sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chinese mole shrew, Common shrew, Gryllotalpa orientalis, Gryllotalpa unispina, Gymnure, Mole (animal)

Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. itaayi r motn o nesadn o nmlppltosrsodt eoredsrbto and distribution resource to to due respond populations Moreover, the how 2017). livelihoods. controlling understanding villager for for al. reduced suitable important and et not are insecurity Zong are analysis grain practices Diet 2013; in control 2016; resulting al. al. , existing et et these habits, (Yang (Gu of foraging pathogens number Basin and In and Sichuan food viruses 2013). 2018). in peculiar of al. their especially al. types et various et , Yang of (Peng Southwest 2018; source crops 2007). mole in al. potential and Chinese et a al. grains The (Peng be et stored ways 2007). to Song contaminates of considered al. and multitude is known, et consumes a it widely Palis in addition, is 2016; China house As in al. this other health 2013). et example, through Like human For (Khanam health al. and pathogens human 2018). et crops and of (Mdangi affects agriculture transmission al. effects shrew impact and et indirect widely crops Wilson and habitats to direct human 2003; damage both with al. causing association areas 2017), species et adjacent synanthropic and al. Motokawa. China et 2002; southwestern 2016), Zong in Lin 2018; al. distributed and et Motokawa 2003), (Khanam 2016; al. shrews et al. Motokawa. et 1987; (He Hoffmann 2016; al. ( et shrew mole Chinese The A. evaluating of as diet well the as Introduction of ecology identification feeding 1 resolution shrew higher understanding a for valuable provides contributing availability, is study crops. food on and This in impacts described Chinese variations species limited. previously seasonal winter. possible are to been to resources adapt summer has to and food than and year spring when the peanuts) squamipes Additionally, from even throughout as foods squamipes. survival diet such invertebrate A. flexible its of 88%; of and diet abundance [FO]: to diverse the and occurrence a in diversity identified of has the foods shrew (frequency in plant Fabaceae mole decrease common which the most seasonal contents, the of a stomach were found Species families shrew we ) squamipes. from as ( such A. genera prevalent 71%; we of most plant (FO: study, the diet Poaceae 65 are this diverse and In the species generalist. in omnivorous methods. animal which an items microhistological 38 diet, is conventional its identify squamipes using of A. to that understanding resolution assays suggest better taxonomic metabarcoding a been high requires DNA previously with species two has determine this used China, of to Southwest management in difficult population distributed be Effective squamipes), can impact (Anourosorex pest. their shrew farmland evaluating mole a and ecology as Chinese feeding reported understanding foods. for stored important and is crops species pest on small potential of analysis Diet Abstract 2020 20, July 2 1 Chen Shunde and Tang Keyi impacts potential crop evaluating with for squamipes) implications (Anourosorex shrew variations mole diet Chinese seasonal in into insights provides metabarcoding DNA ajn oetyUniversity Forestry Nanjing University Normal Sichuan 1 e Xie Fei , .squamipes A. 1 1 ogiLiu Hongyi , nuooe squamipes Anourosorex .squamipes A. asdsvr aae ocosrsligfo nrae ouainsizes population increased from resulting crops to damages severe caused 2 a Chen Dan , srgre saps ntearclua csse Pn tal. et (Peng ecosystem agricultural the in pest a as regarded is in-dad,17)i ml netvr aml(He small a is 1872) Milne-Edwards, 1 1 oi Qin Boxin , 1 hnknFu Changkun , > 0)adaudn ( abundant and 90%) 1 in Wang Qiong , > 0)food 80%) 1 , Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. tisCmiteo iha omlUiest.Atretatn rmtesoah h C a washed was SCs the stomach, the Animal from the of interference extracting approval the and After avoid contents guidelines University. to the stomach SCs Normal to obtained of according Sichuan interior collected We were of the temperature. samples in Committee SCs foods room The Ethics the cells. at collect or thawed to tissues try were host We of shrew individuals. 72 mole from Chinese collected (SCs) of samples the extraction all in DNA study.The morphology this and skull in samples used content to were Stomach according season) 2.2 -20 from each confirmed Oct) at in further and (18 frozen were shrew Jul immediately based mole and Apr, were identified Chinese were (Jan, field specimens seasons The the collected four All in laboratory. from China. characteristics southwest trapped Province, external were Sichuan on Pengzhou, shrew in mole 2019 Chinese to 2018 of samples animal The food seasonal trapping and Animal strategies. breadth control 2.1 pest dietary methods appropriate of develop and to understanding Materials help DNA our 2 as by enhance well seasons as and four shrew crops mole the Chinese on across diet evaluate pest to in shrew seasons this preferences across mole of composition and Chinese richness impacts the dietary compared the characterize We to samples. stomach attempted of metabarcoding control. understanding we prevents pest species study, which effective prey this shrew, impedes invertebrate In mole thus the Chinese and about by ecology known consumed feeding is species-level) and their of Little McCay taxa the of plant identification 2002; at levels. resolved microhistological (especially Haberl studies poorly taxonomic on plants of higher 2000; previous proportions based and at Ascencao large Most are in mainly De resulting species information and 2016). pellets, shrew dietary Pascual fecal in or al. De contents diets stomach 2010; et assessed in ( fragments Khanam al. that shrew 2014; 1997) et To musk Churchfield Storm 2012). al. 2012; Asian and et al. of al. et (Brown diets et Pompanon methods (Churchfield the 2015; metabarcoding Pringle only DNA and species, contents (Kartzinel through gut shrew resolution in DNA) 2002). taxonomic among degraded Haberl higher highly that date, 2010; (including with diets DNA samples al. with food flexible fecal identify et technique and to Churchfield or us broad-spectrum diverse 2012; enabled to a highly metabarcoding al. unable DNA have Therefore, et is Here, (Churchfield species approach 2018). plants shrew isotope degraded and stable because al. easily annelids, of the necessary et , and mixture Besides, include is (Bohmann size, a 2019). level resolution in contains taxonomic al. species chyme small et higher the al. their variable, Rytkonen at since et is 2014; prey difficult Bessey prey al. distinguish is whose 2017; et greater identification predators, (Clare 2019). a al. direct fragments insectivorous to al. et prey gut, of digested et (Berry the cases often Rytkonen challenging in are the 2016; items taxonomically disintegrated in al. food foods remains Especially et that Identifying their Murray is 2019). of 2019; methods 2018). identification observational al. analysis classical making al. et microhistological the extent, (Jeunen et traditional of analysis Ozaki with limitation isotope impossible major 2017; stable nearly A and is al. contents resolution et elusive gut taxonomic their (Gong of seasonal of highest habits because and the diets, feeding composition with wildlife assess versatile items the efficiently and described and accurately have behaviors resolution. to studies difficult predatory taxonomic is few higher it very with populations, However, natural diet evaluate For shrew to 2008). mole (Khanam help Chinese al. lures can the et baitsand shrews in targeted Lathiya variations including house 2016; strategies, of management al. habits pests et effective feeding is more the numbers foods develop pest of of and controlling identification seasons understanding effectively of Accurate addition and Better in populations 2017). species used growing a 2008). al. how been of et has ecology al. (Gong information feeding studies et Dietary the applied (Heroldova understanding 2019). of fully variety to al. a prerequisite et in a (Gordon ecology them feeding manage pure to to how as well as variety .squamipes A. .squamipes A. hs hssuymyhv mlctosfrfo ih n aaeetof management and niche food for implications have may study this Thus, . ffc ua n giutrlssesee uigresource-poor during even systems agricultural and human affect 2 ° o ute nlss oa fsvnytoof seventy-two of total A analyses. further for C ucsmurinus aebe examined been have ) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aiu aooi eesada ieetsaosbsdo h ierdsrmntr nlss(D)effect (LDA) analysis at discriminatory items linear analyses food the Statistical of 2.5 on software. abundance based LEfSe relative using seasons the by method different compared visualized (LEfSe) at also and size We and to QIIME levels composition. seasons using taxonomic diet different calculated various between in diversity was compared beta differences was diversity season, temporal Diversity each displayed Beta (PCoA). assess within and analysis samples distance. QIIME coordinate of euclidean principal dispersion using two-dimensional of the performed pattern with were the evaluate calculated matrices To was Simpson) software. and se- v.3.3.3. Shannon number: R DNA using accession Chao1, . under same (i.e., (SRA) the as diversity Archive within and Read Alpha species match,” Sequence more “species NCBI or the a one into as to deposited considered similarity were PRJNA637184. were to 98% study species resolved this [?] single were in had a quences sequences MOTUs full to if 2017). 