaido, snow depth can exceed 1 m even at low elevations and high mountains are covered with snow even in southern Japan.Vegetation excluding farmland and pasture covers 70.9% of the study area and the 93.9% is forest. Plantations of mostly evergreen conifers such as Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) occupy 37.6% of the vegetation area (National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan 2nd–7th; http://www.biodic.go.jp/trialSystem/top_en.html). Secondary vegetation after past human disturbances occupies 39.4% of the total vegetation and the remaining 23.0% is primary vegetation. The typical primary vegetation types are, from north to south, boreal mixed forest, deciduous broad leaved forest, and evergreen broad leaved forest.Grid squaresRecords of hiking activity were summarized for 4244 secondary grid squares based on Standard Grid Square System, which was defined by the Minister’s Order of Administrative Management Agency in 1973. In the system, the secondary grid was defined as a grid of 5′ in latitude and 7′ 30″ in longitude, which roughly corresponds to a 10 km grid in the study area. This is the standard grid system of the government and we adopted the system for convenience in future application uses and communication with practitioners. The grids, which are defined by latitude and longitude, are different in the area up to 22% between the north and south ends. Therefore, area of each grid was included in a model as an offset term.Hiking activityAccording to a government survey in 2016, (the Survey on Time Use and Leisure Activities by the Statistics Bureau of Japan, http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/shakai/index.htm), 10.0% (about 10.7 million people) of Japan’s population age 15 or over enjoyed hiking/mountaineering in the last year. The census showed also that hiking is more popular among urban residents in the metropolitan areas. Both multi-day expedition to high mountains and day trek to low mountains in suburban areas are popular. Because of the severe winter climate, unskilled hikers use the high mountains in summer and early autumn only. During a summer vacation, whose peak time in Japan is August, many hikers enjoy multi-day trips to distant mountains. Spring and autumn are also popular seasons because of the mild weather and the scenic beauty of the fresh green or autumn colors.Data collectionIn this study, we used number of hiking records accumulated on the most popular social networking service for hikers in Japan (Yamareco; https://www.yamareco.com) as a surrogate for flow of recreation service. For all the registered destinations in the study area, the number of hiking records for each month and the latitude and longitude of the destination were collected from the service in September 2016 with the rvest28 package in R software29. This service launched in October 2005 hosts records of the hiking route, photos, participants, and impressions of a hiking trip and facilitates communication among users. Although monthly number of records for each destination is always available on the site, the exact date of each hiking record is not always public information for privacy reasons; therefore, all of the records from the almost 11 years since the start of the service were lumped together in our analysis. Hikers may record multiple places in a single trip, so the total number of records must be larger than the number of unique trips. Users of the service sometime record a place that is not a destination, e.g. start points and stations of trails, parking areas, stations of transports, and bus stops. Such records were excluded before analyses as far as it can be judged from the name of the place. As a result, the total number of hiking records was 4,708,229 records for 16,179 destinations. Finally, these records were assigned to the 4244 grids based on the latitude and longitude of each destination and then total number of records for each grid was used as a surrogate of the recreation service flow in our analysis. Not only total number but also monthly number was used in our analysis to examine seasonal changes in associations between the service and vegetation. Total record number of the grids was strongly right-skewed; no record (handled as 0 in our analysis) was found in 2036 grids while mean and maximum record number were 1109 and 350,384, respectively.Explanation variablesFifty ecological, environmental, and social/infrastructural variables (Table S1) were prepared for each grid by using ArcGIS version 10.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). For vegetation and land-use attributes, National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan (2nd–7th; http://www.biodic.go.jp/trialSystem/top_en.html) and National Land Numerical Information (http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj-e/index.html) were used. The proportion of sea, that of total vegetation cover (excluding agricultural land and pasture) to land area, that of agricultural land (including pasture) to land area, that of natural vegetation (vegetation excluding plantations) to total vegetated area, and that of primary vegetation (vegetation with no record or evidence of a disturbance) to natural vegetation were summarized at four spatial scales: a radius of 10 km, 20 km, 50 km, and 100 km from the center of each grid. Spatial patterns of the three vegetation variables in 10 km radius were summarized in Fig. 1d–f.Maximum elevation, minimum elevation, and ruggedness (index of topographic heterogeneity30) were summarized at the four spatial scales based on a digital elevation model (10-m resolution) provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (https://fgd.gsi.go.jp/download/menu.php). For climatic variables (annual and monthly mean temperature, annual and monthly precipitation, annual and monthly hours of sunshine, and annual maximum snow depth), the National Land Numeric Information provided by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan (http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj-e/index.html) was referenced. Densities of population and roads at the four spatial scales were prepared from population census data from the Statistics Bureau of Japan (http://e-stat.go.jp/SG2/eStatGIS/page/download.html) and the National Land Numeric Information. For calculation of these densities, the sea surface was excluded. In addition, latitude and longitude of center of each grid were also used as explanatory variables to average effects of spatial coordinates.Statistical analysisIn this study, we employed BRT, a machine-learning method based on regression trees31 for modeling the complex relationship between a CES flow and landscape attributes12. BRT is an ensemble learning method where multiple regression trees are sequentially combined to minimize the loss function by means of gradient descent. This technique has advantage in the development of a model with a high predictive performance, in which high-dimensional interactions among explanatory variables and nonlinear responses are fully accounted for. In ecology, BRT has been frequently used for modeling of a species distribution32.Total and monthly numbers of hiking records were modeled as a function of the 50 variables described above under the assumption of a Poisson response. For temperature, precipitation, and hours of sunshine, annual and monthly average were used for the analysis of total and monthly records, respectively. In modeling by BRT, parameters for building of each learner and assembly of the learners must be carefully chosen to maximize generalization ability of a model31. In our case, candidate parameters were 2, 5, and 10 for the maximum depth of variable interactions for each learner; 2, 5, 10, and 20 for the minimum number of observations in the terminal nodes for each learner; 0.5 and 0.75 for the proportion of training data used for building each learner; and 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, 8000 and 10,000 for the total number of learners (Table S2). In the model assembling process, the value of 0.01 was used as a shrinkage parameter. Ten-fold cross validation was used to obtain the best suites of parameters. R2 based on sum of squares:$${R}^{2}=1-frac{{sum ({y}_{i}-widehat{{y}_{i}})}^{2}}{{sum ({y}_{i}-overline{{y }_{i}})}^{2}}$$
    was used for evaluation of the model’s prediction performance. The importance of explanatory variables was evaluated as an increase of mean absolute error after 100-times permutation of a variable33.Effects of each explanatory variable (a landscape attribute) on the response variable (record number) and the context dependence were visually inspected by individual conditional expectation (ICE) plot34. ICE plot visualizes the effect of a given explanatory variable for each observation by connecting outcome of a model for shifting values of the focal explanatory variable throughout the range while keeping other explanatory variables as the original value. Predictions were performed in log-scale and each line was centered to be zero at the left end of the x-axis to show relative effects of explanatory variables (c-ICE plot sensu Goltstein et al.34). Each line in ICE plot can be colored based on value of the second explanatory variable to assist assessment of the interactive effects of the two predictors. Friedman’s H statistic35 was used to detect explanatory variables whose interaction with the vegetation variables are important and therefore should be used for color-coding of an ICE plot. Friedman’s H is defined as a proportion of variance of partial dependence estimates explained by interactive effects for arbitrary suites of explanatory variables.Then, expected impacts of 0.1 decrease in the three local vegetation variables were assessed by the trained model and mapped. Although vegetation variables were sometimes more important at larger spatial scales (see “Results”), we focused on vegetation at a local (10 km radius) scale because most changes in vegetation occur at the scale in Japan (National Surveys on the Natural Environment by the Biodiversity Center of Japan, https://www.biodic.go.jp/kiso/fnd_list_h.html).All statistical analyses were performed using the R software packag29. The gbm36 package was used for BRT, the iml37 package was used for calculation of Friedman’s H statistic, and the cv.models (Oguro, https://github.com/Marchen/cv.models) packages was used for cross validation and parameter tuning. More

  • in

    Spatial genetic structure of European wild boar, with inferences on late-Pleistocene and Holocene demographic history

