Search

Aim: Macroecological studies that require habitat suitability data for many species often derive this information from expert opinion. However, expert- based informa-tion is inherently subjective and thus prone to errors. The increasing availability of GPS tracking data offers opportunities to evaluate and supplement expert- based in-formation with detailed empirical evidence. Here, we compared expert- based habitat suitability information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with habitat suitability information derived from GPS-tracking data of 1,498 individu-als from 49 mammal species.Location: Worldwide.Time period: 1998–2021.Major taxa studied: Forty- nine terrestrial mammal species.Methods: Using GPS data, we estimated two measures of habitat suitability for each individual animal: proportional habitat use (proportion of GPS locations within a habi-tat type), and selection ratio (habitat use relative to its availability). For each individual we then evaluated whether the GPS- based habitat suitability measures were in agree-ment with the IUCN data. To that end, we calculated the probability that the ranking of empirical habitat suitability measures was in agreement with IUCN's classification into suitable, marginal and unsuitable habitat types.Results: IUCN habitat suitability data were in accordance with the GPS data (> 95% probability of agreement) for 33 out of 49 species based on proportional habitat use estimates and for 25 out of 49 species based on selection ratios. In addition, 37 and 34 species had a > 50% probability of agreement based on proportional habitat use and selection ratios, respectively.Main conclusions: We show how GPS-tracking data can be used to evaluate IUCN habitat suitability data. Our findings indicate that for the majority of species in-cluded in this study, it is appropriate to use IUCN habitat suitability data in macro-ecological studies. Furthermore, we show that GPS-tracking data can be used to identify and prioritize species and habitat types for re-evaluation of IUCN habitat suitability data. expert opinion, GPS, habitat suitability, habitat type, habitat use, IUCN, mammals, movement, selection ratio, telemetry

Context Roads are ubiquitous in human inhabited landscapes, and can impact animal movement and population dynamics, due to barrier effects, road mortality, but also by providing resources at road verges. Thus, we need a better understanding of how roads, in interaction with seasonal changes in habitat structure, affect space use and habitat selection of the animals that persist in these landscapes. Objectives Here, we used the European hare (Lepus europaeus) as model species to investigate how human-induced changes in landscape composition—measured as road density, land cover type, and field size—affect home range location, seasonal habitat selection and road crossings, which are likely to correlate with wildlife-vehicle collision risk. Methods We collected > 240,000 GPS positions of 90 hares from three populations (one in Denmark and two in Germany) that differed regarding agricultural intensification and road density. Using this data, we analyzed home range location and habitat selection (using step-selection functions) in relation to roads, habitat composition, and seasonality, and quantified how these factors affected road crossings by hares. Results In comparatively more heterogeneous landscapes, hares established home ranges in areas with lower road densities compared to the surrounding area, but not in more simple landscapes. Moreover, hares generally avoided main roads and selected for minor roads during the vegetation growth seasons, especially in areas with comparatively less heterogeneous habitat structure. Hares crossed more main roads when moving greater distances, with movement distances being comparatively larger in simpler landscapes. Conclusions Our findings emphasize that it is important to distinguish between road types, as different roads can have different impacts on animals (e.g., small roads providing foraging opportunities via roadside vegetation and large roads being avoided). Moreover, animals in comparatively more heterogeneous landscapes are better able to adjust their habitat selection to avoid main roads than animals inhabiting simpler landscapes. More generally, homogenous landscapes increase the space use requirements of animals, leading to increased probability of road crossings, which in turn might affect population dynamics via increased road mortality risk.