99% match” the al. “genus [?] against a et identity CO queried with (Berry for were Sequences study higher, filtering threshold: previous quality or USEAR- to in passed genus, according setting that species, BLASTn standard reads using the clean database were to at High-quality regions NCBI according clustered Adaptor/primer 2013). (MOTUs) were Reads 2012). Units ac- (Edgar Taxonomic 2013). al. assignment CHv9.2 (Edgar Operational et taxonomic USEARCHv9.2 Molecular to (Caporaso using into removed prior process 97% were steps control chimeras control quality potential quality v.1.7.0 and and removed, QIIME trimming the through to filtered cording were reads raw analysis The data and the processing by (2 recommended Sequence platform as 2.4 China). Miseq States) according the (Shanghai, United Illumina Corporation using CA, purified an Technology Diego, constructed and on Bioinformatics San were mixed Personalbio sequenced (Illumina, sequencing then were Kit for were Libraries Prep Libraries sample manufacturer. Library requirements. LT each sequencing DNA for throughput Nano amplicons TruSeq Quant- high using The next FLx800) PCR Kit. (BioTek, the set. reader the Assay to Microplate primer as dsDNA al. product a different PCR on PicoGreen each et purified performed the for iT Taking was Bohmann and (AXYGEN). PCR kit following plate, real-time purification quantitative PCR PCR primarily template, a each using conducted on purified then included were were were products protocols controls extraction PCR Blank And Q5 (2018). instruction. Using were sequences PCR manufacturer’s barcode with the specific significant Sample performed no were 2007). ensure PCR al. to h2aR et sequences and (Pierre CO shrew (h1aF species the primers plant mole to gene) the Chinese added carboxylase identify against (ribulose-bisphosphate to tested rbcL used were the were primers) And primers DNA. used host The of amplification 2011). al. et CO Existing CO cation. CO mitochondrial a using produced out which carried was amplification sequencing evaporating PCR by and concentrated amplification analysis. further metabarcoding extraction DNA was for An Dietary DNA stored instructions. 2.3 was extracted manufacturer’s specifically then The the is and series. which vacuum, to extraction QIAGEN), in according each molecular 51604, samples samples, at further (ID: contents included Kit for gut was Mini used blank Stool and are DNA fecal samples Fast used for QiaAmp SCs are developed the mixed samples used 24 SCs DNA of mixed extracted We total six same a Herein, the from and sample. homogenized derived season, mixed was individuals analysis. each a SC three dietary in into of Each sequencing samples mixed extraction. SCs further homogeneously each The for are between extraction. woodland tissue DNA or for other ethanol field with 95% off in wiped stored and and water ultrapure with Ι n bLprimers. rbcL and Ι- ae prahsi ieypeerdt dniyukonatrpdsqecs(Zeale sequences unknown identify to preferred widely is approaches based Ι ctcrm oxidase (cytochrome Ι nml rrc lnspie sasbsdo h ecn similarity percent the on based assays primer plants rbcL or animals ® Ι mlcno 7 p(rw ta.21)fraia identifi- animal for 2014) al. et (Brown bp 177 of amplicon ) ihFdlt N oyeae(09,NB codn to according NEB) (M0491, Polymerase DNA High-Fidelity 3 Ι- agtn rmr(LCO-1490/Uni-MiniBar-R), primer targeting × 5 ppie-n ed)by reads) paired-end bp 250 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. tteseislvl h oiat(o v)aia pce ntrso ohF n eaieabundance relative and FO both of terms in species animal five) (top abundances dominant relative the were and species-level, frequencies the low At at diet but du- the detected P=0.004) in also 45%, item were vs. food in Lepidoptera) 90% major vs. and the winter: 83% Diptera, as vs. winter: Dermaptera, considered autumn were vs. P=0.03; earthworms (spring Thus, 45%, of decreased 3). vs. Table significant 81% (Supplementary Haplotaxida winter: winter ring vs. of ( summer consumption richness Haplotaxida P=0.002; the taxonomic of 45%, Notably, highest species 3). and earthworms-eating with Table (100%) an Stylom- diet tary FO Haplotaxida, the primarily of highest dominated is species the Moniligastrida only, shrew representing and (, mole order-level insects , Using small Chinese Hymenoptera, mode. some the matophora, foraging although semi- that consumed, showed a were results with our ) shrew year, and full the crickets, on , Based winter). of in items composition (e.g., diet food limitation the in animal variations in seasonal examined variation We seasonal intergroup and other contributed of in composition likely degree those autumn In Dietary from in high 3.2 3A). separated (Poaceae) was a family (Figure that dominant suggesting winter autumn The separation. in 3B). in items, this items (Figure to diets food food dispersion plant apparent from animal of with separate cluster winter seasons a were within observed spring, and in also dispersion We items variability. together was food Animal clustered there diets. weakly animal-derived addition, in autumn availability differences the seasonal and revealed that our summer 3) suggesting (Figure Overall, diversity 2B), plot seasons. winter. alpha (Figure PCoA by dietary The seasons to winter affected the between relative not However, to significantly were winter. autumn differ compared in foods not summer in items plant-derived did and of food observed items animal spring was of food of in plant diversity index diversity index of alpha the diversity lower diversity in Shannon a Chao1 showed differences higher greater analysis genus seasonal A a at indicated was 2A). items Simpson) year. There (Figure food the and items. throughout and plant Shannon, food constant autumn of (Chao1, animal were in number items indices those the food diversity than plant in Alpha higher potential differences significantly that seasonal were suggesting animal significant which 1A), of no (Figure summer, consumption level Peak found and 1A). we spring (Figure However, in detected winter were winter. in detected (Supplementary changes significantly was decreased dietary orders) items level Seasonal 23 species food shrew. and at mole items orders) families Chinese food 15 by 39 animal and consumed (spanning families are 26 items that (spanning level in food items species plant was food at 113 animal species 2) potential Table and animal 38 1) in identified Table we MOTUs (Supplementary total, of In 95 number 1). was mean (Table MOTUs winter the of seasons, number mean all the over analyzed samples 38 stomach diversity 24 dietary the and In were assignment charts taxonomic bar of summary Overview taxa 3.1 and seasons plots 2009). different compared box (Wickham between maps, software were Results items R Heat 3 seasons food of 2019). of package different U abundance “ggplot2” Manne-Whitney al. during relative the The et in using foods (Tang software. generated difference of study the 20.0 previous numbers assess SPSS our to the by following adopted test and also comparisons FO) was multiple number test total sample, T3 the by Dunnett’s species divided using different foods the between that statistically containing composition in pellets and of diversity pellets number dietary (the of the occurrence in of difference frequency