Philippa Kaur

Ribic, C. A., Thompson, F. R. & Pietz, P. J. Video Surveillance of Nesting Birds (University of California Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
O’Brien, T. G. & Kinnaird, M. F. A picture is worth a thousand words: The application of camera trapping to the study of birds. Bird Conserv. Int. 18, S144–S162 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kristan, D. M., Golightly Jr, R. T. & Tomkiewicz Jr, S. M. A solar-powered transmitting video camera for monitoring raptor nests. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24, 284–290 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Grubb, T. An infrared video camera system for monitoring diurnal and nocturnal raptors. J. Raptor Res. 32, 290–296 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Margalida, A. et al. A solar-powered transmitting video camera for monitoring cliff-nesting raptors. J. Field Ornithol. 77, 7–12 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolton, M., Butcher, N., Sharpe, F., Stevens, D. & Fisher, G. Remote monitoring of nests using digital camera technology. J. Field Ornithol. 78, 213–220 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pierce, A. J. & Pobprasert, K. A portable system for continuous monitoring of bird nests using digital video recorders. J. Field Ornithol. 78, 322–328 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benson, T. J., Brown, J. D. & Bednarz, J. C. Identifying predators clarifies predictors of nest success in a temperate passerine. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 225–234 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, S. B., Fuller, M. R. & Titus, K. A comparison of 3 methods for assessing raptor diet during the breeding season. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 373–385 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. S. Quantifying Northern Goshawk diets using remote cameras and observations from blinds. J. Raptor Res. 39, 303–309 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tornberg, R. & Reif, V. Assessing the diet of birds of prey: A comparison of prey items found in nests and images. Ornis Fenn. 84, 21 (2007).
Google Scholar 
López-López, P. & Urios, V. Use of digital trail cameras to study Bonelli’s eagle diet during the nestling period. Ital. J. Zool. 77, 289–295 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, J. T., Kochert, M. N., Pauli, B. P. & Heath, J. A. Using motion-activated trail cameras to study diet and productivity of cliff-nesting Golden Eagles. J. Raptor Res. 53, 26–37 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
McRae, S. B., Weatherhead, P. J. & Montgomerie, R. American robin nestlings compete by jockeying for position. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33, 101–106 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nathan, A., Legge, S. & Cockburn, A. Nestling aggression in broods of a siblicidal kingfisher, the laughing kookaburra. Behav. Ecol. 12, 716–725 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grivas, C. et al. An audio–visual nest monitoring system for the study and manipulation of siblicide in bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus on the island of Crete (Greece). J. Ethol. 27, 105–116 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gula, R., Theuerkauf, J., Rouys, S. & Legault, A. An audio/video surveillance system for wildlife. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56, 803–807 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanaiotti, T. M., Seixas, G. H., Duleba, S. & Martins, F. D. Camera trapping at harpy eagle nests: Interspecies interactions under predation risk. J. Raptor Res. 51, 72–78 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, M. L., Inagaki, A. & Ward, M. P. Cannibalism in raptors: A review. J. Raptor Res. 54, 424–430 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Academia, M. H. & Dalgleish, H. J. Use of nest web cameras and citizen science to quantify osprey prey delivery rate and nest success. J. Raptor Res. 56, 212–219 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gysel, L. W. & Davis, E. M. A simple automatic photographic unit for wildlife research. J. Wildl. Manag. 20, 451–453 (1956).Article 

Google Scholar 