Quantifying animal movements is necessary for answering a wide array of research questions in ecology and conservation biology. Consequently, ecologists have made considerable efforts to identify the best way to estimate an animal’s home range, and many methods of estimating home ranges have arisen over the past half century. Most of these methods fall into two distinct categories of estimators that have only recently been described in statistical detail: those that measure range distributions (methods such as Kernel Density Estimation that quantify the long-run behavior of a movement process that features restricted space use) and those that measure occurrence distributions (methods such as Brownian Bridge Movement Models and the Correlated Random Walk Library that quantify uncertainty in an animal movement path during a specific period of observation). In this paper, we use theory, simulations, and empirical analysis to demonstrate the importance of applying these two classes of space use estimators appropriately and distinctly. Conflating range and occurrence distributions can have serious consequences for ecological inference and conservation practice. For example, in most situations, home-range estimates quantified using occurrence estimators are too small, and this problem is exacerbated by ongoing improvements in tracking technology that enable more frequent and more accurate data on animal movements. We encourage researchers to use range estimators to estimate the area of home ranges and occurrence estimators to answer other questions in movement ecology, such as when and where an animal crosses a linear feature, visits a location of interest, or interacts with other animals.Open Research StatementTracking data on Aepyceros melampus, Beatragus hunteri, Bycanistes bucinator, Cerdocyon thous, Eulemur rufifrons, Glyptemys insculpta, Gyps coprotheres, Madoqua guentheri, Ovis canadensis, Propithecus verreauxi, Sus scrofa, and Ursus arctos are publicly archived in the Dryad repository (Noonan et al. 2018; https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.v5051j2), as are data from Procapra gutturosa (Fleming et al. 2014a; https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.45157). Data on Panthera onca were taken from (Morato et al. 2018). Additional data are publicly archived in the Movebank repository under the following identifiers: Canis latrans, 8159699; Canis lupus, 8159399; Chrysocyon brachyurus, 18156143; Felis silvestris, 40386102; Gyps africanus, 2919708; Lepus europaeus, 25727477; Martes pennanti, 2964494; Panthera leo, 220229; Papio cynocephalus, 222027; Syncerus caffer, 1764627; Tapirus terrestris, 443607536; Torgos tracheliotus, 2919708; and Ursus americanus, 8170674.

Various mammals, particularly carnivores, reportedly establish smaller home ranges in urban compared with rural areas. This may be because urban environments provide optimal resources within a small area, negating the requirement to range further, or because habitat fragmentation constrains ranging behavior. Comparable information on urban populations of herbivorous mammalian species (such as European rabbits) is scarce. To fill this knowledge gap, we radio-tracked 13 individuals (seven females and six males) equipped with radio collars in a suburban and an urban study site in the city of Frankfurt am Main in Germany during the reproductive season (March to September) of 2012. The study sites differed in levels of habitat fragmentation. We report the smallest home ranges ever described for this species, with mean 95% minimum convex polygons (MCPs) covering 0.50 ha, while no consistent differences between sites were uncovered. We occasionally tracked individuals crossing streets underground (in burrows), suggesting that streets may restrict the ranging behavior of rabbits—and possibly other burrowing species—to a much lesser extent than previously thought. We conclude that heterogeneous landscape structures, made up of a diverse mosaic of buildings, parks, and gardens, provide sufficient food and shelter in close proximity to burrows at both study sites. Therefore, our data support the hypothesis that optimal resources constrain ranges in this case rather than habitat fragmentation.

Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area‐based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home‐range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home‐range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross‐validation to quantify bias in empirical home‐range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum., Article impact statement: Due to autocorrelation‐induced bias, conventional methods severely underestimate the area requirements of GPS‐tracked large mammals.

Context Human land use intensified over the last century and simultaneously, extreme weather events have become more frequent. However, little is known about the interplay between habitat structure, direct short-term weather effects and indirect seasonal effects on animal space use and behavior. Objectives We used the European hare (Lepus europaeus) as model to investigate how habitat structure and weather conditions affect habitat selection and home range size, predictors for habitat quality and energetic requirements. Methods Using > 100,000 GPS positions of 60 hares in three areas in Denmark and Germany, we analyzed habitat selection and home range size in response to seasonally changing habitat structure, measured as vegetation height and agricultural field size, and weather. We compared daily and monthly home ranges to disentangle between direct short-term weather effects and indirect seasonal effects of climate. Results Habitat selection and home range size varied seasonally as a response to changing habitat structure, potentially affecting the availability of food and shelter. Overall, habitat structure and seasonality were more important in explaining hare habitat selection and home range size compared to direct weather conditions. Nevertheless, hares adjusted habitat selection and daily home range size in response to temperature, wind speed and humidity, possibly in response to thermal constrains and predation risk. Conclusions For effective conservation, habitat heterogeneity should be increased, e.g. by reducing agricultural field sizes and the implementation of set-asides that provide both forage and shelter, especially during the colder months of the year.