significant The a seasons. for test to ANOVA used We ± .squamipes A. .squamipes. A. .squamipes A. o pig 30 spring, for 6 eahr californica Metaphire it(upeetr al 3). Table (Supplementary diet ihagnrlsittwr o itr iest nwne.A xetd h ubrof number the expected, As winter. in diversity dietary low toward shift general a with nadto,a h omnpe fsrw,atrpd sc sOtotr,Coleoptera, Orthoptera, as (such shrews, of prey common the as addition, In ± o umr 32 summer, for 5 , mnhsmorrisi Amynthas ± 8frsrn,57 spring, for 28 ± 8fratm n 4 and autumn for 18 , mnhscorticis Amynthas 4 ± 4frsme,87 summer, for 24 .squamipes A. ± o itr(al ) npatfo items, food plant In 1). (Table winter for 1 , > eoea laeve Deroceras seilydrn ie fresource of times during especially , 4)o osmto (Supplemen- consumption of 74%) ± 1fratm n 120 and autumn for 41 and , Camponotus ± 2for 42 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. sd rmcos pce rmteCrohlaee(15)adLuaee(67)fmle eeas eaten also were families and (26.7%) to Lauraceae 4B and damage (Figure (31.5%) serious Caryophyllaceae diet cause the plant from could by the species shrews of crops, mole from percent Aside Chinese low that very grains. confirmed a stored results contributed or Our Supplementary but crops at and year 2). species (peaking 6 the Table crop proportion 4B, Supplementary during and the winter)(Figure identified crop 100%) and addition, eaten also (FO: autumn commonly were In a frequency (e.g., as highest period 2). (rice) to sativa the post-harvest Table found Oryza displayed during 4B). were Poaceae especially Figure family species and 26.1%), 3 the Poaceae (Table from that 53% suggesting at species 2). 7B), peaking Table Figure autumn, and the in Supplementary ( 3 Poaceae of and autumn (Table 15.2%-86.8% analysis during 6 representing LEfSe abundance family, 4B, on relative this with (Figure in from consumed), increase items species significant plants eaten abundance food of abundantly relative plant and (57.2% and identified frequently FO species most both Fabaceae the on by being based dominated 71%) was (FO: Poaceae shrews by followed value items from (peak detected food successfully plant were common levels prey. most taxonomic invertebrate various target at of preferentially crops) contents that stomach (especially mammals items insectivorous small food items different be plant food Interestingly, to many plant known comprising are in diet shrews variation Generally, broad seasonal a and have composition CO shrews Dietary on mole based 3.3 earthworms) Chinese (dominantly that sizes revealed various study of invertebrates our Therefore, on 5). preyed predominantly shrew mole leave Chinese winter, of during significantlyHowever, diets were animal-derived winter the during indicated shrew mole (P Chinese Table by decreased during Supplementary consumed and earthworms 1B earthworms of (Figure (P numbers of winter in higher decreased proportions least from the the shifted and Thus, autumn that during earthworms 4). prey levels of lower second-richest to consumption summer The the and in spring ( 5). winter trend and Figure a autumn and found in we than 2 summer (Table and autumn spring that in in prey indicating 60% them, 4), at Among Table peaking region. ( Supplementary and studied and consumption the prey 5 in overall diverse Figure and 2, accounted abundant (Table extremely Lumbricidae) californica are diet and invertebrates animal-derived Moniligastridae, soil the these Enchytraeidae, of (Megascolecidae, 70%-80% families for four to belonging thadeus edn clg n vlaigteripc ntefrigsse.TeCieeml he ed ob an shrew be of to tends understanding shrew increase mole to Chinese The aiming system. habitats, farming human the vari- on in diet impact present seasonal their and shrew evaluating compositions and mole ecology dietary Chinese feeding the the explore to of identification ations high-resolution utilized study Our during limited are In resources Discussion food 3). when 4. (Table even wide-range respectively shrew A this diets, year. of plant the numbers throughout abundant identified diet winter. the plant-derived the explain shrew may of mole mode Chinese 10.4% foraging in diversity and during other high observed observed 10.6%, to frequently we compared were 19.8%, total, autumn Nyssaceae for and in Asteraceae, (36.4%) accounting Oleaceae, proportion summer, The and 100%) 2). Table (FO: (Supplementary frequency seasons higher significant a at observed 3). (Table samples contents stomach mnhsmorrisi Amynthas .squamipes A. ihahg O(0)adi ihrpootoscmae oohrsaos(al ,Fgr Aand 4A Figure 2, (Table seasons other to compared proportions higher in and (50%) FO high a with Fgr A n al ) mn h oa nmlfo tm,1 ieetseiso earthworms of species different 12 items, food animal total the Among 2). Table and 5 4A, (Figure a otfeunl eetdi l ape,cnrbtn 98-0 fterltv bnac of abundance relative the of 19.8%-60% contributing samples, all in detected frequently most was > < < .1 uigwne Fgr B,bcueteraalblt fwsrdcd u analysis Our reduced. was of availability their because 1B), (Figure winter during 0.01) 0)oe h oreo h er(al ) h itrpatdrvdde fCieemole Chinese of diet plant-derived winter The 3). (Table year the of course the over 50%) .1 Fgr B.Mawie h rprin ftealerhomseissignificantly species all the of proportions the Meanwhile, 1B). (Figure 0.01) nhge rprin uigsrn oprdt te esn n perdi l fthe of all in appeared and seasons other to compared spring during proportions higher in eeetnmr rqetyadmd palre rprin( proportion larger a up made and frequently more eaten were ) .squamipes A. Fgr n ) h pce fteFbca aiy(O 8)wr the were 88%) (FO: family Fabaceae the of species The 7). and 6 (Figure hksclaaquatic Chikusichloa .squamipes A. ihnafrutescens Withania oti ihpeaec n iest fearthworms. of diversity and prevalence high a contain 5 < % an-hte et =.0) naddition, In P=0.008). test: U Manne-Whitney 5%; hc osiue h aoiyo oca,was Poaceae, of majority the constituted which , > .squamipes A. 3)cmae oohrsaos( seasons other to compared 53%) bla er and pear) (balsam Ι eaacdn approaches. metabarcoding apntsthadeus Camponotus ed rmrl ntesesfrom seeds the on primarily feeds rci hypogaea Arachis atc sativa Lactuca > 4)o h available the of 34%) and < % based 8%) Metaphire Deroceras (peanut) (lettuce) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. esffiinl bnatadaalbeepcal nwne.Teefidnssrnl upre u eut with results not our may supported earthworms strongly Thus, findings These foods. winter. certain Moreover, in plots of especially irrigated availability winter. available in greater and to abundant abundant suggesting more summer sufficiently were autumn, be from arthropods (1973) and cover decreases other snow spring Randolph and clearly of both earthworms 2012). biomass case that during found earthworm the al. (1997) profile In that et Storm soil (Churchfield found and 2016). the McCay hibernate also in al. and (1988) present et dehydrated were Rozen (Khanam become earthworms reduced and earthworms although Hope sharply soils, that were 2012; showed frozen activity al. study and and et previous numbers (Churchfield a and their drops addition, winter, to temperature-dependent, temperature in in In organisms highly ambient conditions for 2014). is the challenging climate invertebrates as al. it harsh of dramatically et make and activity declines can activity weather the that flight freezing example, resources spring insect For Furthermore, in food achieved amounts. of 2006). were activity sufficient effect earthworms and al. obtain strong of abundance et activity a Monroy the mating Monroy has 2018; influence and seasonality 2008; al. winter density that et maximum al. (Kumar fact the et population the instance, earthworm (Biradar For is the explanation 2006). of activity plausible al. reproductive One et and spring 1). from biomass, density, Table consumption invertebrate the and of on 1 FO and (Figure proportions winter diversity, in to shrew trends mole decreasing observed Chinese also in We and diets (Bellocq presumably animal-derived resources on, in feed food 2000). variations of to Ascencao compositions availability Seasonal prey De the diet of and to types in Pascual according what variations De or chooses adaptations 2003; The one morphological Smith each their (spiders). that to Aranea imply relation also and in most species (beetles) shrew the ( Coleoptera different be shrew between by masked to followed ( for found 1997), prey shrews were common Storm formicids most of the