Royama, T. A device of an auto-cinematic food-recorder. Jpn. J. Ornithol. 15, 172–176 (1959).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, W. A. et al. Development of camera technology for monitoring nests. In Chapter 15. Video Surveill. Nesting Birds Stud. Avian Biol. (eds Ribic, C. A. et al.) 185–210 (Univ. Calif. Press, 2012).Sanders, M. D. & Maloney, R. F. Causes of mortality at nests of ground-nesting birds in the Upper Waitaki Basin, South Island, New Zealand: A 5-year video study. Biol. Conserv. 106, 225–236 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reif, V. & Tornberg, R. Using time-lapse digital video recording for a nesting study of birds of prey. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 52, 251–258 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinnon, L. & Bêty, J. Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests. J. Field Ornithol. 80, 280–288 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, L. A., Giovanni, M. D., Groepper, S. R., Reineke, M. & Schacht, W. H. Attendance Patterns and Survival of Western Meadowlark Nests (University of California Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
Herranz, J., Yanes, M. & Suárez, F. Does Photo-Monitoring Affect Nest Predation? J. Field Ornithol. 73, 97–101 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, T. W., Gardali, T. & Jenkins, S. H. Review and meta-analysis of camera effects on avian nest success. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 287–293 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cain, S. L. Nesting activity time budgets of Bald Eagles in southeast Alaska. (1985).García-Salgado, G. et al. Evaluation of trail-cameras for analyzing the diet of nesting raptors using the Northern Goshawk as a model. PLoS ONE 10, e0127585 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swann, D. E., Kawanishi, K. & Palmer, J. Evaluating types and features of camera traps in ecological studies: a guide for researchers. In Camera Traps in Animal Ecology 27–43 (Springer, 2011).Dykstra, C., Meyer, M. & Warnke, D. Bald Eagle reproductive performance following video camera placement. J. Raptor Res. 36, 136–139 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Del Moral, J. C. & Molina, B. El águila perdicera en España, población reproductora en 2018 y método de censo (SEO/BirdLife, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Generalitat Valenciana. Orden 2/2022, de 16 de febrero, de la Conselleria de Agricultura, Desarrollo Rural, Emergencia Climática y Transición Ecológica, por la que se actualizan los listados valencianos de especies protegidas de flora y fauna (2022).Real, J. & Mañosa, S. Demography and conservation of western European Bonelli’s eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus populations. Biol. Conserv. 79, 59–66 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-Matías, A. et al. From local monitoring to a broad-scale viability assessment: A case study for the Bonelli’s Eagle in western Europe. Ecol. Monogr. 83, 239–261 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rollan, A. et al. Guiding local-scale management to improve the conservation of endangered populations: The example of Bonelli’s Eagle Aquila fasciata. Bird Conserv. Int. 31, 395–409 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-López, P., García-Ripollés, C. & Urios, V. Population size, breeding performance and territory quality of Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus in eastern Spain. Bird Study 54, 335–342 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-López, P. Informe científico valoración de la inclusión del águila perdicera como especie en peligro de extinción en el Catálogo Valenciano de Especies de Fauna Amenazadahttps://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32806.04166 (2021).López-López, P., Perona, A., Egea-Casas, O., Morant, J. & Urios, V. Tri-axial accelerometry shows differences in energy expenditure and parental effort throughout the breeding season in long-lived raptors. Curr. Zool. 68, 57–67 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perona, A. M., Urios, V. & López-López, P. Holidays? Not for all Eagles have larger home ranges on holidays as a consequence of human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 231, 59–66 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morollón, S., Urios, V. & López-López, P. Fifteen days are enough to estimate home-range size in some long-lived resident eagles. J. Ornithol. 163, 849–854 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stewart-Oaten, A., Murdoch, W. W. & Parker, K. R. Environmental impact assessment:” Pseudoreplication” in time?. Ecology 67, 929–940 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Underwood, A. Beyond BACI: The detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 161, 145–178 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-López, P., García-Ripollés, C., García-López, F., Aguilar, J. M. & Verdejo, J. Patrón de distribución del águila real Aquila chrysaetos y del águila-azor perdicera Hieraaetus fasciatus en la provincia de Castellón. Ardeola 51, 275–283 (2004).