Agricultural land‐use practices have intensified over the last decades, leading to population declines of various farmland species, including the European hare (Lepus europaeus). In many European countries, arable fields dominate agricultural landscapes. Compared to pastures, arable land is highly variable, resulting in a large spatial variation of food and cover for wildlife over the course of the year, which potentially affects habitat selection by hares. Here, we investigated within‐home‐range habitat selection by hares in arable areas in Denmark and Germany to identify habitat requirements for their conservation. We hypothesized that hare habitat selection would depend on local habitat structure, that is, vegetation height, but also on agricultural field size, vegetation type, and proximity to field edges. Active hares generally selected for short vegetation (1–25 cm) and avoided higher vegetation and bare ground, especially when fields were comparatively larger. Vegetation >50 cm potentially restricts hares from entering parts of their home range and does not provide good forage, the latter also being the case on bare ground. The vegetation type was important for habitat selection by inactive hares, with fabaceae, fallow, and maize being selected for, potentially providing both cover and forage. Our results indicate that patches of shorter vegetation could improve the forage quality and habitat accessibility for hares, especially in areas with large monocultures. Thus, policymakers should aim to increase areas with short vegetation throughout the year. Further, permanent set‐asides, like fallow and wildflower areas, would provide year‐round cover for inactive hares. Finally, the reduction in field sizes would increase the density of field margins, and farming different crop types within small areas could improve the habitat for hares and other farmland species., Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe; 1076

Movement is one of the key mechanisms for animals to deal with changes within their habitats. Therefore, resource variability can impact animals’ home range formation, especially in spatially and temporally highly dynamic landscapes, such as farmland. However, the movement response to resource variability might depend on the underlying landscape structure. We investigated whether a given landscape structure affects the level of home range size adaptation in response to resource variability. We tested whether increasing resource variability forces herbivorous mammals to increase their home ranges. In 2014 and 2015 we collared 40 European brown hares (Lepus europaeus) with GPS-tags to record hare movements in two regions in Germany with differing landscape structures. We examined hare home range sizes in relation to resource availability and variability by using the normalized difference vegetation index as a proxy. Hares in simple landscapes showed increasing home range sizes with increasing resource variability, whereas hares in complex landscapes did not enlarge their home range. Animals in complex landscapes have the possibility to include various landscape elements within their home ranges and are more resilient against resource variability. But animals in simple landscapes with few elements experience shortcomings when resource variability becomes high. The increase in home range size, the movement related increase in energy expenditure, and a decrease in hare abundances can have severe implications for conservation of mammals in anthropogenic landscapes. Hence, conservation management could benefit from a better knowledge about fine-scaled effects of resource variability on movement behaviour.

Organismal movement is ubiquitous and facilitates important ecological mechanisms that drive community and metacommunity composition and hence biodiversity. In most existing ecological theories and models in biodiversity research, movement is represented simplistically, ignoring the behavioural basis of movement and consequently the variation in behaviour at species and individual levels. However, as human endeavours modify climate and land use, the behavioural processes of organisms in response to these changes, including movement, become critical to understanding the resulting biodiversity loss. Here, we draw together research from different subdisciplines in ecology to understand the impact of individual-level movement processes on community-level patterns in species composition and coexistence. We join the movement ecology framework with the key concepts from metacommunity theory, community assembly and modern coexistence theory using the idea of micro-macro links, where various aspects of emergent movement behaviour scale up to local and regional patterns in species mobility and mobile-link-generated patterns in abiotic and biotic environmental conditions. These in turn influence both individual movement and, at ecological timescales, mechanisms such as dispersal limitation, environmental filtering, and niche partitioning. We conclude by highlighting challenges to and promising future avenues for data generation, data analysis and complementary modelling approaches and provide a brief outlook on how a new behaviour-based view on movement becomes important in understanding the responses of communities under ongoing environmental change.

Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman´s rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ((Formula presented.)) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing (Formula presented.). To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal´s movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small (Formula presented.). While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an (Formula presented.) >1,000, where 30% had an (Formula presented.)

Agricultural landscapes are spatially and temporally dynamic habitats that force wildlife to interact with different management practices, such as harvests and mowing events which cause sudden changes in resource availability. Animals may avoid agricultural management events and the changed habitat, to search for undisturbed areas or they might use and explore such areas due to beneficial changes in vegetation structure. Further, landscape structure might influence the movement processes that are underlying reactions to agricultural management. Here we study how agricultural management events affect animal movement behaviour in two contrastingly structured agricultural landscapes. In 2014 and 2015 we collared 36 European brown hares (Lepus europaeus) with GPS-tags and accelerometers in Northeast Germany (large agricultural fields) and South Germany (small fields and comparatively more non-arable vegetation). We recorded hares’ movement behaviour for 4 days before and after agricultural management events without (e.g. fertilizer application) and with (harvest and mowing) immediate changes in resource availability, on the most common production cover types (wheat, grasslands, maize and rapeseed). We measured the number of GPS points in the focal fields, the range size (area covered within 4 days), the shift in range centre, and the hares’ energy expenditure (overall dynamic body acceleration). More GPS locations were found on fields following management events that affected resource availability, and less GPS fixes were recorded on the wheat fields after management events without resource changes. Compared to an equivalent period without management events, hares showed increased range shifts after harvesting maize and rapeseed fields, mowing grasslands and after management events without resource changes for most of the production cover types. Range sizes were only affected in wheat fields in Northeast Germany, where they increased after harvest and decreased after management events without resource changes. Energy expenditure was unaffected by agricultural management. Hares may profit from harvested fields, likely because they find food in form of fallen grains, improve their predator detection probability and generally prefer areas with low vegetation. The reaction to management events without the change of resources might depend on the specific type of management practices (e.g. organic vs. inorganic fertilizer). Landscape structure may play an important role as range sizes increase due to the necessity to reach distant alternative habitats. Hence, the provision of smaller fields with high crop diversity and sufficient alternative habitat patches throughout the year has the potential to maximise accessible resources and predator detection ability for hares and other farmland wildlife.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T17:44:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-01-26 Robert Bosch Foundation Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission. Senckenberg Gesell Naturforsch, Senckenberg Biodivers & Climate Res Ctr, D-60325 Frankfurt, Main, Germany Goethe Univ, Dept Biol Sci, D-60438 Frankfurt, Main, Germany Univ Maryland, Dept Biol, College Pk, MD 20742 USA Univ Maryland, SESYNC, Annapolis, MD 21401 USA Univ Guelph, Dept Integrat Biol, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada Norwegian Inst Nat Res, POB 5685 Torgard, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway Duke Univ, Dept Biol, Durham, NC 27708 USA Duke Univ, Dept Evolut Anthropol, Durham, NC 27708 USA Hirola Conservat Programme, Garissa, Kenya Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Wildlife Fish & Environm Studies, S-90183 Umea, Sweden Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Anim Ecol & Physiol, Inst Water & Wetland Res, NL-6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands Univ Fed Mato Grosso do Sul, Ecol & Conservat Grad Program, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil Univ Alberta, Dept Biol Sci, Edmonton, AB, Canada Univ London, Royal Vet Coll, Struct & Motion Lab, London NW1 0TU, England Wildlife Conservat Soc, Mongolia Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongol Peo Rep Mississippi State Univ, Forest & Wildlife Res Ctr, Carnivore Ecol Lab, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS USA Sao Paulo State Univ, Anim Biol Postgra Program, BR-15054000 Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil Michigan Dept Nat Resources, 1990 US 41 South, Marquette, MI 49855 USA Univ Calif Davis, Dept Anthropol, Davis, CA 95616 USA Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Max Planck Inst Ornithol, Vogelwarte Radolfzell, D-78315 Radolfzell am Bodensee, Germany Wildlife Conservat Soc, Bronx, NY 10460 USA Univ Potsdam, Plant Ecol & Nat Conservat, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Middle Tennessee State Univ, Dept Biol, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, Mammal Res Inst, ZA-0028 Gauteng, South Africa Fdn Edmund Mach, Res & Innovat Ctr, Dept Biodivers & Mol Ecol, I-38010 San Michele All Adige, TN, Italy Harvard Univ, Dept Organism & Evolutionary Biol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Natl Zool Pk, Smithsonian Conservat Biol Inst, Front Royal, VA USA Univ Evora, Depat Fitotecn, P-7002554 Evora, Portugal Univ Evora, ICAAM, Inst Mediterranean Agr & Environm Sci, Evora, Portugal Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valery Montpellier, CNRS,EPHE, Ctr Ecol Fonctionnelle & Evolut,UMR 5175, F-34293 Montpellier 5, France Phillip Isl Nat Parks, Cowes, Vic, Australia Monash Univ, Sch Biol Sci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Ohio State Univ, Dept Civil Environm & Geodet Engn, Columbus, OH 43210 USA Fiji Natl Univ, Dept Biol, POB 5529, Natabua, Lautoka, Fiji Univ Massachusetts, US Geol Survey, Massachusetts Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Amherst, MA 01003 USA Penn State Univ, US Geol Survey, Penn Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, University Pk, PA 16802 USA Univ Oxford, Dept Zool, Oxford OX1 3PS, England Giraffe Conservat Fdn, POB 86099, Eros, Namibia German Primate Ctr, Behav Ecol & Sociobiol Unit, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany Tech Univ Munich, Dept Ecol & Ecosyst Management, Restorat Ecol, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany Cary Inst Ecosyst Studies, Millbrook, NY 12545 USA Univ British Columbia, Irving K Barber Sch Arts & Sci, Unit 2, Biol, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada Univ Zurich, Dept Evolutionary Biol & Environm Studies, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland Univ Wyoming, Dept Zool & Physiol, Laramie, WY 82071 USA Univ Washington, Sch Environm & Forest Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA Univ Montana, Coll Forestry & Conservat, Dept Ecosyst & Conservat Sci, Wildlife Biol Program, Missoula, MT 59812 USA Bavarian Forest Natl Pk, Dept Conservat & Res, D-94481 Grafenau, Germany Albert Ludwigs Univ Freiburg, Wildlife Ecol & Management, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany Univ Toulouse, INRA, CEFS, Castanet Tolosan, France Univ Calif Davis, Anim Behav Grad Grp, Davis, CA 95616 USA Bionet Natr Onderzoek, NL-6171 EL Stein, Netherlands Univ Vet Med Vienna, Res Inst Wildlife Ecol, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Univ Coll Cork, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Cork, Ireland Univ Wyoming, US Geol Survey, Dept Zool & Physiol, Wyoming Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Res Unit, Laramie, WY USA North Carolina Museum Nat Sci, Raleigh, NC 27601 USA North Carolina State Univ, Dept Forestry & Environm Resources, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA Karatina Univ, Dept Nat Resource Management, POB 195710101, Karatina, Kenya Univ Lethbridge, Dept Psychol, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada Columbia Univ, Lamont Doherty Earth Observ, Palisades, NY 10964 USA Univ Valencia, Terr Vertebrates Grp, Cavanilles Inst Biodivers & Evolutionary Biol, E-46980 Valencia, Spain SUNY Stony Brook, Dept Anthropol, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA TSG, SSC, IUCN, Rua Licuala 622,Damha 1,Campo Grande, BR-79046150 Mato Grosso Sul, Brazil IPE Inst Pesquisas Ecol Inst Ecol Res, Caixa Postal 47, BR-12960000 Sao Paulo, Brazil Univ Alicante, Dept Ciencias Ambient & Recursos Natur, Vertebrates