and diet are the (termites) larvae in Isopterans ( items shrew 2009). food Araneae predom- water (Churchfield frequent and to European dipterans (ants) ( reported of and Formicidae shrew been diet short-tailed (files), isopods have The Southern Diptera species among 2012). instance, shrew species For prey al. other most amount some earthworms. the Lepi- small shrew, not were and a mole (spiders) arthropods, contributed Diptera, Chinese only on Dermaptera, the but feed Coleoptera, season Unlike inantly Formicidae, particular volume. Orthoptera, a prey during the observed special of of occasionally These litterwith preys were the families leaf 2006). doptera hand, and Rychlik on other soil and the depending Churchfield through On 2016). ants 2011; push al. and Short et can earthworms al. (He capture and mode. et behavior (Wu to lifestyle foraging foraging claws its help subterranean in elongated adaptations a subterranean and morphological to mainly proboscis adapted is long shrew well their and of are (Churchfield species studies shrews species this early tailed earthworm to that Similar 12 suggesting by Formicidae), of shrews. eaten invertebrates and total of the sufficiently analysis (a of a many dietary earthworms obtained 2006), previous Rychlik especially we to technique, identification, compared shrew molecular food mole identified), Using Chinese were of The shrew. resolution earthworm-eating with 1). an taxonomic Table invertebrates Supplementary as diverse higher and considered as include 5 (such which be 1B, shrews 2000), also Figure other Ascencao 2, can (Table of De earthworms diets and of the Pascual preponderance to a De similar 2006; are Rychlik study and our Churchfield in shrew mole shrew Chinese Blarina with the mole contents of Chinese stomach diets the shrew The in molecular the on diet peanut). in Based animal-derived and identified rice of 2016). were (e.g., Characteristics al. level crops tem- et important species in Khanam several the shrews 2010; of other at observation al. to frequent materials et similar Churchfield plant mode 2012; predominantly diverse foraging shrew al. semi-fossorial technique, mole et a Chinese (Churchfield with that habitats earthworms confirm on perate we invertebrates, feeds earthworms preys exclusively particularly common not plants, to but and invertebrates respect of With array diverse crops. a and of predator generalized and opportunistic Cucfil 92 hrhede l 02 hrhede l 99 hrhedadSetl1994; Sheftel and Churchfield 1999; al. et Churchfield 2012; al. et Churchfield 1982; (Churchfield ) emsfdesbicolor fodiens .squamipes A. lpatlsmyurus Elephantulus oe cinereus 6 r yia olihbtns(.. Oligochaeta (e.g., inhabitants soil typical are BloqadSih20;MCyand McCay 2003; Smith and (Bellocq ) scmoe anyo lumbricids, of mainly composed is ) lrn carolinensis Blarina Cucfil 97.Lepidoptera 1987). (Churchfield ) .squamipes A. (yvse et )(Sylvester semifossorial Sorex and Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. h hns oesrwi aal fsitn t itr rfrne oaatt esnlflcutosof lowest. fluctuations are seasonal invertebrates Therefore, to of Funding adapt abundance insectivore. to and species. an diversity preferences shrew as this the dietary of classified when its of diet winter taxonomically shifting the during of being shrew Characterizing and particularly capable mole despite rice Chinese is resources, role, as the shrew (such food pest that mole prevalence materials implying a plant higher Chinese season, volume play much that harvest the or a found and the composition contains also during omnivorous We dietary shrew frequently is this FOs, more known. consumed of of previously were diet terms than peanuts) the earthworms in that of whether diversity revealed item, diet We and prey shrew earthworms. important of was most and contribution, investigation single species further The the of Thus, that material. composition found we food foods. summary, the plant In understand digested better 2012) impact. to plant highly actual al. required that from et their is demonstrated (Churchfield determine data resolution also diet shrew taxonomic study missing overall higher previous the of with a of result However, proportion smaller a items. a as food constitutes foliage) plant or For of (seeds variety (2010). material wider al. a et Churchfield exploiting by by reported as of earthworms content squamipes large many stomach A. of in consumption and identified via necessary, ingested were is (Oyafuso secondarily species farmlands crops plant on of 100 populations contamination Over shrew impacts and the negative control consumption potential of to to be analysis stores methods may due grain dietary of there health and development result, in shrews production people’s Therefore, a eaten that crop As crops and 2015). to reported in threat systems. production have increase a farming agricultural studies proportional poses rice-based on shrew the few in study, mole very especially al. this Chinese However, 4B), et In the (Figure (Sylvester that grains. 2014). suggests shrew in winter shrew short-tailed contamination al. and several Southern and autumn et balsam of to and (Brown diet addition, damage damage 2010), their shrew the cause cause In be al. in may musk can detected shrew et well year. Asian (Churchfield mole also very the and were Chinese shrew may throughout 2012), materials the armored Plant that usage diet as suggesting communities. for such the diet, rural species, stored in the in and in rice detected grains common and during and been to harvested food peanuts 4B have are staple lettuce (Figure rice of and and winter the FOs often The peanuts pear in are high more China, especially southwest They rice) 1). and prey, In and Table abundance preferred winter. autumn. peanuts and and more the as autumn 1 of (such for during availability lack (Figure grains continued reason the stored scarce The of or are crops because preys cultivated 6). winter invertebrate on and when feed autumn grains, to winter during especially opts during material, balanced items shrew plant were shortages food mole with foods food diet plant Chinese plant-derived its of of of supplemented availability diversity time forager the alpha opportunistic that in and This indicating numbers 2), year. and the the 1A throughout in (Figure detected that seasons were indicating the study, differences between our significant in No detected were generalist. foods animal and shrews plant mole Both Chinese to 2012). seasonal due al. to impacts adapt et to Crop (Churchfield year the findings throughout previous preference al. availability. dietary with its resource consistent et shifts foods selectively is Churchfield shrew which mole 2012; summer, Chinese as the in such Thus, al. than prey, et winter unprofitable high- Churchfield in and meeting preferential 2014; unpalatable and relatively al. endothermy of metabolic consumption et maintaining and high increased (Brown for and The temperatures intake endurance, low 2010). food fasting at adequate short requirements need ratios, energy surface-area-to-volume shrews by large consumed non-hibernating earthworms their rates, of numbers With and 1B). proportions (Figure the in decreases to respect apntsthadeus Camponotus hsdeaydvriymyb opnaoysrtg ome t iheeg requirements high-energy its meet to strategy compensatory a be may diversity dietary this , .squamipes A. .squamipes A. nwne Tbe2adSplmnayTbe1 ugssta hesaeless are shrews that suggests 1) Table Supplementary and 2 (Table winter in , .squamipes A. a otiuet eiigsial osnbaits. poison suitable devising to contribute can a aeipiain o h vlaigco mat n control and impacts crop evaluating the for implications have may a ies itcmrsn ag fivrertsadplant and invertebrates of range a comprising diet diverse a has 7 .squamipes A. .squamipes A. oeo hs a aebeen have may these of Some . .squamipes A. a ea omnivorous an be may eoea laeve Deroceras uigwinter during Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hrhedS(97 oeo h ito h okeehn shrew, elephant rock the of diet the 213:743-745 on Zoology note of Journal A shrew, (1987) common S the Churchfield of 51:15-28 diet Ecology the Animal and of availability Journal Food ( (1982) 188:294-296 shrew, S Water London Churchfield European of the Society of Zoological diet the the of and on ings HiSeq note A Illumina (2009) the JS on Churchfield analysis 6:1621-1624 community J microbial ISME Ultra-high-throughput platforms. (2012) Dietary MiSeq