Google Scholar 
López-López, P., García-Ripollés, C., Aguilar, J. M., Garcia-López, F. & Verdejo, J. Modelling breeding habitat preferences of Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in relation to topography, disturbance, climate and land use at different spatial scales. J. Ornithol. 147, 97–106 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gil-Sánchez, J. Effects of altitude and prey availability on the laying date of Bonelli’s Eagles (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in Granada (SE Spain). Ardeola 47, 1–8 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Forsman, D. Flight Identification of Raptors of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R Vol. 574 (Springer, 2009).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ 6, e4794 (2018).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.46.0. (2022).Cutler, T. L. & Swann, D. E. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: A review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 571–581 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Richardson, C. T. & Miller, C. K. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: A review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25, 634–638 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Balbontin, J., Penteriani, V. & Ferrer, M. Variations in the age of mates as an early warning signal of changes in population trends? The case of Bonelli’s eagle in Andalusia. Biol. Conserv. 109, 417–423 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez, J. A. et al. Breeding performance, age effects and territory occupancy in a Bonelli’s eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus population. Ibis 150, 223–233 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Zapata, J., Calvo, J., Carrete, M. & Martínez, J. Age and breeding success of a Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos population in southeastern Spain. Bird Study 47, 235–237 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrer, M., Penteriani, V., Balbontin, J. & Pandolfi, M. The proportion of immature breeders as a reliable early warning signal of population decline: Evidence from the Spanish imperial eagle in Donana. Biol. Conserv. 114, 463–466 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cano, A. & Parrinder, E. Studies of less familiar birds, Bonelli’s Eagle. Br. Birds 54, 422–427 (1961).
Google Scholar 
Blondel, J., Coulon, L., Girerd, B. & Hortigue, M. Deux cents heures d’observation aupre‘s de l’aire de l’Aigle de Bonelli Hieraaetus fasciatus. Nos Oiseaux 30, 37–60 (1969).
Google Scholar 
Vaucher, C. Notes sur 1’ethologie de I’Aigle de Bonelli. Nos Oiseaux 31, 101–111 (1971).
Google Scholar 
Elósegui, J. Informe preliminar sobre alimentación de aves rapaces en Navarra y provincias limítrofes. Ardeola 19, 249–256 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Cheylan, G. L. place trophique de l’Aigle de Bonelli Hieraaetus fasciatus dans les biocénoses méditerranéennes. Alauda 45, 1–15 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Palma, L., Cancela da Fonseca, L. & Oliveira, L. L’alimentation de l’aigle de Bonelli Hieraaetus fasciatus dans la coˆte portugaise. Rapinyaires Mediterranis 2, 87–96 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Real, J. Biases in diet study methods in the Bonelli’s eagle. J. Wildl. Manag. 60, 632–638 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gil-Sánchez, J. M., Molino, F., Valenzuela, G. & Moleón, M. Demografía y alimentación del Águila-azor Perdicera (Hieraaetus fasciatus) en la provincia de Granada. Ardeola 47, 69–75 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Ontiveros, D., Pleguezuelos, J. M. & Caro, J. Prey density, prey detectability and food habits: The case of Bonelli’s eagle and the conservation measures. Biol. Conserv. 123, 19–25 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moleón, M. et al. Large-scale spatio-temporal shifts in the diet of a predator mediated by an emerging infectious disease of its main prey. J. Biogeogr. 36, 1502–1515 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Resano-Mayor, J. et al. Diet–demography relationships in a long-lived predator: From territories to populations. Oikos 125, 262–270 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Vittorio, M. et al. Long-term changes in the breeding period diet of Bonelli’s eagle (Aquila fasciata) in Sicily, Italy. Wildl. Res. 46, 409–414 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Direct injection method for ethylene and acetylene δ13C analyses by GC-C-IRMSFollowing the direct injection approach of classical ISARA12 with a few modifications, ARA samples with high ethylene yield ( > 500 ppmv) in 10% v/v acetylene were manually injected into a Thermo Scientific Trace GC Ultra-Isolink with an Agilent HP-PLOT/Q  capillary GC column (30 m, i.d. = 0.32 mm, f.t. = 20 μm) and a combustion reactor connected to a Thermo Scientific Delta V Plus isotope ratio mass spectrometer (GC-C-IRMS; Fig. 1a). Modifications include the replacement of silver ferrules in the GC oven with Valcon polymide (graphite reinforced polymer) ferrules to limit memory effects from acetylene. The combustion reactor was oxidized with pure oxygen for 1 h before each run and brief (15 min) seed oxidations were performed between measurement batches (i.e., required every ~ 6–8 ethylene injections, ~ 4–6 acetylene injections) to regenerate reactor oxidation capacity and minimize drift of δ13C values. See Supplementary Table S1a online for additional instrument settings.Ethylene Pre-Concentration (EPCon) methodARA samples with  More