    Ai H, Fang X, Yang B, Huang Z, Chen H, Mao L et al. (2015) Adaptation and possible ancient interspecies introgression in pigs identified by whole-genome sequencing. Nat Genet 47:217–225Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K (2009) Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res 19:1655–1664Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Alexandri P, Megens HJ, Crooijmans RPMA, Groenen MAM, Goedbloed DJ, Herrero-Medrano JM et al. (2017) Distinguishing migration events of different timing for wild boar in the Balkans. J Biogeogr 44:259–270Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alexandri P, Triantafyllidis A, Papakostas S, Chatzinikos E, Platis P, Papageorgiou N et al. (2012) The Balkans and the colonization of Europe: the post-glacial range expansion of the wild boar, Sus scrofa. J Biogeogr 39:713–723Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alves PC, Pinheiro I, Godinho R, Vicente JJ, Gortázar C, Scandura M et al. (2010) Genetic diversity of wild boar populations and domestic pig breeds (Sus scrofa) in South-western Europe. Biol J Linn Soc 101:797–822Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century (M Apollonio, R Andersen, and R Putman, Eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKAzzaroli A, De Giuli C, Ficcarelli G, Torre D (1988) Late pliocene to early mid-pleistocene mammals in Eurasia: Faunal succession and dispersal events. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 66:77–100Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bérénos C, Ellis PA, Pilkington JG, Pemberton JM (2016) Genomic analysis reveals depression due to both individual and maternal inbreeding in a free‐living mammal population. Mol Ecol 25:3152–3168Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Braga RT, Rodrigues JFM, Diniz-Filho JAF, Rangel TF (2019) Genetic population structure and allele surfing during range expansion in dynamic habitats. An da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 91:e20180179Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bragina EV, Ives AR, Pidgeon AM, Kuemmerle T, Baskin LM, Gubar YP, Piquer-Rodríguez M, Keuler NS, Petrosyan VG, Radeloff VC (2015) Rapid Declines of Large Mammal Populations after the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Cons Biol 29:844–853Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brewer S, Cheddadi R, de Beaulieu JL, Reille M, Allen J, Almqvist-Jacobson H et al. (2002) The spread of deciduous Quercus throughout Europe since the last glacial period. For Ecol Manag 156:27–48Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cahill S, Llimona F, Cabañeros L, Calomardo F (2012) Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Anim Biodivers Conserv 35:221–233Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Canu A, Costa S, Iacolina L, Piatti P, Apollonio M, Scandura M (2014) Are captive wild boar more introgressed than free-ranging wild boar? Two case studies in Italy. Eur J Wildl Res 60:459–467Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Canu A, Vilaça STT, Iacolina L, Apollonio M, Bertorelle G, Scandura M (2016) Lack of polymorphism at the MC1R wild-type allele and evidence of domestic allele introgression across European wild boar populations. Mamm Biol 81:477–479Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carranza J, Salinas M, de Andrés D, Pérez-González J (2016) Iberian red deer: paraphyletic nature at mtDNA but nuclear markers support its genetic identity. Ecol Evol 6:905–922Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LCAM, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ (2015) Second-generation PLINK: Rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4:1–16Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cheddadi R, Bar-Hen A (2009) Spatial gradient of temperature and potential vegetation feedback across Europe during the late Quaternary. Clim Dyn 32:371–379Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clark PU, Dyke AS, Shakun JD, Carlson AE, Clark J, Wohlfarth B et al. (2009) The Last Glacial Maximum. Science 325:710–714Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    DeGiorgio M, Rosenberg NA (2013) Geographic sampling scheme as a determinant of the major axis of genetic variation in principal components analysis. Mol Biol Evol 30:480–488Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Deinet S, Ieronymidou C, McRae L, Burfield IJ, Foppen RP, Collen B, et al. (2013) Wildlife comeback in Europe. The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. London, UKEckert CG, Samis KE, Lougheed SC (2008) Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: the central–marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol Ecol 17:1170–1188Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Fang M, Berg F, Ducos A, Andersson L (2006) Mitochondrial haplotypes of European wild boars with 2n = 36 are closely related to those of European domestic pigs with 2n = 38. Anim Genet 37:459–464Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ferenčaković M, Sölkner J, Curik I (2013) Estimating autozygosity from high-throughput information: Effects of SNP density and genotyping errors. Genet Sel Evol 45:42Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ferreira E, Souto L, Soares AMVM, Fonseca C (2009) Genetic structure of the wild boar population in Portugal: Evidence of a recent bottleneck. Mamm Biol 74:274–285Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Franois O, Currat M, Ray N, Han E, Excoffier L, Novembre J (2010) Principal component analysis under population genetic models of range expansion and admixture. Mol Biol Evol 27:1257–1268Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Frantz AC, Bertouille S, Eloy MC, Licoppe A, Chaumont F, Flamand MC (2012) Comparative landscape genetic analyses show a Belgian motorway to be a gene flow barrier for red deer (Cervus elaphus), but not wild boars (Sus scrofa). Mol Ecol 21:3445–3457Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Fulgione D, Rippa D, Buglione M, Trapanese M, Petrelli S, Maselli V (2016) Unexpected but welcome. Artificially selected traits may increase fitness in wild boar. Evol Appl 9:769–776Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Goedbloed DJ, Megens HJ, van Hooft P, Herrero-Medrano JM, Lutz W, Alexandri P et al. (2013a) Genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism analysis reveals recent genetic introgression from domestic pigs into Northwest European wild boar populations. Mol Ecol 22:856–866Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Goedbloed DJ, van Hooft P, Megens HJ, Langenbeck K, Lutz W, Crooijmans RPMA et al. (2013b) Reintroductions and genetic introgression from domestic pigs have shaped the genetic population structure of Northwest European wild boar. BMC Genet 14:2–10Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Groenen MAM, Archibald AL, Uenishi H, Tuggle CK, Takeuchi Y, Rothschild MF et al. (2012) Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution. Nature 491:393–398Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Herrero-Medrano JM, Megens H-J, Groenen MAM, Ramis G, Bosse M, Pérez-Enciso M et al. (2013) Conservation genomic analysis of domestic and wild pig populations from the Iberian Peninsula. BMC Genet 14:1–13Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hewitt GM (1999) Post-glacial re-colonization of European biota. Biol J Linn Soc 68:87–112Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hewitt GM (2004) Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 359:183–195Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Hiemstra PH, Pebesma EJ, Twenhöfel CJW, Heuvelink GBM (2009) Real-time automatic interpolation of ambient gamma dose rates from the Dutch radioactivity monitoring network. Comput Geosci 35:1711–1721Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Howrigan DP, Simonson MA, Keller MC (2011) Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: a comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. BMC Genomics 12:460Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Huisman J, Kruuk LEB, Ellis PA, Clutton-Brock T, Pemberton JM (2016) Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:3585–3590Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Iacolina L, Corlatti L, Buzan E, Safner T, Šprem N (2019) Hybridisation in European ungulates: an overview of the current status, causes, and consequences. Mamm Rev 49:45–59Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iacolina L, Pertoldi C, Amills M, Kusza S, Megens H-J, Bâlteanu VA et al. (2018) Hotspots of recent hybridization between pigs and wild boars in Europe. Sci Rep. 8:17372Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Iacolina L, Scandura M, Goedbloed DJ, Alexandri P, Crooijmans RPMA, Larson G et al. (2016) Genomic diversity and differentiation of a managed island wild boar population. Heredity 116:60–67Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Jombart T, Ahmed I (2011) adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27:1–2Article 

    Google Scholar 
    de Jong JF, Hooft van P, Megens HJ, Crooijmans RPMA, Groot de GA, Pemberton JM, Huisman J et al. (2020) Fragmentation and translocation distort the genetic landscape of ungulates: red deer in the Netherlands. Front Ecol Evol 8:535715Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ (2014) Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2:e281Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kardos M, Åkesson M, Fountain T, Flagstad Ø, Liberg O, Olason P et al. (2018) Genomic consequences of intensive inbreeding in an isolated wolf population. Nat Ecol Evol 2:124–131Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kaplan JO, Krumhardt KM, Zimmermann N (2009) The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat Sci Rev 28:3016–3034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.028Koemle D, Zinngrebe Y, Yu X (2018) Highway construction and wildlife populations: Evidence from Austria. Land use policy 73:447–457Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krže B (1982) Divji prašič: biologija, gojitev, ekologija. Lovska zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana
    Google Scholar 
    Kusza S, Podgórski T, Scandura M, Borowik T, Jávor A, Sidorovich VE et al. (2014) Contemporary genetic structure, phylogeography and past demographic processes of wild boar Sus scrofa population in central and eastern Europe. PLoS One 9:e91401Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lorenzini R, Lovari S, Masseti M (2002) The rediscovery of the Italian roe deer: Genetic differentiation and management implications. Ital J Zool 69(4):367–379Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lorenzini R, San José C, Braza F, Aragón S (2003) Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of roe deer in Spain, as suggested by mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite analysis. Ital J Zool 70(1):89–99Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Magri D (2013) Early to Middle Pleistocene dynamics of plant and mammal communities in South West Europe. Quat Int 288:63–72Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Manunza A, Zidi A, Yeghoyan S, Balteanu VA, Carsai TC, Scherbakov O et al. (2013) A high throughput genotyping approach reveals distinctive autosomal genetic signatures for European and Near Eastern wild boar. PLoS One 8:e55891Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Maselli V, Rippa D, De Luca A, Larson G, Wilkens B, Linderholm A et al. (2016) Southern Italian wild boar population, hotspot of genetic diversity. Hystrix 27:137–144
    Google Scholar 
    McVean G (2009) A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis. PLoS Genet 5:e1000686Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Megens H-J, Crooijmans RP, Cristobal M, Hui X, Li N, Groenen MA (2008) Biodiversity of pig breeds from China and Europe estimated from pooled DNA samples: differences in microsatellite variation between two areas of domestication. Genet Sel Evol 40:103
    Google Scholar 
    Melis C, Szafrańska PA, Jȩdrzejewska B, Bartoń K (2006) Biogeographical variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. J Biogeogr 33:803–811Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mihalik B, Stéger V, Frank K, Szendrei L, Kusza S (2018) Barrier effect of the M3 highway in Hungary on the genetic diversity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) population. Res J Biotechnol 13:32–38
    Google Scholar 
    NCBI (2018) Genome Organism Overview: Sus scrofa (pig). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome?term=sus%20scrofa%20%5BOrganism%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch&report=OverviewNikolov IS, Gum B, Markov G, Kuehn R (2009) Population genetic structure of wild boar Sus scrofa in Bulgaria as revealed by microsatellite analysis. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 54:193–205Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nykänen M, Rogan E, Foote AD, Kaschner K, Dabin W, Louis M et al. (2019) Postglacial colonization of northern coastal habitat by bottlenose dolphins: a marine leading-edge expansion? J Hered 110:662–674Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Palombo M, Romana AV-G (2003) Remarks on the biochronology of mammalian faunal complexes from the Pliocene to the Middle Pleistocene in France. Geol Rom: 145–163Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D et al (2007) PLINK: A tool Set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559–575. www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKBook 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaRejduch B, Sota E, Ró M, Ko M (2003) Chromosome number polymorphism in a litter of European wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa L.). Anim Sci Pap Rep. 21:57–62
    Google Scholar 
    Scandura M, Iacolina L, Apollonio M (2011a) Genetic diversity in the European wild boar Sus scrofa: phylogeography, population structure and wild x domestic hybridization: Genetic variation in European wild boar. Mamm Rev 41:125–137Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Scandura M, Iacolina L, Cossu A, Apollonio M (2011b) Effects of human perturbation on the genetic make-up of an island population: The case of the Sardinian wild boar. Heredity 106:1012–1020Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Scandura M, Iacolina L, Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Di Benedetto MF, Russo V et al. (2008) Ancient vs. recent processes as factors shaping the genetic variation of the European wild boar: Are the effects of the last glaciation still detectable? Mol Ecol 17:1745–1762Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Scandura M, Fabbri G, Caniglia R, Iacolina L, Mattucci F, Mengoni C, Pante G, Apollonio M, Mucci N (2022) Resilience to Historical Human Manipulations in the Genomic Variation of Italian Wild Boar Populations. Front Ecol Evol 10:833081Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schmitt T, Varga Z (2012) Extra-Mediterranean refugia: the rule and not the exception. Front Zool 9:22Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sommer RS, Fahlke JM, Schmölcke U, Benecke N, Zachos FE (2009) Quaternary history of the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Mamm Rev 39:1–16Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sommer RS, Nadachowski A (2006) Glacial refugia of mammals in Europe: evidence from fossil records. Mamm Rev 36:251–265Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sommer RS, Zachos FE (2009) Fossil evidence and phylogeography of temperate species: ‘glacial refugia’ and post-glacial recolonization. J Biogeogr 36:2013–2020Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sommer RS, Zachos FE, Street M, Jöris O, Skog A, Benecke N (2008) Late Quaternary distribution dynamics and phylogeography of the red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe. Quat Sci Rev 27:714–733Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stillfried M, Fickel J, Börner K, Wittstatt U, Heddergott M, Ortmann S et al. (2017) Do cities represent sources, sinks or isolated islands for urban wild boar population structure? J Appl Ecol 54:272–281Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Taberlet P, Fumagalli L, Wust-Saucy AG, Cossons JF (1998) Comparative phylogeography and post-glacial colonization routes in Europe. Mol Ecol 7:453–461.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Veličković N, Djan M, Ferreira E, Stergar M, Obreht D, Maletić V et al. (2015) From north to south and back: the role of the Balkans and other southern peninsulas in the recolonization of Europe by wild boar. J Biogeogr 42:716–728Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Veličković N, Ferreira E, Djan M, Ernst M, Obreht Vidaković D, Monaco A et al. (2016) Demographic history, current expansion and future management challenges of wild boar populations in the Balkans and Europe. Heredity 117:348–357Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vernesi C, Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Tartari D, Caramelli D, Hauffe H et al. (2003) The genetic impact of demographic decline and reintroduction in the wild boar (Sus scrofa): A microsatellite analysis. Mol Ecol 12:585–595Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vilaça ST, Biosa D, Zachos F, Iacolina L, Kirschning J, Alves PC et al. (2014) Mitochondrial phylogeography of the European wild boar: The effect of climate on genetic diversity and spatial lineage sorting across Europe. J Biogeogr 41:987–998Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zachos FE, Frantz AC, Kuehn R, Bertouille S, Colyn M, Niedziałkowska M et al. (2016) Genetic structure and effective population sizes in European red deer (Cervus elaphus) at a continental scale: insights from microsatellite DNA. J Hered 107:318–326 More