al. (2014) et WOC JG ( Symondson Caporaso A, shrew Montazam musk EL, Asian ( Clare Skink alien Ecology D, Telfair’s Vencatasamy the Molecular N, between Cole structure. competition R, population metabarcod- Burger and DNA DS, diet Using Brown bat (2018) vampire MTP common Gilbert influenced of LDSB, 18:1050-1063 as inference Resources Nielsen fetida simultaneous M, Eisenia for Nielsen earthworm, 11:405-409 ing epigeic S, the Gopalakrishnan Zoology of K, Experimental cycle Bohmann of the Life Journal in (2008) rays factors. G environmental Mobula the Harsha seasonal for using by SD, assemblage study prey Amoji diverse case PM, 9:2459-2474 a Biradar A Evolution reveal and assays biodiversity: Ecology metabarcoding and . DNA Sea, (2019) analysis Bohol al. diet et for C metabarcoding Bessey DNA ( lion (2017) sea Australian al. endangered 40:27-34 et of Fennici TE Zoologici foraging Annales Berry and Canada dynamics eastern. Population of (2003) forest SM boreal Smith MI, accession Bellocq under (SRA) Archive Read Sequence NCBI References the into deposited were PRJNA637184. study number: the this in by sequences supported DNA as well Chengdu as Accessibility a (024341965). University and Data (2015-NY02–00369-NC) Normal (31670388) Sichuan project China from of Bureau Fund Foundation Research Technology Science Starting Natural and National Science the by Municipal funded manuscript. was the research re- approved This and designed extraction. Wang read and DNA authors Qiong conceived and All and Chen Fu manuscript. collection the Shun-de Acknowledgements the Chang-kun sample drafted draft procedures. the manuscript. to and experimental the out helped and analysis, and drafting carried search, collection and data Qin sample data Bo-xin procedures, in analyzing and participated in experimental Chen participated collection, Dan Liu sample Hong-yi Xie, the Fei out manuscript. carried Tang Ke-yi interest. of conflict Contributions no Author have they the that declare by authors supported The as well interest Chengdu as of a (024341965). University and Conflict (2015-NY02–00369-NC) Normal (31670388) Sichuan project China from of Bureau Fund Foundation Research Technology Science Starting Natural and National Science the by Municipal funded was research This eooim telfairii Leiolopisma epoacinerea Neophoca .MlclrEooy23:3695-3705 Ecology Molecular ). .EooyadEouin7:5435-5453 Evolution and Ecology ). ucsmurinus Suncus 8 oe cinereus Sorex lpatlsmyurus Elephantulus n eitoue ouainof population re-introduced a and ) emsfdesbicolor fodiens Neomys oe araneus Sorex mse he)i the in shrew) (masked nBian The Britain. in , nZimbabwe. in , .Proceed- ). Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. fCrbeniln iad.MlclrEooyRsucs15:903-914 Resources ecology trophic Ecology diets: Molecular vertebrate in lizards. prey island invertebrate of metabar- Caribbean detection 9:1323-1335 of DNA Molecular Evolution (2015) environmental and RM marine Pringle Ecology TR, using Kartzinel standardization. assessment and biodiversity gener- optimization Species-level protocol Second (2019) requires by (2014) coding al. behaviour G et foraging Jones G-J unexpected Jeunen O, reveal Razgour analysis ML, faecal Zepeda-Mendoza morphological tereri MTP, and Gilbert sequencing K, ation Bohmann (Mammalia: PR, shrews red-toothed Hope Chinese 7:100-139 of distribution Sinica distribution and 110:354-362 Theriologica affect systematics Science Acta the preferences Behaviour of Feeding Soricidae). review Animal A ? Applied (1987) the or RS landscape. of Hoffmann agricultural diversity (2008) in genetic J species high Zejda rodent preserved J, three 116:23-32 refugia Bryja Heredity of Interglacial E, China. (2016) Tkadlec southwest M, XL of Heroldova Jiang mountains JT, the in Li Eurasian the shrew X, of mole Chen diet Chinese NQ, the Hu in vertebrates K, occasional He on notes and hantavirus remains bang prey shrew, Cao storage, water Food of variants (2002) W Genetic Haberl 40:113-118 (2016) Evolution R & Yanagihara Genetics HJ, ( Infection Kang shrew diverse BK, ). mole despite Molecular Lim Chinese sharing HT, (2019) the Yu resource EL in S, by Clare Arai 9:3117-3129 dominated JM, SH, Evolution community Gu and Ratcliffe Ecology bat JE, strategies. desert Littlefair foraging insectivorous MB, and Fenton an echolocation LK, finds analysis Ammerman analysis diet the S, diet in Ivens sequencing 11:15-17 R, clone Resources with Gordon Genetics sequencing Conservation next-generation of bustard. comparison great A Asian (2017) of al. et Methods M Nature Gong reads. amplicon microbial from sequences OTU shrew 10:996-998 accurate forest highly UPARSE: cloud 45:13-24 (2013) the RC Theriologica Edgar of Acta Diet Andes Variation (2000) Venezuelan. the AA in Ascencao beetles? Soricidae) De ( for AD, bats fondness Pascual brown De inordinate big An night-roosting forest, (2014) Bialowieza of F preferences in 23:3633-3647 Brockett dietary shrews Melville seasonal Sorex WOC, in and the Symondson Neomys from EL, in shrew, Clare 269:381-390 coexistence Zoology armored and of the Journal Diets of Poland. (2006) eastern ecology 273:40-45 L Feeding Zoology Rychlik of (2010) Journal Churchfield., A Congo. Dudu of Republic R, community Democratic multispecies Hutterer 234:105-124 north-eastern a Zoology F, Zoology in of Dieterlen of separation Journal ecological Churchfield., Journal taiga. and Siberian overlap East. the niche Far in Food shrews Russian (1994) of the BI Sheftel in S, Soricidae) Churchfield six amongst : separation ( ecological shrews and Sorex overlap forest 248:349-359 shrew, niche coexisting Food common of (1999) the 121:1593-1602 EA of species Oikos. Shvarts VA, habits phenomenon? Nesterenko foraging Dehnel S, and explain Churchfield resources shortage Food food (2012) winter RET does Jan araneusem: R, Leszek S, Churchfield Ciotr,Vsetloia)i itr rnir nZooy11:1-15 Zoology in Frontiers winter. in Vespertilionidae) (Chiroptera, emsfodiens Neomys nuooe squamipes Anourosorex oi olgc 51:93-102 Zoologica Folia . n awns oesrw( shrew mole Taiwanese and ) 9 peiu fuscus Eptesicus rpoi meridensis Cryptotis nuooe yamashinai Anourosorex .MlclrEcology Molecular ). Iscioa: (Insectivora ytsnat- Myotis Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. yvse L omnJ,LosE 21)De n coaaie fteSuhr hr-aldshrew short-tailed Southern the of ectoparasites and Diet (2012) EK Lyons JD, ( Hoffman Diseases Infectious TL, Emerging. Sylvester Shrew, Mole Chinese in Hantavirus available Newfound 9:631-639 and 13:1784-1787 (2007) Evolution consumed al. analyzing and et for Ecology J-W method Song web. metabarcoding A food structure. -insect data: age to a feces in and From prey (2019) biomass al. ( numbers, et earthworms population S Rytkonen of of dynamics populations forest in niepolomicka 31:169-178 cycle the Pedobiologia of annual oak-hornbeam The of (1988) 54:1166- A Ecology Rozen shrew. short-tailed predator, homeothermic a what: of eating 1187 energetics is 21:1931-1950 Ecological Who Ecology (1973) (2012) JC Molecular P Randolph Taberlet sequencing. SN, generation Jarman next DS, barcoding. using Brown DNA assessment WOC, plant diet Symondson for BE, intron Deagle (UAA) F, trnL Pompanon chloroplast the of 35:e14 limitations Research and Power Acids ( (2007) shrew Nucleic mole al. Chinese et in T of advance Pierre and review The (2018). S.D. Chen, squamipe management. the & pest Q., in rodent Zhang, of diet G.X., dimensions Peng, mammal cultural and small Social influence (2007) 2:174-183 27:3700-3713 H pollution Mahabub Zoology Ecology Does S, Integrative Molecular Zenaida (2018) S, consumer. Grant F generalist FG, Raoul Palis a in Hon- F, approach Mora Manoa, metabarcoding B, at A Valot field? C, of Fritsch University S, Ozaki ( techniques. wahoo metabarcoding and of HI. 11:60-75 visual analysis olulu, Zoology using diet diet Integrative ecosystems of A lizard. analysis nearshore desert mole-shrew isotope (2015) Namib Stable the of Z (2016) S species of Oyafuso Woodborne sympatric karyotypes A, two Fuller of in D, separation Mitchell niche differences RS, confirms Hetem Geographic HM, Lease (2003) IW, Murray Y Wu LK, Lin squamipe Anourosorex M, mole-shrew Harada the Motokawa., in variation Geographic (2002) 27:113-120 329:912-915 LK Study Biologies Lin Rendus M, Comptes Motokawa of field. dynamics the population Seasonal in (2006) Lumbricidae) A (Oligochaeta, Velando J, 1826) ( Dominguez M, Aira 59:55-62 stored F, Management to Monroy Pest damage of rodent Journal of International Assessment Tanzania. (2013) in al. et M ( Mdangi 138:268-275 Naturalist Karachi. shrew Midland of Masked American godowns (1997) grain forest. GL of in irrigated Storm reproduction of TS, and habits 44:41-46 McCay biomass Food Research (2008) Products on SWA Stored variation Rizvi of seasonal A, Journal Pervez of Pakistan SM, impact Ahmed The SB, (Kalyani) Lathiya comparison Ecology (2018). A and P. Environment pests: V. species. mammal earthworm Sabhlok, small different of & 11:98-110 analysis A., Zoology Diet Integrative Kumar, (2016) methods. JC microhistological Russell and M, molecular Mushtaq of R, Howitt S, Khanam lrn carolinensis Blarina .CieeJunlo etrBooyadControl and Biology Vector of Journal Chinese ). nLusaaWsenNrh mrcnNtrls 72:586-590 Naturalist American North. Western Louisiana in ) Iscioa oiia) amla ilg 69:197-201 Biology Mammalian Soricidae). (Insectivora, s cnhcbu solandri Acanthocybium oe cinereus Sorex 10 , 92,209-211. 