Soil studies were carried out on 115,896.2 hectares of agricultural lands in fifteen villages of the municipal district obtained by subtracting from the available area of the village industrial lands, populated areas, forest plots occupied by water, etc.As a result of the land reform and redistribution of land for various purposes for the period from 1972 to 2021, the area of agricultural land decreased by 12.7% compared to the data of the previous survey.In the research area, the largest territories are occupied by black soils, which amount to 52,826.24 ha, including bleached soils—42,605.9 ha, alkaline – 6983.8 ha and shortened – 3236.54 ha. Slightly inferior to the black soils are dark gray forest soils with an area of 37,043.63 hectares, alluvial—12,287.4 hectares, gray forest—6371.96 hectares and forest soils of a rooted profile – 5058.94 hectares. The share of sod-carbonate soils accounts for 7792.7 hectares of land, which is 6.2%. The gradation did not include the soils of the ravine-beam complex, sand and gravel masses, existing ravines and disturbed lands, and quarries that occupy 5,452.4 hectares of territory (4.3%).One of the important indicators of soils, especially used in agricultural production, is the humus state. Thus, over 49 years there has been a slight decrease in the area under obese (high-humus) soils in the hectare ratio, due to a general decrease in the area of farmland, but in the context of the security group, they have increased by 1.3% (Table 1). The remaining levels of security have remained almost at the same level. The increase in the amount of fat chernozems was facilitated by the withdrawal of arable land from circulation and their transfer to perennial plantations. Earlier researches conducted on experimental fields of the Bashkir State Agrarian University identified and revealed changes in the quantitative and qualitative composition of organic matter from 15 to 30% when introducing a land plot for arable land26. To preserve and improve soil fertility, it is recommended to carry out a complex of agrotechnical, agrochemical and reclamation measures and the use of various meliorants, organic and mineral fertilizers27.Studies of the capacity of the humus horizon have shown that low–sized soils have become the most widespread—69,660.2 hectares or 60.1% of the total area of agricultural land (Fig. 2). A smaller area is occupied by medium-sized soils – 38,128.7 hectares (32.9%), not included in the gradation – 8107.3 hectares or 7.0%, respectively. It should be noted that the specific gravity of the soil of the ravine-beam complex, sand and gravel masses, active ravines and disturbed lands, and quarries increased by 2.5%.Figure 2Distribution of soils by humus horizon thickness by region.Full size imageThe granulometric composition of the soil is also of great agronomic importance28. Physical, physico-chemical, physico-mechanical properties and water, air, and nutrient regimes of soils depend on it29,30. In the Salavatskiy district there were practically no changes in soil areas in terms of granulometric composition, mainly clay soil varieties predominate. According to the mechanical composition of the soil there were distributed as follows: light clay – 71,807.38 ha or 62% (in 1972, 86,375 ha or 65.1%) of the total area of agricultural land and heavy loamy – 34,745.24 ha (30%) (in 1972—39,614 ha or 29.8%). The share of medium-loamy varieties accounts for 0.8% (in 1972—0.84%) (Fig. 3).Figure 3Distribution of Salavatskiy district soil areas by granulometric composition, %.Full size imageThe gradation did not include 8362.27 hectares of land. Heavy loamy, medium clay, sandy loam and sandy soils have not been identified.All arable soils of the analyzed territory are slightly susceptible to erosion processes, the processes of water and, to a lesser extent, wind erosion have developed. 