  • in

    Global patterns of climate change impacts on desert bird communities

    Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Bowler, D. E. et al. Cross-realm assessment of climate change impacts on species’ abundance trends. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–7 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barrett, J. E. et al. Persistent effects of a discrete warming event on a polar desert ecosystem. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2249–2261 (2008).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gooseff, M. N. et al. Decadal ecosystem response to an anomalous melt season in a polar desert in Antarctica. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1334–1338 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iknayan, K. J. & Beissinger, S. R. In transition: Avian biogeographic responses to a century of climate change across desert biomes. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3268–3284 (2020).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Conradie, S. R., Woodborne, S. M., Cunningham, S. J. & McKechnie, A. E. Chronic, sublethal effects of high temperatures will cause severe declines in southern African arid-zone birds during the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14065–14070 (2019).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    du Plessis, K. L., Martin, R. O., Hockey, P. A. R., Cunningham, S. J. & Ridley, A. R. The costs of keeping cool in a warming world: implications of high temperatures for foraging, thermoregulation and body condition of an arid-zone bird. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3063–3070 (2012).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ward, D. The Biology of Deserts (OUP Oxford, 2016).Reid, V. W. et al. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).Zhou, L., Chen, H. & Dai, Y. Stronger warming amplification over drier ecoregions observed since 1979. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064012 (2015).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5ºC Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 175-312, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005.Albright, T. P. et al. Mapping evaporative water loss in desert passerines reveals an expanding threat of lethal dehydration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2283–2288 (2017).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M., Timm, O. E. & Ganopolski, A. Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501923 (2016).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kearney, M. R. & Porter, W. P. NicheMapR—an R package for biophysical modelling: the microclimate model. Ecography 40, 664–674 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Huey, R. B. et al. Predicting organismal vulnerability to climate warming: roles of behaviour, physiology and adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 367, 1665–1679 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kearney, M. & Porter, W. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol. Lett. 12, 334–350 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bicudo, J. E. P., Buttemer, W. A., Chappell, M. A., Pearson, J. T. & Bech, C. Ecological and Environmental Physiology of Birds Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2010).McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol. Lett. 6, 253–256 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Williams, J. B. & Tieleman, B. I. Physiological adaptation in desert birds. BioScience 55, 416–425 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iknayan, K. J. & Beissinger, S. R. Collapse of a desert bird community over the past century driven by climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8597–8602 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Albright, T. P. et al. Combined effects of heat waves and droughts on avian communities across the conterminous United States. Ecosphere 1, art12 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cruz-McDonnell, K. K. & Wolf, B. O. Rapid warming and drought negatively impact population size and reproductive dynamics of an avian predator in the arid southwest. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 237–253 (2016).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Dawson, W. R. Temperature Regulation and Water Requirements of the Brown and Abert Towhees, Pipilo Fuscus and Pipilo Aberti.[With Plates.] (University of California Press, 1954).Riddell, E. A., Iknayan, K. J., Wolf, B. O., Sinervo, B. & Beissinger, S. R. Cooling requirements fueled the collapse of a desert bird community from climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908791116 (2019).Wolf, B. Global warming and avian occupancy of hot deserts; a physiological and behavioral perspective. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 73, 395–400 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kier, G. et al. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9322–9327 (2009).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ioffe, S. Improved consistent sampling, weighted Minhash and L1 sketching. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining 246–255 (IEEE Computer Society, 2010).Losos, E., Hayes, J., Phillips, A., Wilcove, D. & Alkire, C. Taxpayer-subsidized resource extraction harms species. BioScience 45, 446–455 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rodríguez-Estrella, R. Land use changes affect distributional patterns of desert birds in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. Divers. Distrib. 13, 877–889 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stralberg, D. et al. Climate-change refugia in boreal North America: what, where, and for how long? Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 261–270 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hinkel, J. et al. Sea-level rise scenarios and coastal risk management. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 188–190 (2015).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    He, Q. & Silliman, B. R. Climate change, human impacts, and coastal ecosystems in the anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R1021–R1035 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    C. B. D. Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/2/3. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/efb0/1f84/a892b98d2982a829962b6371/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf Convention on Biology Diversity, Montreal, Canada (2020).Jung, M. et al. A global map of terrestrial habitat types. Sci. Data 7, 256 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1 km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meigs, P. World distributions of arid and semi-arid homoclimates. In Review of Research on Arid Zone Hydrology (UNESCO, 1953).Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958-2015. Sci. Data 5, 170191 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kearney, M. R. & Porter, W. P. NicheMapR – an R package for biophysical modelling: the microclimate model. Ecography 40, 664–674 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pattinson, N. B. et al. Heat dissipation behaviour of birds in seasonally hot arid-zones: are there global patterns? J. Avian Biol. 51, e02350 (2020).Smith, E. K., O’Neill, J., Gerson, A. R. & Wolf, B. O. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: resting metabolism, evaporative cooling and heat tolerance in Sonoran Desert doves and quail. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 3636–3646 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smith, E. K., O’Neill, J. J., Gerson, A. R., McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: resting metabolism, evaporative cooling and heat tolerance in Sonoran Desert songbirds. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 3290–3300 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    Kearney, M. NicheMapR: R implementation of Niche Mapper software for biophysical modelling. https://github.com/mrke/NicheMapR. (2020).Cunningham, S. J., Martin, R. O. & Hockey, P. A. Can behaviour buffer the impacts of climate change on an arid-zone bird? Ostrich 86, 119–126 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Czenze, Z. J. et al. Regularly drinking desert birds have greater evaporative cooling capacity and higher heat tolerance limits than non-drinking species. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1589–1600 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smit, B. et al. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: phylogenetic variation among avian orders in evaporative cooling capacity and heat tolerance. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb174870 (2018).Worcester, S. E. The scaling of the size and stiffness of primary flight feathers. J. Zool. 239, 609–624 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, X., Nudds, R. L., Palmer, C. & Dyke, G. J. Size scaling and stiffness of avian primary feathers: implications for the flight of Mesozoic birds. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 547–555 (2012).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    McKechnie, A. E., Gerson, A. R. & Wolf, B. O. Thermoregulation in desert birds: scaling and phylogenetic variation in heat tolerance and evaporative cooling. J. Exp. Biol. 224, jeb229211 (2021).Flint, L. E., Flint, A. L., Thorne, J. H. & Boynton, R. Fine-scale hydrologic modeling for regional landscape applications: the California Basin Characterization Model development and performance. Ecol. Process. 2, 25 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 5. http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_Checklist_v5_Dec20.zip (2020).Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN red list. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 977–986 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pastore, M. Overlapping: a R package for estimating overlapping in empirical distributions. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 1023 (2018).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [Online], June 2021, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN www.protectedplanet.net (2021).Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (ICUN, 2008).Mangiafico, S. rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion. (2021).Crawford, C. L., Estes, L. D., Searchinger, T. D. & Wilcove, D. S. Consequences of underexplored variation in biodiversity indices used for land-use prioritization. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02396 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

  • in

    Partial COVID-19 closure of a national park reveals negative influence of low-impact recreation on wildlife spatiotemporal ecology

    Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L. & Altendorf, K. B. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Laundré, J. W., Hernandez, L. & Ripple, W. J. The landscape of fear: Ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol. J. 3, 1–7 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    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).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Miller, S. G., Knight, R. L. & Miller, C. K. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl. Soc. B. 29, 124–132 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    Larson, C., Reed, S., Merenlender, A. M. & Crooks, K. R. Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systemic review. PLoS ONE 11, 1–21 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol 13, 1–6 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baker, A. D. & Leberg, P. L. Impacts of human recreation on carnivores in protected areas. PLoS Biol 13, 1–21 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Schulze, K. et al. An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Cons. Lett. 11, 1–10 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Suraci, J. P. et al. Disturbance type and species life history predict mammal responses to humans. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 3718–3731 (2021).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Reilly, M. L., Tobler, M. W., Sonderegger, D. L. & Beier, P. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biol. Conserv. 207, 117–126 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Naidoo, R. & Burton, A. C. Relative effects of recreational activities on a temperate terrestrial wildlife assemblage. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e271 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 241, 1–11 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Poggiato, G. et al. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. TREE 36, 391–401 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Bates, A. E., Primack, R. B., Moraga, P. & Duarte, C. M. COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 248, 1–6 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rutz, C. et al. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1156–1159 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, Y., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol. Conserv. 190, 23–33 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lewis, J. S. et al. Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere 12, 1–16 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Corradini, A. et al. Effects of cumulated outdoor activity on wildlife habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108818 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Soule, M. E. et al. Dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conserv. Biol. 2, 75–92 (1988).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Feit, B., Feit, A. & Letnic, M. Apex predators decouple population dynamics between mesopredators and their prey. Ecosystems 22, 1606–1617 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Berger, J. Fear, human shields and the redistribution of prey and predators in protected areas. Biol. Lett. 3, 620–623 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sarmento, W., Biel, M. & Berger, J. Redistribution, human shields and loss of migratory behavior in the crown of the continent. Intermt. J. Sci. 22, 2016 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Microsoft. AI for Earth camera trap image processing API (2020).Niedballa, J., Sollmann, R., Courtiol, A. & Wilting, A. camtrapR: an R package for efficient camera trap data management. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1457–1462 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G. & Franklin, A. B. Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84, 2200–2207. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-3090 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    MacKenzie, D. I. et al. Occupancy estimation and modeling (Elsevier, 2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Fiske, I. & Chandler, R. unmarked: An R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J. Stat. Soft. 4, 1–23 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    Mazerolle, M. J. AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.3-1 (2020). https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg.Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Shepherd, B. & Boyce, M. S. The role of human outdoor recreation in shaping patterns of grizzly bear-black bear co-occurrence. PLoS ONE 13, 1–16 (2018).Article 