29(2), bnac,de n ryslcini an in selection prey and diet abundance, ) , 62) 637-641. 36(2A), ubiia oligochaeta Lumbricidae nuooe squamipes Anourosorex e asL. mays Zea rmtePlgcadHawaiian and Pelagic the from ) i Chinese) (in iei fetida Eisenia nsalodrfarms smallholder on ) n3types 3 in ) Anourosorex Mammal . (Savigny, Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. osa eemndb ierdsrmntr nlss(D)eetsz Lfe.LAsoe eeinterpreted were scores abundance. LDA relative in (LEfSe). size difference effect of (LDA) degree analysis the discriminatory as linear by determined as sons 7. Figure assay. metabarcoding 6. Figure Abbreviations: food. assay. corresponding metabarcoding the of 5. winter. abundance W, Figure relative autumn; the A, indicates summer; first Su, map The spring; heat Sp, the items. in food number plant Each represents (B) 4. and shown. items Figure are food axes animal (PC) represents coordinate (A) principal two year. the throughout diet 3. Figure indices). Simpson (P and seasons Shannon, between (Chao1, earthworms difference of a 2. proportions indicate and Figure numbers letters the Different in changes level. Seasonal species (B) the levels. at taxonomic different at items food 1. occurrence. Figure of Frequency FO, occurrence; Legends of Figure Number Occur., of NO. year. the 3. Table diet. shrew mole Chinese 2. Table error. standard SE, (P seasons ( difference. between shrew difference mole a Chinese indicate the letters in items food plant by and disturbances human to 1. response Table the and selection Habitat legends (2017) barcoding Table S DNA Chen for J, PCR Li Taxon-specific S, of squamipes. Wu Anourosorex (2011) structure 11:236-244 D, G Resources age Xiang Ecology Jones H, population Molecular Zong DC, on faeces. Lees Research bat GLA, in (2013). Barker prey J. RK, arthropod Liu, Butlin & MRK, Zeale Y.W., Guo, X., ( Jin, squamipe G.X., Anourosorex shrew Long, of Z.X., records Yang, New (2011) ( al. shrew 031:317-319 world. et mole Yunchuan the Chinese of Li mammals and M, the Motokawa of Y, Handbook Wu (2018) Company. RA Publishing Mittermeier Barcelona. Springer DE, Edicions; Wilson Berlin: 10(2409) Lynx RA, Microbiology Analysis. Mittermeier in Data Frontiers DE, for alligator. Wilson Graphics Chinese Elegant of the ggplot2: adaptation in (2009) functional fasting H seasonal and Wickham reveals feeding Metagenomics host (2019) to S-G microbiome Fang gut Q-H, the Wan Z-W, Wang K-Y, Tang h ttsiso h o 0pattx ttefml ee nteCieeml he itthroughout diet shrew mole Chinese the in level family the at taxa plant 10 top the of statistics The h ubro oeua prtoa aooi nt MTs n dnie pce fanimal of species identified and (MOTUs) Units Taxonomic Operational Molecular of number The rqec focrec F)adrltv bnac ftetp2 nmlfo tm nthe in items food animal 20 top the of abundance relative and (FO) occurrence of Frequency nml()adpat()fo tm ttxnmclvl infiatydffrnitdbtensea- between differentiated significantly levels taxonomic at items food (B) plant and (A) Animal esnlvrain nteCieeml he it A esnlcagsi nmladplant and animal in changes Seasonal (A) diet. shrew mole Chinese the in variations Seasonal etmpadF fpeoiataia A n ln B odiestruhu h year. the throughout items food (B) plant and (A) animal predominant of FO and map Heat w-iesoa rnia oriaeaayi Po)o OU fteCieeml shrew mole Chinese the of MOTUs of (PCoA) analysis coordinate principal Two-dimensional i Chinese) (in o-n-hse lt o lh iest naia A n ln B odie estimators item food (B) plant and (A) animal in diversity alpha for plots Box-and-whisker eaieaudneo h o 0aia odiesa h pce ee ae nteCOI the on based level species the at items food animal 10 top the of abundance Relative eaieaudneo h o 0patfo tm tteseislvlbsdo h rbcL the on based level species the at items food plant 10 top the of abundance Relative iha ora fZoology of Journal Sichuan . caTeilgc iia37:266-276 Sinica Theriologica Acta nuooe squamipes Anourosorex < nuooe squamipes) Anourosorex .5.Alc fsprcitnmesdntsn significant no denotes numbers superscript of lack A 0.05). rmGagogPoic.At hrooiaSinica Theriologica Acta Province. Guangdong from ) , 11 03 ,55-60. 3, 2013, i Chinese) (in ittruhu h er Different year. the throughout diet < 0.05). ettau sinensis Neotetracus ) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. agtTxnTre ao pigSrn umrSme uunAtm itrWne Yearly Winter Winter Autumn Autumn Summer Lithobiidae (N=24) FO Carabidae (N=6) Anisolabididae FO Antrodiaetidae Abundance Relative Summer (N=6) FO Lumbricidae Abundance Relative Spring (N=6) FO Moniligastridae Abundance Relative (N=6) FO Enchytraeidae Abundance Relative Gryllotalpida Formicidae Spring Agriolimacidae Species-Level Megascolecidae Taxon Target Family-Level Taxon Target diet. shrew mole Chinese 2. 95 Table error. (P standard seasons SE, between difference. difference significant a indicate 38 letters Different (Mean Spring MOTUs (rbcL) Plant MOTUs level Identified (COI) Animal ( types shrew Food mole Chinese the in items food plant and 1. Table year. Tables the throughout samples diet shrew mole 4. Table Supplementary samples. diet shrew 3. Table Supplementary samples. diet shrew 2. Table Supplementary year. the throughout 1. Table Supplementary Legends Table Supplementary h ubro oeua prtoa aooi nt MTs n dnie pce fanimal of species identified and (MOTUs) Units Taxonomic Operational Molecular of number The rqec focrec F)adrltv bnac ftetp2 nmlfo tm nthe in items food animal 20 top the of abundance relative and (FO) occurrence of Frequency sindt pce 26 species to Assigned sindt pce 12 species to Assigned eegylsemma Teleogryllus calceatus Harpalus orientalis unicolor Antrodiaetus Trapezoides aff. Aporrectodea palustris Bimastos DP-2015 3 sp. Ocnerodrilidae koreana Drawida Watarase sp. Drawida calceatus Harpalus japonensis Enchytraeus unispina Gryllotalpa thadeus Camponotus laeve Deroceras femoralis Euborellia gracilis Amynthas hupeiensis Amynthas corticis Amynthas morrisi Amynthas californica Metaphire eaieaudneo ln odiesa h pce ee nalCieemole Chinese all in level species the at items food plant of abundance Relative eaieaudneo nmlfo tm tteodrlvli l hns mole Chinese all in level order the at items food animal of abundance Relative Oo nmlfo tm tteseislvli h hns oesrwdiet shrew mole Chinese the in level species the at items food animal of FO Oadrltv bnac ferhom tteseislvli l Chinese all in level species the at earthworms of abundance relative and FO ± ± ± ± 17 57 7 28 1 6 a a nuooe squamipes) Anourosorex %00 .1 0 %13% 13% 13% 4% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 13% 29% 0% 25% 75% 33% 0 13% 17% 0 0% 0% 33% 13% 0 50% 0% 0 50% 50% 50% 50% 54% 0 0% 0% 17% 0% 21% 25% 0% 0.007 0.028 50% 0 0% 0.015 0 0% 0.246 0.009 0 0% 0% 67% 50% 88% 75% 0.058 0% 0% 0% 0 0 17% 0 0% 100% 0 0.305 50% 50% 0% 33% 100% 0 0% 0% 0 0.011 17% 0.001 0 0 0% 0.008 50% 33% 100% 0 0 0 0.077 17% 50% 0.049 0 0% 50% 0.001 0.288 0 33% 100% 0.001 0% 0% 67% 0 0 0% 100% 0 67% 0.002 0.001 0.012 0% 83% 100% 0.001 0.005 50% 100% 0.001 0 100% 0% 0.001 0% 0.261 100% 67% 0.031 0 0 0.600 67% 0.001 0 0% 100% 67% 0.167 100% 0.017 0.008 0 100% 0.004 100% 0.002 0% 100% 0.009 0.046 0 0% 0 67% 0.022 0.206 0.097 0.346 17% 0 50% 0.198 0.130 100% 0.013 83% 0 100% 0.015 0 0.001 0.002 0.059 0.340 0.284 ± 12 E umr(Mean Summer SE) < .5.Alc fsprcitnmesdntsno denotes numbers superscript of lack A 0.05). 13 30 ± ± ± ± 30 87 6 24 3 5 ab a ittruhu h year. the throughout diet ± E uun(Mean Autumn SE) 9 32 ± ± ± ± 1 330 120 13 41 b 18 ab ± E itr(Mean Winter SE) 4 4 ± ± ± ± 1 1 c b 9