67,445.21 hectares of land, or 58.2% (in 1972, 77,702 hectares) of the total area of agricultural lands are occupied under lightly washed soils, the share of medium and heavily washed accounts for 3.9% and 0.1%, respectively. Unwashed soils are distributed on 36,985.46 hectares (31.9%) (Table 2).Table 2 Soil areas by category of erosion feature (Salavatskiy district of the Republic of Bashkortostan).Full size tableAccording to the results of the field research and laboratory agrochemical analyses of soils, land refinements related to agricultural land were carried out. The basis for correcting and digitizing the contours of soil varieties were in the maps made in 1972 (Fig. 4).Figure 4Soil map within the boundaries of the Salavatskiy district of the Republic of Bashkortostan, 1972.Full size imageDigitization included scanning the topographic basis, then assigning coordinates to a raster image, decrypting and digitizing orthophotos (Fig. 5).Figure 5Orthophotoplan within the boundaries of the Salavatskiy district of the Republic of Bashkortostan, 2007.Full size imageAfter the carried-out activities, a soil map was obtained in the digital format of the Mapinfo program, after which it was converted into a raster basis with reference to the local coordinate system MSK 02 zone 1. The digitization of the 1972 soil map was carried out manually by outlining the contours of the topographic base and the scanned map.During digitization, information partially lost due to its wear and distortion during scanning was restored. A necessary condition is the use of the originals of the soil maps of the previous survey (1972).As a planned basis on which the created layers can be opened and information on soils can be obtained, a raster basis was ordinated into a local coordinate system (Fig. 6).Figure 6Completed soil map within the boundaries of the Salavat district of the Republic of Belarus, 2021.Full size imageThe result of the conducted research is the developed electronic digital soil map of the municipal district of Salavatskiy district which unites 15 rural settlements. The electronic soil map is presented in the form of a complex of electronic layers with the names of the type and subtype of soils, soil variety, mechanical or granulometric composition, soil-forming and underlying rocks. It also includes indicators of organic carbon, humus, mobile phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, soil acidity by pH value and the capacity of the humus-accumulative horizon. More

Wilson, E. O. Success and dominance in ecosystems: the case of the social insects. Vol. 2 I-XXI (Ecology Institute, 1990).Anderson, C., Franks, N. R. & McShea, D. W. The complexity and hierarchical structure of tasks in insect societies. Anim. Behav. 62, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1795 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theraulaz, G. & Deneubourg, J.-L. in The Ethological roots of Culture (eds Gardner RA, Chiarelli AB, Gardner BT, & Ploojd FX) 1–19 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994).Theraulaz, G. & Bonabeau, E. Modelling the collective building of complex architectures in social insects with lattice swarms. J. Theor. Biol. 177, 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1995.0255 (1995).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.-L., Aron, S. & Camazine, S. Self-organization in social insects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 188–193 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, D. M. The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature 380, 121–124 (1996).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, D. M. The evolution of the algorithms for collective behavior. Cell Syst. 3, 514–520 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grüter, C. et al. Negative feedback enables fast and flexible collective decision-making in ants. PLoS ONE 7, e44501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044501 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wehner, R., Harkness, R. D. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Foraging Strategies in Individually Searching Ants. (Fischer, 1983).Oster, G. F. & Wilson, E. O. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects. (Princeton University Press, 1978).Anderson, C. & Franks, N. R. Teams in animal societies. Behav. Ecol. 12, 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.5.534 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeanne, R. L. The evolution of the organization of work in social insects. Monitore Zool. Italiano-Ital. J. Zool. 20, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00269786.1986.10736494 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ratnieks, F. L. & Anderson, C. Task partitioning in insects societies. Insectes Soc. 46, 95–108 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, C., Boomsma, J. J. & Bartholdi, J. J. Task partitioning in insect societies: bucket brigades. Insectes Soc. 49, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-002-8298-7 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeanson, R. & Weidenmüller, A. Interindividual variability in social insects–proximate causes and ultimate consequences. Biol. Rev. 89, 671–687 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leighton, G. M., Charbonneau, D. & Dornhaus, A. Task switching is associated with temporal delays in Temnothorax rugatulus ants. Behav. Ecol. 28, 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw162 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grassé, P.-P. La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez Bellicositermes natalensis et Cubitermes sp. la théorie de la stigmergie: Essai d’interprétation du comportement des termites constructeurs. Insectes Soc. 6, 41–80 (1959).