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

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

    Google Scholar 
    Agostinelli, C. & Lund, U. R package ‘circular’: circular statistics (version 0.4-94.1 (2022). https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/circular/.Santos, F. et al. Prey availability and temporal partitioning modulate felid coexistence in Neotropical forests. PLoS ONE 14, 1–23 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Olea, P. P., Iglesias, N. & Mateo-Tomás, P. Temporal resource partitioning mediates vertebrate coexistence at carcasses: the role of competitive and facilitative interactions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 60, 63–75 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shilling, F. et al. A reprieve from US wildlife mortality on roads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biol. Conserv. 256, 109013 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Behera, A. K. et al. The impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on wildlife in Deccan Plateau. India. Sci. Total Environ. 822, 153268 (2022).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Procko, M., Naidoo, R., LeMay, V. & Burton, A. C. Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12743. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12743 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sanderfoot, O. V., Kaufman, J. D. & Gardner, B. Drivers of avian habitat use and detection of backyard birds in the Pacific Northwest during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Sci. Rep. 12, 12655 (2022).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Nevin, J. A. & Grace, R. C. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 73–90 (2000).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kautz, T. M. et al. Large carnivore response to human road use suggests a landscape of coexistence. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 30, e01772 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Frey, S., Volpe, J. P., Heim, N. A., Paczkowski, J. & Fisher, J. T. Move to nocturnality not a universal trend in carnivore species on disturbed landscapes. Oikos 129, 1128–1140 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schwartz, C. C. et al. Contrasting activity patterns of sympatric and allopatric black and grizzly bears. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1628–1638 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fortin, J. K. et al. Impacts of human recreation on brown bears (Ursus arctos): a review and new management tool. PLoS ONE 11, 1–26 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kendall, K. C. et al. Grizzly bear density in Glacier National Park. Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 1693–1705 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stetz, J. B., Kendall, K. C. & Macleod, A. C. Black bear density in Glacier National Park, Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 38, 60–70 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sargeant, A. B. & Allen, S. H. Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes. J. Mamm. 70, 631–633 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Newsome, T. M. & Ripple, W. J. A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 49–59 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Naylor, L. M., Wisdom, M. J. & Anthony, R. G. Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 328–338 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sarmento, W. M. & Berger, J. Human visitation limits the utility of protected areas as ecological baselines. Biol. Conserv. 212, 316–326 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Garber, S. D. & Burger, J. A 20-year study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecol. Appl. 5, 1151–1162 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Winter, P. L., Selin, S., Cerveny, L. & Bricker, K. Outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability. Sustainability 12, 1–12 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    Geffroy, B., Samia, D. S. M., Bessa, E. & Blumstein, D. T. How nature-based tourism might increase prey vulnerability to predators. TREE 30, 755–765 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F. & Haynes, C. D. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management Vol. 8 (IUCN, 2002).Book 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Author Correction: Genomic analysis of sewage from 101 countries reveals global landscape of antimicrobial resistance

    Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs, Lyngby, DenmarkPatrick Munk, Christian Brinch, Frederik Duus Møller, Thomas N. Petersen, Rene S. Hendriksen, Anne Mette Seyfarth, Jette S. Kjeldgaard, Christina Aaby Svendsen & Frank M. AarestrupCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKBram van Bunnik & Mark WoolhouseCentre for Antibiotic Resistance Research (CARe), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenFanny Berglund & D. G. Joakim LarssonDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsMarion KoopmansInstitute of Public Health, Tirana, AlbaniaArtan BegoUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaPablo PowerMelbourne Water Corporation, Melbourne, AustraliaCatherine Rees & Kris CoventryCharles Darwin University, Darwin, AustraliaDionisia LambrinidisUniversity of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, DenmarkElizabeth Heather Jakobsen Neilson & Yaovi Mahuton Gildas HounmanouCharles Darwin University, Darwin Northern Territory, AustraliaKaren GibbCanberra Hospital, Canberra, AustraliaPeter CollignonALS Water, Scoresby, AustraliaSusan CassarAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, AustriaFranz AllerbergerUniversity of Dhaka, Dhaka, BangladeshAnowara Begum & Zenat Zebin HossainEnvironmental Protection Department, Bridgetown, St. Michael, BarbadosCarlon WorrellLaboratoire Hospitalier Universitaire de Bruxelles (LHUB-ULB), Brussels, BelgiumOlivier VandenbergAQUAFIN NV, Aartselaar, BelgiumIlse PietersPolytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, BeninDougnon Tamègnon VictorienUniversidad Catσlica Boliviana San Pablo, La Paz, BoliviaAngela Daniela Salazar Gutierrez & Freddy SoriaPublic Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska, Faculty of Medicine University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Bosnia and HerzegovinaVesna Rudić GrujićPublic Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and HerzegovinaNataša MazalicaBotswana International University of Science and Technology, Palapye, BotswanaTeddie O. RahubeUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, BrazilCarlos Alberto Tagliati & Larissa Camila Ribeiro de SouzaOswaldo Cruz Institute, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilDalia RodriguesVale Institute of Technology, Belιm, PA, BrazilGuilherme OliveiraNational Center of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, BulgariaIvan IvanovUniversity of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina FasoBonkoungou Isidore Juste & Traoré OumarInstitut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, CambodiaThet Sopheak & Yith VuthyCentre Pasteur du Cameroun, Yaoundι, CameroonAntoinette Ngandjio, Ariane Nzouankeu & Ziem A. Abah Jacques OlivierUniversity of Regina, Regina, CanadaChristopher K. YostEau Terre Environnement Research Centre (INRS-ETE), Quebec City G1K 9A9, Canada and Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu, IndiaPratik KumarEau Terre Environnement Research Centre (INRS-ETE), Quebec City G1K 9A9, Canada and Lassonde School of Enginerring, York University, Toronto, CanadaSatinder Kaur BrarUniversity of N’Djamena, N’Djamena, ChadDjim-Adjim TaboEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, ChileAiko D. AdellInstitute of Public Health, Santiago, ChileEsteban Paredes-Osses & Maria Cristina MartinezUniversidad Catolica del Maule, Centro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Talca, ChileSara Cuadros-OrellanaGuangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, ChinaChangwen Ke, Huanying Zheng & Li BaishengThe Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, ChinaLok Ting Lau & Teresa ChungShantou University Medical College, Shantou, ChinaXiaoyang JiaoNanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, ChinaYongjie YuCenter for Disease Control and Prevention of Henan province, Zhengzhou, ChinaZhao JiaYongColombian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance – Coipars, CI Tibaitatα, Corporaciσn Colombiana de Investigaciσn Agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA), Tibaitatα – Mosquera, Cundinamarca, ColombiaJohan F. Bernal Morales, Maria Fernanda Valencia & Pilar Donado-GodoyInstitut Pasteur de Côte d’Ivoire, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoireKalpy Julien CoulibalyUniversity of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaJasna HrenovicAndrija Stampar Teaching Institute of Public Health, Zagreb, CroatiaMatijana JergovićVeterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech RepublicRenáta KarpíškováCentre de Recherche en Sciences Naturelles de Lwiro (CRSN-LWIRO), Bukavu, Democratic Republic of CongoZozo Nyarukweba DeogratiasBIOFOS A/S, Copenhagen K, DenmarkBodil ElsborgTechnical University of Denmark, Kgs., Lyngby, DenmarkLisbeth Truelstrup Hansen & Pernille Erland JensenSuez Canal University, Ismailia, EgyptMohamed AbouelnagaUniversity of Sadat City, Sadat City, EgyptMohamed Fathy SalemMinistry of Health, Environmental Microbiology, Tallinn, EstoniaMarliin KoolmeisterAddis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaMengistu Legesse & Tadesse EgualeUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, FinlandAnnamari HeikinheimoFrench Institute Search Pour L’exploitation De La Mer (Ifremer), Nantes, FranceSoizick Le Guyader & Julien SchaefferInstituto Nacional de Investigaciσn en Salud Pϊblica-INSPI (CRNRAM), Galαpagos, Quito, EcuadorJose Eduardo VillacisNational Public Health Laboratories, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Kotu, GambiaBakary SannehNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, GeorgiaLile MalaniaRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, GermanyAndreas Nitsche & Annika BrinkmannTechnische Universitδt Dresden, Institute of Hydrobiology, Dresden, GermanySara Schubert, Sina Hesse & Thomas U. BerendonkUniversity for Development Studies, Tamale, GhanaCourage Kosi Setsoafia SabaUniversity of Ghana, Accra, GhanaJibril MohammedKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, PMB, GhanaPatrick Kwame FegloCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research Water Research Institute, Accra, GhanaRegina Ama BanuVeterinary Research Institute of Thessaloniki, Hellenic Agricultural Organisation-DEMETER, Thermi, GreeceCharalampos KotzamanidisAthens Water Supply and Sewerage Company (EYDAP S.A.), Athens, GreeceEfthymios LytrasUniversidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, GuatemalaSergio A. LickesSemmelweis University, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Budapest, HungaryBela KocsisUniversity of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, HungaryNorbert SolymosiUniversity of Iceland, Reykjavνk, IcelandThorunn R. ThorsteinsdottirCochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, IndiaAbdulla Mohamed HathaKasturba Medical College, Manipal, IndiaMamatha BallalApollo Diagnostics, Mangalore, IndiaSohan Rodney BangeraShiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IranFereshteh FaniShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranMasoud AlebouyehNational University of Ireland Galway, Galway, IrelandDearbhaile Morris, Louise O’Connor & Martin CormicanBen Gurion University of the Negev and Ministry of Health, Beer-Sheva, IsraelJacob Moran-GiladIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana, Rome, ItalyAntonio Battisti, Elena Lavinia Diaconu & Patricia AlbaCNR – Water Research Institute, Verbania, ItalyGianluca Corno & Andrea Di CesareNational Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, JapanJunzo Hisatsune, Liansheng Yu, Makoto Kuroda, Motoyuki Sugai & Shizuo KayamaNational Center of Expertise, Taldykorgan, KazakhstanZeinegul ShakenovaMount Kenya University, Thika, KenyaCiira KiiyukiaKenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, KenyaEric Ng’enoUniversity of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina” & National Institute of Public Health of Kosovo, Pristina, KosovoLul RakaKuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait City, KuwaitKazi Jamil, Saja Adel Fakhraldeen & Tareq AlaatiInstitute of Food Safety, Riga, LatviaAivars Bērziņš, Jeļena Avsejenko, Kristina Kokina, Madara Streikisa & Vadims BartkevicsAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, LebanonGhassan M. MatarCentral Michigan University & Michigan Health Clinics, Saginaw, MI, USAZiad DaoudNational Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment Institute, Vilnius, LithuaniaAsta Pereckienė & Ceslova Butrimaite-AmbrozevicieneLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Belvaux, LuxembourgChristian PennyInstitut Pasteur de Madagascar, Antananarivo, MadagascarAlexandra Bastaraud & Jean-Marc CollardUniversity of Antananarivo, Centre d’Infectiologie Charles Mιrieux, Antananarivo, MadagascarTiavina Rasolofoarison, Luc Hervé Samison & Mala Rakoto AndrianariveloUniversity of Malawi, Blantyre, MalawiDaniel Lawadi BandaMalaysian Genomics Resource Centre Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaArshana AminAIMST University, COMBio, Kedah, MalaysiaHeraa Rajandas & Sivachandran ParimannanWater Services Corporation, Luqa, MaltaDavid SpiteriEnvironmental Health Directorate, St. Venera, MaltaMalcolm Vella HaberUniversity of Mauritius, Reduit, MauritiusSunita J. SantchurnInstitute for Public Health Montenegro, Podgorica, MontenegroAleksandar Vujacic & Dijana DjurovicInstitut Pasteur du Maroc, Casablanca, MoroccoBrahim Bouchrif & Bouchra KarraouanCentro de Investigaηγo em Saϊde de Manhiηa (CISM), Maputo, MozambiqueDelfino Carlos VubilAgriculture and Forestry University, Kathmandu, NepalPushkar PalNational Institute for Public, Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The NetherlandsHeike Schmitt & Mark van PasselUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGert-Jan Jeunen & Neil GemmellUniversity of Otago, Christchurch, New ZealandStephen T. ChambersUniversity of Central America, Managua, NicaraguaFania Perez Mendoza & Jorge Huete-PιrezUniversidad Nacional Autσnoma de Nicaragua-Leσn, Leσn, NicaraguaSamuel VilchezUniversity of Ilorin, Ilorin, NigeriaAkeem Olayiwola Ahmed, Ibrahim Raufu Adisa & Ismail Ayoade OdetokunUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan, NigeriaKayode FashaeNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, NorwayAnne-Marie Sørgaard & Astrid Louise WesterVEAS, Slemmestad, NorwayPia Ryrfors & Rune HolmstadUniversity of Agriculture, Faisalabad, PakistanMashkoor MohsinAga Khan University, Karachi, PakistanRumina Hasan & Sadia ShakoorLaboratorio Central de Salud Publica, Asuncion, ParaguayNatalie Weiler Gustafson & Claudia Huber SchillInstituto Nacional de Salud, Lima, PeruMaria Luz Zamudio RojasUniversidad de Piura, Piura, PeruJorge Echevarria Velasquez & Felipe Campos YauceWHO Environmental and Occupational Health, Manila, PhilippinesBonifacio B. MagtibayMaynilad Water Services, Inc., Quezon City, PhilippinesKris Catangcatang & Ruby SibuloNational Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, PolandDariusz WasylUniversidade Catσlica Portuguesa, CBQF – Centro de Biotecnologia e Quνmica Fina – Laboratσrio Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Porto, PortugalCelia Manaia & Jaqueline RochaAguas do Tejo Atlantico, Lisboa, PortugalJose Martins & Pedro ÁlvaroGwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju, Republic of KoreaDoris Di Yoong Wen, Hanseob Shin & Hor-Gil HurKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaSukhwan YoonInstitute of Public Health of the Republic of North Macedonia, Skopje, Republic of North MacedoniaGolubinka Bosevska & Mihail KochubovskiState Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Chișinău, Republic of MoldovaRadu CojocaruNational Agency for Public Health, Chișinău, Republic of MoldovaOlga BurduniucKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi ArabiaPei-Ying HongUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKMeghan Rose PerryInstitut Pasteur de Dakar, Dakar, SenegalAmy GassamaInstitute of Veterinary Medicine of Serbia, Belgrade, SerbiaVladimir RadosavljevicNanyang Technological University, Singapore, SingaporeMoon Y. F. Tay, Rogelio Zuniga-Montanez & Stefan WuertzPublic Health Authority of the Slovak Republic, Bratislava, SlovakiaDagmar Gavačová, Katarína Pastuchová & Peter TruskaNational Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food, Ljubljana, SloveniaMarija TrkovIndependent consultant, Johannesburg, South AfricaKaren KeddyDaspoort Waste Water Treatment Works, Pretoria, South AfricaKerneels EsterhuyseKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South KoreaMin Joon SongSchool of Veterinary Sciences, Lugo, SpainMarcos Quintela-BalujaLabaqua, Santiago de Compostela, SpainMariano Gomez LopezIRTA, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA, IRTA-UAB), Campus de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, SpainMarta Cerdà-CuéllarUniversity of Kelaniya, Ragama, Sri LankaR. R. D. P. Perera, N. K. B. K. R. G. W. Bandara & H. I. PremasiriMedical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri LankaSujatha PathirageCaribbean Public Health Agency, Catries, Saint LuciaKareem CharlemagneThe Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenCarolin RutgerssonSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SwedenLeif Norrgren & Stefan ÖrnFederal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), Bern, SwitzerlandRenate BossAra Region Bern AG, Herrenschwanden, SwitzerlandTanja Van der HeijdenCenters for Disease Control, Taipei, TaiwanYu-Ping HongKilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, TanzaniaHappiness Houka KumburuSokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, TanzaniaRobinson Hammerthon MdegelaFaculty of Science and Technology, Suratthani Rajabhat University, Surat Thani, ThailandKaknokrat ChonsinFaculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandOrasa SuthienkulFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, ThailandVisanu ThamlikitkulNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, NetherlandsAna Maria de Roda HusmanNational Institute of Hygiene, Lomι, TogoBawimodom BidjadaAgence de Mιdecine Prιventive, Dapaong, TogoBerthe-Marie Njanpop-LafourcadeDivision of Integrated Surveillance of Health Emergencies and Response, Lomι, TogoSomtinda Christelle Nikiema-PessinabaPublic Health Institution of Turkey, Ankara, TurkeyBelkis LeventHatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, TurkeyCemil KurekciMakerere University, Kampala, UgandaFrancis Ejobi & John Bosco KaluleAbu Dhabi Public Health Center, Abu Dhai, United Arab EmiratesJens ThomsenDubai municipality, WWTP Al Aweer, Dubai, UAEOuidiane ObaidiRashid Hospital, Dubai, UAELaila Mohamed JassimNorthumbrian Water, Northumbria House, Abbey Road, Pity Me, Durham, UKAndrew MooreUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Cornwall, UKAnne Leonard, Lihong Zhang & William H. GazeNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDavid W. Graham & Joshua T. BunceBrightwater Treatment Plant, Woodinville, WA, USABrett LeforDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USADrew Capone & Joe BrownUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USAEmanuele Sozzi & Mark D. SobseyUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAJohn Scott Meschke, Nicola Koren Beck, Pardi Sukapanpatharam & Phuong TruongBaylor University, Waco, USAMichael DavisColumbia Boulevard WWTP, Portland, USARonald LilienthalEastern Illinois University, Charleston, USASanghoon KangThe Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, USAThomas E. WittumLaboratorio Tecnolσgico del Uruguay, Montevideo, UruguayNatalia Rigamonti & Patricia BaklayanInstitute of Public Health in Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, VietnamChinh Dang Van, Doan Minh Nguyen Tran & Nguyen Do PhucUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, ZambiaGeoffrey Kwenda More

  • in

    Differential effects of low and high temperature stress on pollen germination and tube length of mango (Mangifera indica L.) genotypes