42 ± SE) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aaee46%01158%010610 .6 100% Yearly 6 Yearly Winter 0.060 Winter 100% Winter 6 Autumn Autumn 0.100 83% Autumn Summer (N=24) FO Summer (N=24) Occur. of NO. 5 abundance Relative (N=6) FO (N=6) Occur. of NO. Summer Abundance Relative occurrence. of 0.111 (N=6) Frequency FO FO, occurrence; of Number (N=6) Occur., Occur. of of No. NO. 67% Abundance Relative Spring (N=6) FO (N=6) Occur. of Spring NO. Abundance Relative (N=6) FO (N=6) Occur. of NO. 4 Spring Fabaceae Taxa Season year. the 3. Table oca 7 .8 7 .0 100% 6 0.001 17% 1 0.080 67% 4 Poaceae yeaee11%00635%00000 .0 17% 17% 1 1 0.000 0% 0.168 83% 0 5 0.080 50% 0.000 0% 83% 3 0 5 0.016 17% 0.000 33% 17% 0.009 67% 0% 50% 33% 100% 1 2 1 100% Cyperaceae 4 Solanaceae 0 3 Iridaceae 2 Phytolaccaceae 6 Nyssaceae Asteraceae Oleaceae Lauraceae 6 Caryophyllaceae h ttsiso h o 0pattx ttefml ee nteCieeml he itthroughout diet shrew mole Chinese the in level family the at taxa plant 10 top the of statistics The B A A Chao1 Chao1 The number of plant food items at the genus level 100 150 10 15 20 25 30 35 50 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 Spring Spring a Spring a a Summer Summer a Summer Autumn Autumn a a ac Winter Winter c Autumn a b Animal fooditems Plant fooditems