Zool Res Grp, Alicante, Spain Embrapa Pantanal, BR-79320900 Corumba, MS, Brazil Chico Mendes Inst Conservat Biodivers, Natl Res Ctr Carnivores Conservat, BR-12952011 Atiba, SP, Brazil Univ Glasgow, Inst Biodivers Anim Hlth & Comparat Med, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland NYU, Dept Biol, Ctr Genom & Syst Biol, New York, NY 10003 USA Univ Calif Davis, Dept Microbiol & Mol Genet, Davis, CA 95616 USA Univ Oslo, Dept Biosci, Ctr Ecol & Evolutionary Synth, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Alexander Silberman Inst Life Sci, Dept Ecol Evolut & Behav, Movement Ecol Lab, IL-91904 Jerusalem, Israel Norwegian Inst Nat Res, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Dept Math Sci & Ctr Biodivers Dynam, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway Univ Fed Mato Grosso do Sul, Dept Ecol, BR-79070900 Campo Grande, MS, Brazil Field Museum Nat Hist, Integrat Res Ctr, Chicago, IL 60605 USA Consorzio Parco Nazl Stelvio, Bormio, Sondrio, Italy Univ Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, UR LESSEM, BP 76, F-38402 St Martin Dheres, France Univ Bayreuth, BayCEER, D-95447 Bayreuth, Germany Natl Park Schwarzwald, D-77889 Seebach, Germany Univ New South Wales, Evolut & Ecol Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Univ New South Wales, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Penn Game Commiss, Harrisburg, PA 17110 USA Princeton Univ, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA Univ Konstanz, Dept Biol, D-78467 Constance, Germany Off Natl Chasse & Faune Sauvage, Studies & Expertise DRE, F-01330 Birieux, France Univ Haifa, Dept Evolutionary & Environm Biol, IL-3498838 Haifa, Israel Western Ecosyst Technol Inc, Laramie, WY 82070 USA Aarhus Univ, Arctic Res Ctr, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Polish Acad Sci, Inst Nat Conservat, PL-31120 Krakow, Poland Univ Porto, CIBIO InBIO Associate Lab, P-4485661 Vairao, Portugal Univ Lisbon, Inst Super Agron, InBIO Associate Lab, Ctr Appl Ecol Prof Baeta Neves, P-1349017 Lisbon, Portugal Univ Lisbon, Fac Ciencias, Ctr Ecol Evolut & Environm Changes, P-1749016 Lisbon, Portugal Univ Calif Davis, Dept Environm Sci & Policy, Davis, CA 95616 USA Jackson Hole Conservat, Jackson, WY 83001 USA Univ Vet Med Hannover, Inst Terr & Aquat Wildlife Res, D-30173 Hannover, Germany Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Environm Studies Dept, Ctr Integrated Spatial Res, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, ZA-0028 Hatfield, South Africa Colorado State Univ, Dept Fish Wildlife & Conservat Biol, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA Tatra Natl Pk, PL-34500 Zakopane, Poland Sao Paulo State Univ, Anim Biol Postgra Program, BR-15054000 Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil

Biodiversity is important for ecosystem functioning and biotic interactions. In experimental grasslands, increasing plant species richness is known to increase the diversity of associated herbivores and their predators. If these interactions can also involve endosymbionts that reside within a plant or animal host is currently unknown. In plant-feeding aphids, secondary bacterial symbionts can have strong fitness effects on the host, e.g. resistance to natural enemies or fungal pathogens. We examined the secondary symbiont community in three species of aphid, each feeding on a unique host plant across experimental plots that varied in plant species richness. Aphids were collected in May and June, and the symbiont community identified using species-specific PCR assays. Aphis fabae aphids were found to host six different symbiont species with individual aphids co-hosting up to four symbionts. Uroleucon jaceae and Macrosiphum rosae hosted two and three symbiont species, respectively. We found that, at the aphid population level, increasing plant species richness increased the diversity of the aphid symbiont community, whereas at the individual aphid level, the opposite was found. These effects are potentially driven by varying selective pressures across different plant communities of varying diversities, mediated by defensive protection responses and a changing cost-benefit trade-off to the aphid for hosting multiple secondary symbionts. Our work extends documented effects of plant diversity beyond visible biotic interactions to changes in endosymbiont communities, with potentially far-reaching consequences to related ecosystem processes.