    Pearson, P. N. & Palmer, M. R. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature 406, 695–699 (2000).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, P. et al. The genome evolution and domestication of tropical fruit mango. Genome Biol. 21, 60 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yang, H. et al. Advances in the regulatory mechanisms of pollen response to heat stress in crops. Chin. Bull. Bot. 54(2), 157–167 (2019).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Liang, Q. Z. et al. Transcriptome and metabolome analyses reveal the involvement of multiple pathways in flowering intensity in mango. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 933923 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ranasinghe, C. S., Waidyarathna, K. P., Pradeep, A. P. C. & Meneripitiya, M. S. K. Approach to screen coconut varieties for high temperature tolerance by in-vitro pollen germination. COCOS. 19, 01–11 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Das, S., Krishnan, P., Nayak, M. & Ramakrishnan, B. High temperature stress effects on pollens of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 101, 36–46 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Balasubramanian, S., Sureshkumar, S., Lempe, J. & Weigel, D. Potent induction of Arabidopsis thaliana flowering by elevated growth temperature. PLoS Genet. 2(7), e106 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sakata, T., Takahashi, H., Nishiyama, I. & Higashitani, A. Effects of high temperature on the development of pollen mother cells and microspores in Barley Hordeum vulgare L.. J. Plant Res. 113(4), 395–402 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hedhly, A., Hormaza, J. I. & Herrero, M. The effect of temperature on pollen germination, pollen tube growth, and stigmatic receptivity in peach. Plant Biol. 7(5), 476–483 (2005).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pirlak, L. The effects of temperature on pollen germination and pollen tube growth of apricot and sweet cherry. Gartenbauwissenschaft 67(2), 61–64 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Koti, S., Reddy, K. R., Reddy, V. R., Kakani, V. G. & Zhao, D. Interactive effects of carbon dioxide, temperature, and ultraviolet-B radiation on soybean (Glycine max L.) flower and pollen morphology, pollen production, germination, and tube lengths. J. Exp. Bot. 56(412), 725–736 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pham, V. T., Herrero, M. & Hormaza, J. I. Effect of temperature on pollen germination and pollen tube growth in longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.). Sci. Hort. 197, 470–475 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meehl, T. G. A. & Tebaldi, C. More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305, 994–997 (2004).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Reddy, K. R., Hodges, H. F. & Reddy, V. R. Temperature effects on cotton fruit retention. Agron. J. 84, 26–30 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Reddy, K. R., Reddy, V. R. & Hodges, H. F. Effects of temperature on early season cotton growth and development. Agron. J. 84, 229–237 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stainforth, D. et al. Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433, 403–406 (2005).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Z., Yuan, Y., Liu, S., Yu, X. & Rao, L. Screening for high temperature tolerant cotton cultivars by testing in vitro pollen germination, pollen tube growth and boll retention. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 48, 706–714 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kakani, V. G., Prasad, P. V. V., Craufurd, P. Q. & Wheeler, T. R. Response of in vitro pollen germination and pollen tube growth of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes to temperature. Plant Cell Environ. 25, 1651–1661 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kakani, V. G. et al. Differences in in vitro pollen germination and pollen tube growth of cotton cultivars in response to high temperature. Ann. Bot. 96(1), 59–67 (2005).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Hebbar, K. B. et al. Differences in in vitro pollen germination and pollen tube growth of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) genotypes in response to high temperature stress. Environ. Ex. Bot. 153, 35–44 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aloni, B., Peet, M., Pharr, M. & Karmi, L. The effect of high temperaturare and high atmospheric CO2 on carbohydrate changes in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) pollen in relation to its germination. Physiol. Plant 112, 505–512 (2001).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Dai, Q., Shaobing, P., Chavez, A. Q. & Vergara, B. S. Intraspecific responses of 188 rice cultivars to enhanced UVB radiation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 34(4), 433–442 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hepler, P. K., Vidali, L. & Cheung, A. Y. Polarized cell growth in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 17(1), 159–187 (2001).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Prado, A. M., Porterfield, D. M. & Feijo, J. A. Nitric oxide is involved in growth regulation and re-orientation of pollen tubes. Development 131(11), 2707–2714 (2004).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Potocky, M., Jones, M. A., Bezvoda, R., Smirnoff, N. & Zarsky, V. Reactive oxygen species produced by NADPH oxidase are involved in pollen tube growth. New Phytol. 174(4), 742–751 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Lassig, R., Gutermuth, T., Bey, T. D., Konrad, K. R. & Romeis, T. Pollen tube NAD (P)H oxidases act as a speed control to dampen growth rate oscillations during polarized cell growth. Plant J. 78(1), 94–106 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    McInnis, S. M., Desikan, R., Hancock, J. T. & Hiscock, S. J. Production of reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species by angiosperm stigmas and pollen: potential signalling crosstalk?. New Phytol. 172(2), 221–228 (2006).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Duan, Q. et al. Reactive oxygen species mediate pollen tube rupture to release sperm for fertilization in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 5, 3129 (2014).Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    You, J. & Chan, Z. ROS regulation during abiotic stress responses in crop plants. Front Plant Sci. 6, 1092 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Apel, K. & Hirt, H. Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55, 373–399 (2004).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Pandhair, V. & Sekhon, B. S. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in plants: An overview. J. Plant Biochem. Biot. 15(2), 71–78 (2006).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sharma, P., Jha, A. B., Dubey, R. S. & Pessarakli, M. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J. Bot. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/217037 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Luo, C. et al. Construction of a high-density genetic map based on large-scale marker development in mango using specific-locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF-seq). Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1310 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    IPCC. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed 15 Jan 2010 (2007)Reddy, K. R. & Kakani, V. G. Screening Capsicum species of different origins for high temperature tolerance by in vitro pollen germination and pollen tube length. Sci. Hort. 112, 130–135 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Armendariz, B. H. C., Oropeza, C., Chan, J. L., Maust, B., Aguilar, C. C. C., & Saenz, L. Pollen Fertility and Female Flower Anatomy of Micropropagated Coconut Palms. 373–378 (Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenetica, A C. Mexico, 2006)Binelli, G., Manincor, E. V. & Ottaviano, E. Temperature effects on pollen germination and pollen tube growth in maize. Genetica Agraria 39, 269–281 (1985).
    Google Scholar 
    Matlob, A. N. & Kelly, W. C. Effect of high temperature on pollen tube growth of snake melon and cucumber. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 98, 296–300 (1973).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhou, Q. F. An Empirical Study on the Evolution of Mango Production in China. 1–53 (Hainan University, 2017)He, L. et al. Grafting trial on mango varieties in hot-dry region Jinsha River. Subtropic. Agric. Res. 6(3), 21–24 (2010) (in Chinese with English abstract).
    Google Scholar 
    Gong, D. Y., Liu, Q. G., Zhang, Y. & Zhang, X. B. Studies on adaptability and application of mango varieties in south subtropical regions of Guizhou. Acta Agricult. Jiangxi 24(7), 28–31 (2012) (in Chinese).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Z. T. Performance and cultivation techniques of coconut mango in Panxi hot area. Trop. Agricult. Guangxi 3(110), 11–12 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Gajanayake, B., Trader, B. W., Reddy, K. R. & Harkess, R. L. Screening ornamental pepper cultivars for temperature tolerance using pollen and physiological parameters. Hortic. Sci. 46, 878–884 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    Salem, M. A., Kakani, V. G., Koti, S. & Reddy, K. R. Pollen-based screening of soybean genotypes for high temperatures. Crop Sci. 47, 219–231 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Young, L. W., Wilen, R. W. & Bonham-Smith, P. C. High temperature stress of Brassica napus during flowering reduces micro- and megagametophyte fertility, induces fruit abortion, and disrupts seed production. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 485–495 (2004).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kafizadeh, N., Carapetian, J. & Kalantari, K. M. Effects of heat stress on pollen viability and pollen tube growth in pepper. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 3, 1159–1162 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Pressman, E., Peet, M. M. & Pharr, D. M. The effect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing anthers. Ann. Bot. 90, 613–636 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sukhvibul, N. et al. Effect of temperature on pollen germination and pollen tube growth of four cultivars of mango (Mangifera indica L.). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 75(2), 214–222 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Koubouris, G. C., Metzidakis, I. T. & Vasilakakis, M. D. Impact of temperature on olive (Olea europaea L.) pollen performance in relation to relative humidity and genotype. Environ. Exp. Bot. 67(1), 209–214 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Huang, J. H. et al. Effects of low temperatures on sexual reproduction of ‘Tainong 1’ mango (Mangifera indica). Sci. Horticult. 126(2), 109–119 (2010) (in Chinese with English abstract).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Çetinbaş-Gença, A., Cai, G., Vardara, F. & Ünal, M. Differential effects of low and high temperature stress on pollen germination and tube length of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) genotypes. Sci. Horticult. 255, 61–69 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sorkheh, K. et al. Interactive effects of temperature and genotype on almond (Prunus dulcis L.) pollen germination and tube length. Sci. Hortic. 227, 162–168 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, L. et al. Analysis of common errors of custom enzyme activity units and suggestions for standardized use. Chin. J. Sci. Technol. 24(5), 1009–1011 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    Wang, W. et al. Combined cytological and transcriptomic analysis reveals a nitric oxide signaling pathway involved in cold-inhibited Camellia sinensis pollen tube growth. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 456 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    He, J. M., Bai, X. L., Wang, R. B., Cao, B. & She, X. P. The involvement of nitric oxide in ultraviolet-B-inhibited pollen germination and tube growth of Paulownia tomentosa in vitro. Physiol. Plant 131(2), 273–282 (2007).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gao, Y. et al. Mitochondrial dysfunction mediated by cytoplasmic acidification results in pollen tube growth cessation in Pyrus pyrifolia. Physiol. Plant 153(4), 603–615 (2015).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Hall, A. E. Breading for heat tolerance. Plant Breed. Rev. (SAS Institute) 10, 129–168 (1999) (SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.2. SAS Institute, 1992).Mearns, L. O., Easterling, W., Hays, C. & Marx, D. Comparison of agricultural impacts of climate change calculated from high and low resolution climate change scenarios. Part I. The uncertainty due to spatial scale. Clim. Change. 51, 131–172 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    SAS Institute SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 9.1.3. (SAS Institute Inc., 2004).Li, H. S., Sun, Q., Zhao, S. J. & Zhang, W. H. Experiment Principle and Technology of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry (Higher Education Press, 2000).
    Google Scholar 
    Cai, Q. S. Plant Physiology Experiment. Vol. 4(1). 182–186 (China Agricultural University Press, 2013) (in Chinese).Jia, M. X. et al. ROS-induced oxidative stress is closely related to pollen deterioration following cryopreservation. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Plant 53(4), 433–439 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Complex multiple introductions drive fall armyworm invasions into Asia and Australia