2.0 2.5 Shannon 3.0 Shannon 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 W Spring Spring inter c a ab Summer Summer 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

ab 13 level species the at items food animal of number The B Autumn Autumn < < < < 0.267 0.315

b Proportion of the earthworm at the species level 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 0 .0 %00000 .0 17% 1 0.000 67% 0% 4 0 0.076 0.000 33% 0% 100% 67% 2 0 6 4 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Winter Winter Spring ac a a Summer

Simpson 0.2 0.4 Simpson 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ab a Spring Spring Autumn Summer Summer bc The numberoftheearthworm a Proportion oftheearthworm 50% 17% 3 1 Autumn Autumn Winter c b Winter Winter

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

at the species level species the at earthworm the of number The 0.104 0.106 0.198 < < .0 3 .1 0%0042 83% 50% 20 12 0.074 0.064 100% 83% 6 5 0.016 0.000 83% 0% 5 0 0.001 0.001 3 .6 7 .0 979% 71% 19 17 0.001 0.053 67% 83% 4 5 0.069 0.009 83% 67% 33% 5 4 2 0.530 < < .0 7 .0 250% 12 0.006 67% 4 0.001 .0 7 .3 38% 9 0.039 17% 1 0.001 0%0001 71% 17 0.070 100% 6 0.572 < < < .0 21% 8% 25% 5 2 6 0.001 0.001 0.001 188% 21 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. B A 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 A Relative abundance (%) −0.50 −0.25 PC2 (23.85%) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

Sp1306a 0 20 40 60 80 100 −0.25 Sp1306b

Sp1306c 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.415 0.351 Sp1306a 0.000 0.022 0.003 0.056 0.000 0.541 Spring Sp1306a

0.000 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.112 0.000 Sp1309a Sp1306b 0.000 0.034 0.004 0.070 0.004 0.579 Sp1306b

0.00

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.172 0.134 0.000 Sp1306c 0.000 0.031 0.002 0.067 0.003 0.572 Sp1309b Spring Spring Sp1306c

Animal fooditems

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 Sp1309a 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.046 0.637 0.007 Sp1309c Sp1309a

PC1 (50.41%)

0.000 0.051 0.000 0.261 0.000 0.000 Sp1309b 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.058 0.695 0.003 Su1560a Sp1309b

●

●

0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sp1309c 0.000 0.001 0.023 0.054 0.704 0.003 0.25 Su1560b Sp1309c ●

●

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.246 0.246 Su1560a 0.000 0.006 0.258 0.553 0.065 0.010 Su1560c Su1560a Summer

0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 Su1560b 0.000 0.008 0.460 0.228 0.152 0.010 Su1568a Su1560b

0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.066 Summer Summer Su1560c 0.000 0.005 0.281 0.424 0.115 0.009 Su1568b Su1560c 0.50

0.000 0.000 0.477 0.000 0.000 0.000

Su1568a 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.602 0.357 Su1568c Su1568a

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Su1568b 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.580 0.397 Su1568b

A1003a ●

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.281 0.273

Su1568c 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.019 0.560 0.403 A1003b Su1568c 0.75

● 0.000 0.013 0.053 0.390 0.005 0.000 A1003a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.518

A1003c A1003a

Autumn 0.000 0.261 0.000 0.656 0.007 0.000 A1003b 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.974

A1011a A1003b ●

Group

0.000 0.074 0.000 0.504 0.081 0.000 A Summer Sping Winter A1003c 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.966 Autumn Autumn A1003c

A1011b utumn

0.015 0.025 0.006 0.292 0.100 0.092 A1011a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.595 0.051 0.264 A1011a

14 A1011c

0.000 0.186 0.013 0.644 0.060 0.056 A1011b 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.491 0.067 0.424 A1011b

W1286a B −0.5

0.013 0.119 0.000 0.668 0.107 0.051 A1011c 0.0 0.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.459 0.067 0.453 PC2 (15.33%)

W1286b A1011c

0.000 0.084 0.000 0.225 0.420 0.420 W1286a 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.208 0.000 0.375 W1286a ●

●

W1286c ●

0.000 0.017 0.000 0.131 0.061 0.000 W1286b 0.000 0.759 0.000 0.103 0.000 0.138 Winter W1286b

W1287a

0.369 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.154 0.152 W1286c 0.000 0.652 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.217 Winter W1286c Winter −0.6

W1287b 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.859 0.847 W1287a 0.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.160 0.280 W1287a

W1287c 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.859 0.848 W1287b 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.150 0.050 0.250 W1287b

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.881 0.868 W1287c 0.467 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.467 W1287c Plant fooditems Lactuca sativa Oryza sativa Withania frutescens Poaceae Fabaceae Arachis hypogaea PC1 (32.82%) Metaphire californica Camponotus thadeus Deroceras laeve Gryllotalpa unispina Amynthas corticis Amynthas morrisi −0.3 ● Am Am Derocer Metaphire Ench Gr Camponotus Bimastos Dr Am Aporrectodea.aff Antrodiaetus Dr T Gr Others Am Henlea.per P Euborellia.f Har eleogr aobius a a yllotalpa.unispina yllotalpa.or wida.k wida.sp ynthas ynthas ynthas ynthas palus ytr 0.0 Spring Spring 100% 100% 100% 33% 33% 67% 67% 33% 33% 67% 83% 0% yllus ● .pach aeus as Frequency ofoccurrence Frequency ofoccurrence .calceatus .palustr .lae .morr .cor .gr .hupeiensis .calif oreana Summer Summer pusilla ..W 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 33% 17% 83% 33% 17% 83% emor 0% .japonensis .emma .thadeus .unicolor acilis ypedatus v ticis ientalis e atar or ● isi Autumn Autumn 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% is alis ..tr 83% 50% 50% 17% 67% 0% 0% nica 0.3 ase apez W W 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 83% 17% 83% 0% ● inter inter oides Group A Summer Sping Winter utumn Y Y 100% 13% 54% 50% 88% 75% 71% 88% 71% 63% 33% 50% early early .L2 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Relative abundance (%)

Sp1306a 0 20 40 60 80 100

Sp1306b

Sp1306c Spring Sp1309a

Sp1309b

Sp1309c

Su1560a

Su1560b

Su1560c Summer

Su1568a

Su1568b

Su1568c

A1003a

A1003b

A1003c Autumn

A1011a 15

A1011b

A1011c

W1286a

W1286b

W1286c

Winter W1287a

W1287b

W1287c Gladiolus Others Uncar Pr Galinsoga.par Lactuca.sativ Mazus Care Cer Cinnamom Chikusichloa.aquatica Isop Cinnamom Musa.later Withania.fr Or Ph Stellar Camptotheca.acuminata Nestegis Ar un ytolacca.amer achis yza.sativ astium.glomer yr x.aneurocar us ina.gr um.biter ia.media .reptans .mongolica .h .apetala ypogaea .x.ganda ita um.glaucescens um.bodinier a utescens andidier a viflor natum pa icana atum v ensis a i i Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526728.80816519 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. (B) Plantfooditems (A) Animal fooditems 16