    Strain assessmentWe did not detect any C-strain individual following analysis of 138 fully assembled mitochondrial DNA genomes (mitogenomes) from Australian samples. Our results, particularly that from Northern Territory, are not dissimilar to the finding of Piggott et al.56 who detected only two (i.e., 4.2%) C-strain mtCOI haplotype individuals from a much larger (i.e., n = 48) Northern Territory sample size. Proportions of C-strain to R-strain also varied significantly across the different SEA populations (Table S1) in contrast to the patterns observed in China, India, and African nations (e.g.,22,33,34,39,57). All Australian populations analysed for their corn or rice mitochondrial haplotypes via mitogenome assemblies of whole genome sequencing data therefore contrasted with the invasive populations from SEA where in some countries (e.g., Myanmar, Vietnam) FAW with the C-strain mtCOI haplotypes made up approximately 50% of the populations examined (see Table S1 for C- and R-strains mitogenome proportions, see also Fig. 1 ‘C-strain’ and ‘R-strain’ Maximum Likelihood cladograms).Figure 1Maximum Likelihood cladograms of unique Spodoptera frugiperda C-strain and R-strain partial mitochondrial genomes based on concatenation of the 13 PCGs (11,393 bp) using IQ-Tree with 1000 UFBoot replications. Individuals in clades I, II, III, and IV (C-strain) and in Clades I, II, V (R-strain) that are in the same colour scheme (i.e., green, orange, blue, or pinks) shared 100% nucleotide identity. Mitogenome haplotypes from native individuals for both C- and R-strains are in khaki green colour. Red and dark grey dots at branch nodes represent bootstrap values of 87–100% and 74–86%, respectively. Bootstrap values  Hetexp; see60) could likewise indicate recent mixing of distinct populations from SEA that suggest multiple introductions (e.g.,33,39 cf.46,47,61,62; i.e., due to a recent bottleneck from a recent western Africa founder event).Table 1 Population genetic differentiation via pairwise FST estimates between Spodoptera frugiperda populations from the invasive ranges of Africa (Uganda, Malawi, Benin), South Asia (India), East Asia (China (Cangyuan (CY), Xinping (XP), YuanJiang (YJ)), South Korea), Southeast Asia (Malaysia (Johor, Kedah, Penang States), Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar), and Pacific/Australia (Papua New Guinea (PNG), Australia—Kununurra (Western Australia, WA), Northern Territory (NT), Strathmore, Walkamin, Burdekin, Mackay (Queensland, Qld), Wee Waa (New South Wales, NSW).Full size tableThe observed heterozygosity excess detected in all invasive range populations could be further explained as due to population sub-structure and isolation breaking through periodic migration. Significant numbers of loci (ca. 30%) were also shown to not be in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) especially for the Malaysian (i.e., Kedah), but also Australian (i.e., Wee Waa, NT, Kununurra), Chinese (e.g., XP), South Korean, and Malawian populations. Taken as a whole, genetic diversity results from this study therefore suggested that the invasive Asian (i.e., SA, SEA, EA) FAW populations exhibited signatures of recent mixing of previously separated populations. Simulated patterns of moth migration of various invasive FAW populations such as between Myanmar and China (e.g.,41,42,55) and to Australia54 are incompatible with the population genomic data, which suggests these were likely discrete and non-panmictic FAW populations with the most probable explanation being due to multiple origins of founding populations.Genetic differentiation analysisEstimates of pairwise genetic differentiation (FST) between populations varied significantly (Table 1) and extended to between populations within a country (e.g., Mackay vs. rest of Australia; Kedah vs. rest of Malaysia). Of interest are the pairwise estimates between different Australian FAW populations from Kununurra (Western Australia), Northern Territory, Queensland (Strathmore, Walkamin, Burdekin, Mackay) and New South Wales (Wee Waa) that represented the most recently reported invasive populations in this study, and predominantly showed significant differentiation amongst themselves (with the exception of the two Queensland populations of Mackay and partially for Walkamin) and with other SEA/SA/EA countries. The majority of non-significant population genetic differentiation estimates were in SEA where the presence of FAW was reported earlier, i.e., since 2018 (e.g.,63,64 or as early as 200865,66; see also33), while across Asia (e.g., China) since 2016 but also potentially pre-2014 (16,67; see also33).Interestingly, significant genetic differentiation was observed between populations from Yunnan province in China and populations from Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam. Penang and Johor (Malaysia) populations were not significantly differentiated from other SE Asian populations, nor with Ugandan and Malawian populations from east Africa. Individuals from Benin and Mackay (Queensland, Australia) showed non-significant genetic differentiation with all populations except with Kedah, and for Mackay also surprisingly with the Wee Waa population from New South Wales. The South Korean population exhibited significant genetic differentiation with SE Asian population except with Mackay, India and the Yuanjiang (YJ) population in Yunnan Province. Finally, the Kedah population, being one of the earliest collected samples from Malaysia and having been maintained as a laboratory population, showed strong differentiation with all populations (and lowest nucleotide diversity, π = 0.237; Table 2) further supporting unique, non-African, introduction events in SEA. Strong genetic differentiation suggested there was limited gene flow to breakdown sub-structure between populations, and the FST estimates from these invasive populations therefore failed to support a west-to-east spread pathway for the FAW. This observation instead suggested the widespread presence of genetically distinct FAW populations, likely due to independent introductions and therefore also highlighting likely biosecurity weaknesses especially in East Asia (e.g., China, South Korea) and SEA (e.g., Malaysia).Table 2 Population statistics for Spodoptera frugiperda populations from Southeast Asia (i.e., Malaysia (MYS; Johor, Kedah, Penang), Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar), East Asia (i.e., South Korea), and Pacific/Australia (i.e., Papua New Guinea (PNG), Australia).Full size tableThe genetic diversity of Australian populations identified surprisingly complex sub-structure patterns given the short time frame of population detections across different northern Australian regions. Significant genetic differentiation between, e.g., Kununurra (WA), Northern Territory (NT), Queensland (e.g., Strathmore, Burdekin), and Wee Waa (NSW) populations suggests these populations likely derived from separate establishment events. The WA Kununurra population was not significantly differentiated from the Johor State (Malaysia), India and the Cangyuan (CY) China populations, suggesting a potential south-eastern route from SA/SEA into north-western Australia. Contrasting this, Walkamin and Mackay populations showed non-significant genetic differentiation with the Madang (PNG) population, suggesting a potential second pathway for SEA individuals to arrive at the north-eastern region of Australia. Significant genetic differentiation between WA, NT, and Qld populations suggested that at least during the early stage of pest establishment in northern Australia, there was limited gene flow to homogenise the unique genetic background carried by these distinct individuals, some of which exhibited also distinct insecticide resistance profiles48,49.PCAWe selected specific populations to compare using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as examples to support evidence of independent introductions, as seen from Fig. 3a between China (CY, YJ, XP) populations vs. Myanmar, in Fig. 3b (within Malaysian populations between those collected from Penang and Johor States vs. Kedah State), in Fig. 3c for between China and East Africa (e.g., Uganda, Malawi), and where Benin and India individuals that grouped with either China or east Africa; and in Fig. 3d between China, Malaysia (Kedah State), and Australia (NT, NSW)). Genetic variability between Australian populations (e.g., Strathmore (QLD) vs. NT and NSW) was also evident (Fig. 3d).Figure 3Principal component analysis (PCA) showing variability between selected FAW populations from their invasive ranges. (a) China and Myanmar; (b) Kedah and Johor/Penang populations from Malaysia, (c) China and east African (Uganda/Malawi) populations, (d) Australia (Strathmore, Qld/Northern Territory + New South Wales), China, and Malaysia (Kedah) populations, (e) Australia (Strathmore, Qld) and PNG (Madang Province) populations, (f) Lao PDR/Vietnam and South Korea populations, (g) China and SE Asian (Lao PDR/Vietnam/Myanmar/Philippines/Malaysia) and Pacific/Australia (PNG) populations, and (h) Australia, China and Malaysia (Kedah) populations. Note the overall population genomic variability between countries (e.g., a, c–g) and within countries (e.g., Malaysia (b), Australia (d)). Populations with similar genomic variability are also evident, e.g., for Strathmore (e) and South Korea (f); and for Madang (e) and Lao PDR/Vietnam (f), further supporting potential different population origins of various FAW populations across the current invasive regions. The Southeast Asian and Chinese populations are overall different (g), Australia’s FAW populations showed similarity with both Southeast Asia and China (g, h).Full size imagePCA also showed that differences existed between FAW populations from the Madang Province in PNG and with the Strathmore population from Qld (Fig. 3e). The SEA FAW populations from Lao PDR/Vietnam also exhibited diversity from the South Korean population (Fig. 3f), with the South Korean and Strathmore populations largely exhibiting similar diversity patterns, while the Madang population shared similarity with Laos and Vietnam populations. Plotting all SEA populations against China clearly showed that populations from SEA were distinct from the Chinese FAW populations (Fig. 3g), while in Australia, individuals from various populations shared similarity with both Chinese and SEA FAW. Despite the connectedness of the landscape between SEA and China, SEA largely appeared to have their own FAW populations, with FAW in SEA and in China differing in their genome compositions overall as shown via PCA.PCA further enabled visualisation of genetic diversity amongst Australia FAW populations, suggesting that arrival and establishment of FAW likely involved separate introduction events that followed closely after each other and over a short timeframe. While it had been anticipated that the southward spread of FAW from SEA would necessarily lead to Australia FAW and PNG FAW to share similar genetic backgrounds, the Madang Province FAW population appeared to be different from the Strathmore (Qld) population, with the Madang population being more similar to Lao PDR/Vietnam populations, and the Strathmore population more similar to FAW from South Korea.DivMigrate analysisDirectionality of gene flow between African, South Asia (Indian), East Asia (China) and SE Asian populations were predominantly from China to east African and SE Asian populations (e.g., Figs. 4a, b, S-1; see also Table 3), while movements of FAW in Laos and Vietnam (i.e., the Indochina region) were predominantly with other SEA countries (e.g., with Myanmar and East Africa; Figs. 4c, d, S-2; see also Table 3) but with no directional movements to the three Yunnan populations (CY, XP, YJ). Migration directionality with other SE Asian populations (e.g., Johor (JB; Fig. S-3) and Penang (PN, Fig. S-4)) showed that these two populations (but especially the Johor population) were predominantly source populations for Uganda, Malawi, Philippines, Vietnam, and PNG (Fig. S-3). Bidirectional migration between Myanmar and Laos PDR populations were also detected with the Johor population from Malaysia (Fig. S-3). When India was selected as the source population, bidirectional migration events were detected with Myanmar and with the Cangyuan (CY) populations (Fig. S-5) while unidirectional migration events from India to Uganda and Malawi and to Laos were detected, and the China Yuanjian (YJ) population showed unidirectional migration to India. Unidirectional migration events from CY and YJ populations to the PNG Madang population were detected, while bidirectional migration events between PNG and Myanmar, Laos PDR, Philippines, Vietnam, and with Uganda and Malawi were also detected (Fig. S-6). No migration events were detected between the West African Benin population and with the South Korean population.Figure 4Source populations are CY (a) and XP (b). (c, d) DivMigrate analyses with edge weight setting at 0.453 showing unidirectional (yellow arrow lines) and bidirectional (blue arrow lines) migration between countries in Africa and South Asia/East Asia/SE Asia. Migration rates between populations are as provided in Table 3. (c) Vietnam (VNM) as the source population identified an incidence of unidirectional migration from Malaysia (MYS) Johor state (JB) to Vietnam, while bidirectional migration events were detected from Vietnam to other SE Asian (e.g., Philippines (PHL), Lao PDR (Lao), Myanmar (MMR)), to Pacific/Australia (i.e., Papua New Guinea (PNG)), as well as to east Africa (Uganda (UGA), Malawi (MWI)). (d) Lao PDR (LAO) as source population identified bidirectional migration events between various SEA populations and east African populations, while unidirectional migration events were identified from India (IND) and China (CHN) Yunnan populations (CY, YJ) to Laos PDR. No migration events were evident from SE Asian populations to China.(a, b) DivMigrate analyses with edge weight setting at 0.453 showing unidirectional (yellow arrow lines) and bidirectional (blue arrow lines) gene flow between countries in Africa and South Asia/East Asia/SE Asia. Significant migration rates (at alpha = 0.5) are in red and as provided in Table 3. Incidences of unidirectional migration were predominantly detected from China (CHN) Yunnan populations (CY, XP) to SE Asian populations (e.g., Myanmar (MMR), Laos PDR (Lao), Philippines (PHL)) and to east African populations (e.g., Uganda (UGA), Malawi (MWI)) (a, b).Full size imageTable 3 DivMigrate matrix showing effective migration rates calculated using GST from source to target invasive populations.Full size tableAdmixture analysisAdmixture analyses involving all Australian, Southeast Asian and South Korean populations from this study; and native populations from the Americas and Caribbean Islands, and invasive populations from Africa (Benin, Uganda, Malawi), India, and China33, provided an overall complex picture of population structure that reflected the species’ likely introduction histories across its invasive ranges.Admixture analysis that excluded New World, African and Indian populations identified four genetic clusters (i.e., K = 4) to best describe these invasive populations from SEA, and EA (i.e., China, South Korea), and Pacific/Australia (Fig. 5a). At K = 4, Australian populations from NT and NSW, YJ population from China, South Korean, and Malaysia’s Kedah population, each showed unique admixture patterns (i.e., some individuals from NT and NSW populations lacked cluster 3; most of YJ (but also some CY and XP) individuals lacked clusters 1 and 2; South Korean (e.g., MF individuals) lacked cluster 2; Malaysia’s Kedah population lacked evidence of admixture (i.e., reflecting its laboratory culture history) and was made up predominantly by individuals that belonged to cluster 4. Populations from China also differed from most populations from SEA due to the overall absence of genetic cluster 4. Taken as a whole, establishment of the FAW populations in China, Malaysia, vs. other SE Asian populations, and between Australian populations (e.g., NT/NSW cf. WA/Qld), likely involved individuals from diverse genetic background (i.e., multiple introductions). At K = 4, the majority of Australian populations appeared to contain genetic clusters similar to China (i.e., cluster 3) and to SEA (i.e., cluster 2).Figure 5Admixture and corresponding CV plots for FAW populations from: (a) Australia, China, South Korea, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Malaysia, Philippines, PNG, and Vietnam, and (b) Benin, China, India, South Korea, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Malaysia, Philippines, PNG, Tanzania, and Vietnam. Optimal ancestral genetic clusters are K = 4 for both admixture plots. Boxed individuals have unique admixture patterns at K = 4 when compared with other populations. China FAW lacked Cluster 2 (navy blue colour; present in almost all SEA and Australian FAW), while in NSW and NT some individuals lacked cluster 3. South Korea ‘MF’ population generally lacked cluster 2, while Kedah (Malaysia) showed distinct (cluster 4) pattern for all individuals. The overall same observations are evident in the admixture plot in (b), with African FAW generally exhibiting admixture patterns similar to SEA populations than to Chinese FAW. With the exception of Kedah (Malaysia) and some Chinese FAW individuals, all FAW in the invasive range showed evidence of genomic admixture (i.e., hybrid signature). The figures were generated using the POPHELPER program  and further manipulated in Microsoft PowerPoint for Mac v16.54.Full size imageOverall admixture patterns at best K = 4 in China and SEA remained unchanged when analysed together with African and Indian individuals (Fig. 5b; excluded Australia). Benin individuals were either similar to China or to SEA, while eastern African populations (e.g., Uganda, Malawi) were similar to Southeast Asian populations from e.g., Vietnam, Laos, and is in agreement with the phylogenetic inference (Fig. 3) that identified these African individuals as having loci that were derived from Southeast Asian populations.Genome-wide SNP loci demonstrated that invasive FAW populations from SEA and Australia exhibited admixed genomic signatures similar to that observed in other invasive populations33,34. While the current invasive populations in Africa and Asia likely arrived already as hybrids as suggested by Yainna et al.68, the Malaysia Kedah State population was potentially established by offspring of a non-admixed female. Distinct admixture patterns in Malaysian FAW populations between Kedah and Johor/Penang states therefore suggested that establishment of these populations was likely as separate introduction events. As reported also in Tay et al.33, the Chinese YJ population appeared to have admixed signature that differed from XP and CY populations, and suggested that the YJ population could have a different introduction history than the XP and CY populations. Similar multiple genetic signatures based on lesser nuclear markers by Jiang et al.39 also supported likely multiple introductions of China Yunnan populations. More

  • in

    Altered gut microbiota in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine

    ParticipantsIn total, 80, 63, and 56 participants in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, initially agreed to participate in this study. Nevertheless, 28, 12, and 13 individuals in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, withdrew their participation and did not bring any fecal samples to the study site. After providing fecal samples, 10 and 6 individuals with EM and CM, respectively, reported intake of probiotics and were excluded from the analysis. No participant in the control group consumed probiotics during the study period. Eventually, 42, 45, and 43 participants in the EM, CM, and control groups, respectively, were enrolled (Fig. 1). The demographic and clinical characteristics of participants are summarized in Table 1. All participants with EM and CM used acute treatments for migraine. Moreover, 25 (59.5%) and 27 (60.0%) participants with EM and CM, respectively, received prophylactic treatment for migraine. Of the 42 participants with EM, 20 used anti-epileptic medications, 11 used beta blockers, 2 used an anti-depressant, and 1 used a calcium-channel blocker for prophylactic treatment. Of the 45 participants with CM, 23 used anti-epileptic medications, 8 used beta blockers, 1 used an anti-depressant, and no participant used calcium-channel blockers for prophylactic treatment. No participant in the EM, CM, and control groups was infected with SARS-CoV-2 before or during participation in the study.Figure 1Flow of participants in a study on the composition of gut microbiota in participants with episodic or chronic migraine.Full size imageTable 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with episodic and chronic migraine and the control.Full size tableCollection of 16 s RNA sequencing dataWe obtained 7,802,425 read sequences, accounting for 99.8% of the valid sequences from the fecal samples of 130 participants. According to barcode and primer sequence filtering, an average of 59,305 (range, 3716–90,832) observed sequences per sample was recovered for downstream analysis. Thus, 2,242,325 sequences were obtained from the controls for phylogenetic analysis, whereas 2,747,952 and 2,812,148 sequences were obtained from the EM and CM groups, respectively.Microbial diversityAlpha diversity was defined as microbial community richness and evenness. Alpha diversities in the genus richness, as evaluated by Chao1 (Fig. 2A), Shannon (Fig. 2B), and Simpson (Fig. 2C) indices, did not differ significantly among the EM, CM, and control groups. Beta diversity represented the community composition dissimilarity between samples. PCoA with the weighted UniFrac distance (Fig. 3A and Supplementary Fig. S1A, p = 0.176, permutational multivariate analysis of variance [PERMANOVA]), the unweighted UniFrac distance (Fig. 3B and Supplementary Fig. S1B, p = 0.132, PERMANOVA), and the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index (Fig. 3C and Supplementary Fig. S1C, p = 0.220, PERMANOVA) for beta diversity at the genus level among the EM, CM, and control groups revealed that these three groups could not be separated.Figure 2Alpha diversity at the genus level using Chao1 (A), Shannon (B), and Simpson (C) indices*,†. *Controls (green) and participants with episodic migraine (blue) and chronic migraine (yellow). †In the box plots, the lower boundary of the box indicates the 25th percentile; a blue line within the box marks the median, and the upper boundary of the box indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers above (red) and below the box (green) indicate the highest and the lowest values, respectively.Full size imageFigure 3Beta diversity of microbiota in principal coordinate analysis plot with the weighted UniFrac distance (A), the unweighted UniFrac distance (B) and the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index (C)*. *Controls (green) and participants with episodic migraine (blue) and chronic migraine (yellow).Full size imageRelative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with EM and the controlRelative abundance of fecal microbes at the phylum level did not differ significantly among participants in the control, EM, and CM groups (Supplementary Fig. S2). Moreover, Tissierellales (p = 0.001) and Tissierellia (p = 0.001) were more abundant in the EM group than that in the control group at the order and class levels, respectively (Fig. 4A). At the family level, Peptoniphilaceae (p = 0.001) and Eubacteriaceae (p = 0.045) occurred at a significantly higher proportion in the EM group than that in the control group. Furthermore, at the genus level, the abundance of 11 genera differed significantly between the two groups, including one more abundant and 10 less abundant genera in the EM group. Catenibacterium (p = 0.031) and Olsenella (p = 0.038) had the highest relative abundance in the control and EM groups, respectively.Figure 4Taxonomic differences in fecal microbiota among participants. The fold change (log2) denotes the difference in relative abundance between participants with episodic migraine and the control (A), between those with chronic migraine and the control (B), and between those with episodic and chronic migraine (C). CM chronic migraine; EM episodic migraine.Full size imageRelative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with CM and the controlThe analysis results at the class, order, family, genus, and species levels between CM and control groups are illustrated in Fig. 4B. Tissierellia (p = 0.001), Tissierellales (p = 0.001), and Peptoniphilaceae (p = 0.001) were more abundant in the CM group than that in the control group at the class, order, and family levels, respectively; however, at the genus level, the abundances of 18 genera differed significantly, including four more abundant and 14 less abundant genera in the CM group than in the control group.Relative abundance of fecal microbes between participants with EM and CMThe analysis results at the class, order, family, and genus levels between CM and EM groups are summarized in Fig. 4C. At the class level, Bacilli (p = 0.033) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group; however, at the order level, Selenomonadales (p = 0.016) and Lactobacillales (p = 0.034) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group. Moreover, at the class level, Selenomonadaceae (p = 0.016) and Prevotellaceae (p = 0.012) were less abundant in the CM group than that in the EM group. Furthermore, at the genus level, PAC001212_g (p = 0.019) revealed relative positive predominancy in the CM groups, whereas Prevotella (p = 0.019), Holdemanella (p = 0.009), Olsenella (p = 0.033), Adlercreutzia (p = 0.018), and Coprococcus (p = 0.040) revealed relative positive predominancy in the EM group.Association among fecal microbiota and clinical characteristics and comorbidities of migraineAmong the five genera (Roseburia, Eubacterium_g4, Agathobacter, PAC000195_g, and Catenibacterium) depicting predominance or less-predominance both in EM and CM groups, we conducted additional analyses for clinical characteristics and migraine comorbidities.Combining the results of the 42 and 45 participants with EM and CM, respectively, the Poisson regression analysis for relative abundance of microbiota revealed that a higher composition of PAC000195_g (p = 0.040) was significantly associated with lower headache frequency (Table 2). Furthermore, Agathobacter (p = 0.009) had a negative association with severe headache intensity (Table 3). Anxiety was associated with Catenibacterium (p = 0.027); however, depression did not reveal any association with the five genera (Table 3).Table 2 The association between headache frequency and the relative abundance of microbiota.*Full size tableTable 3 The association of severe headache intensity and comorbidities with the relative abundance of microbiota*.Full size tableRelative abundance of fecal microbes in participants with EM based on prophylactic treatmentAlpha and beta diversities in participants with EM did not differ significantly based on their prophylactic treatment (Supplementary Figs S3A–C, S4A–C, and S5A–C). At the genus level, Klebsiella (p = 0.009), Enterobacteriaceae_g (p = 0.006), and Faecalibacterium (p = 0.046) were more abundant in the prophylactic group than the non-prophylactic group (Supplementary Fig. S6A).Relative abundance of fecal microbes in participants with CM based on prophylactic treatmentAlpha and beta diversities in participants with CM did not differ significantly based on prophylactic treatment (Supplementary Figs S7A–C, S8A–C, and S9A–C). Emergencia (p = 0.043), Ruthenibacterium (p = 0.005), Eggerthella (p = 0.003), PAC000743_g (p = 0.034), and Anaerostipes (p = 0.039) were more abundant in the prophylactic group, whereas PAC000196_g (p = 0.049), Fusicatenibacter (p = 0.028), and Faecalibacterium (p = 0.021) were more abundant in the non-prophylactic group at the genus level (Supplementary Fig. S6B). More