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theraulaz, G. & Bonabeau, E. A brief history of stigmergy. Artif. Life 5, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/106454699568700 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karsai, I. Decentralized control of construction behavior in paper wasps: an overview of the stigmergy approach. Artif. Life 5, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1162/106454699568719 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karsai, I. & Penzes, Z. Comb Building in Social Wasps – Self-Organization and Stigmergic Script. J. Theor. Biol. 161, 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1993.1070 (1993).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, M., Bonabeau, E. & Theraulaz, G. Ant algorithms and stigmergy. Fut. Gen. Comput. Syst. 16, 851–871 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Camazine, S. Self-organizing pattern-formation on the combs of Honey-Bee Colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00172140 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Camazine, S., Sneyd, J., Jenkins, M. J. & Murray, J. D. A Mathematical-model of self-organized pattern-formation on the combs of Honeybee Colonies. J. Theor. Biol. 147, 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80264-4 (1990).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Deneubourg, J.-L. et al. in Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats (eds J.A. Meyer & S.W. Wilson) 356–365 (The MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1991).Franks, N. R. & Sendovafranks, A. B. Brood Sorting by Ants – Distributing the Workload over the Work-Surface. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30, 109–123 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sendova-Franks, A. B., Scholes, S. R., Franks, N. R. & Melhuish, C. Brood sorting by ants: two phases and differential diffusion. Anim. Behav. 68, 1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.02.013 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lan, T., Liu, S. & Yang, S. X. in 2006 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation. 441–445 (IEEE).Renucci, M., Tirard, A. & Provost, E. Complex undertaking behavior in Temnothorax lichtensteini ant colonies: from corpse-burying behavior to necrophoric behavior. Insectes Soc. 58, 9–16 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Detrain, C. & Deneubourg, J. L. Collective decision-making and foraging patterns in Ants and Honeybees. Advances in Insect Physiology 35(35), 123–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2806(08)00002-7 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Couzin, I. D. & Franks, N. R. Self-organized lane formation and optimized traffic flow in army ants. Proc Biol Sci 270, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2210 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulyas, L., Laufer, L. & Szabo, R. in International Workshop on Engineering Self-Organising Applications 50–65 (Springer).Langridge, E. A., Franks, N. R. & Sendova-Franks, A. B. Improvement in collective performance with experience in ants. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56, 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-004-0824-3 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oberst, S. et al. Revisiting stigmergy in light of multi-functional, biogenic, termite structures as communication channel. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 2522–2534 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, A., Anderson, C. & Ratnieks, F. Task partitioning in leafcutting ants. Acta Ethologica 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-002-0062-5 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, A. G. & Ratnieks, F. L. Leaf caching in the leafcutting ant Atta colombica: organizational shift, task partitioning and making the best of a bad job. Anim. Behav. 62, 227–234 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Röschard, J. & Roces, F. Sequential load transport in grass-cutting ants (Atta vollenweideri): maximization of plant delivery rate or improved information transfer? Psyche 2011 (2011).Nickele, M. A., Reis Filho, W. & Pie, M. R. Sequential load transport during foraging in Acromyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) leaf-cutting ants. Myrmecol News 21, 73–82 (2015).Ferrante, E., Turgut, A. E., Duenez-Guzman, E., Dorigo, M. & Wenseleers, T. Evolution of Self-Organized Task Specialization in Robot Swarms. PLoS Comp. Biol. 11, e1004273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004273 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Grueter, C. et al. Negative feedback enables fast and flexible collective decision-making in ants. (2012).Holcombe, M. et al. Modelling complex biological systems using an agent-based approach. Integr. Biol. 4, 53–64 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fourcassié, V., Dussutour, A. & Deneubourg, J.-L. Ant traffic rules. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 2357–2363 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Modlmeier, A. P., Keiser, C. N., Shearer, T. A. & Pruitt, J. N. Species-specific influence of group composition on collective behaviors in ants. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68, 1929–1937 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Modlmeier, A. P., Liebmann, J. E. & Foitzik, S. Diverse societies are more productive: a lesson from ants. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2142–2150 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh, J. T., Garnier, S. & Linksvayer, T. A. Ant collective behavior is heritable and shaped by selection. Am. Nat. 196, 541–554 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tannenbaum, E. When does division of labor lead to increased system output?. J. Theor. Biol. 247, 413–425 (2007).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wahl, L. M. Evolving the division of labour: Generalists, specialists and task allocation. J. Theor. Biol. 219, 371–388 (2002).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Wakano, J., Nakata, K. & Yamamura, N. Dynamic model of optimal age polyethism in social insects under stable and fluctuating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 193, 153–165 (1998).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Goldsby, H. J., Dornhaus, A., Kerr, B. & Ofria, C. Task-switching costs promote the evolution of division of labor and shifts in individuality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 13686–13691 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rueffler, C., Hermisson, J. & Wagner, G. P. Evolution of functional specialization and division of labor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, E326–E335 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lopes, J. F., Forti, L. C., Camargo, R. S., Matos, C. A. & Verza, S. S. The effect of trail length on task partitioning in three Acromyrmex species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 42, 87–92 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Duarte, A., Weissing, F. J., Pen, I. & Keller, L. An evolutionary perspective on self-organized division of labor in social insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42(42), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145017 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duarte, A., Pen, I., Keller, L. & Weissing, F. J. Evolution of self-organized division of labor in a response threshold model. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 947–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1343-2 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Floreano, D. & Keller, L. Evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots by means of Darwinian selection. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000292 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Floreano, D., Mitri, S., Magnenat, S. & Keller, L. Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Curr. Biol. 17, 514–519 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitri, S., Floreano, D. & Keller, L. The evolution of information suppression in communicating robots with conflicting interests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 15786–15790 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Abiodun, O. I. et al. State-of-the-art in artificial neural network applications: A survey. Heliyon 4, e00938 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dingemanse, N. J., Kazem, A. J., Réale, D. & Wright, J. Behavioural reaction norms: Animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 81–89 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van den Berg, P. & Weissing, F. J. The importance of mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20151382 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wetterer, J. K. Ontogenetic changes in forager polymorphism and foraging ecology in the leaf-cutting ant Atta cephalotes. Oecologia 98, 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341478 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wetterer, J. K. Forager size and ecology of Acromyrmex coronatus and other leaf-cutting ants in Costa Rica. Oecologia 104, 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341337 (1995).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Evison, S. E. F. & Hughes, W. O. Genetic caste polymorphism and the evolution of polyandry in Atta leaf-cutting ants. Naturwissenschaften 98, 643–649 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, W. O., Oldroyd, B. P., Beekman, M. & Ratnieks, F. L. Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320, 1213–1216 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Villesen, P., Murakami, T., Schultz, T. R. & Boomsma, o. J. Identifying the transition between single and multiple mating of queens in fungus-growing ants. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 269, 1541–1548 (2002).Mueller, U. G. & Rabeling, C. A breakthrough innovation in animal evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 5287–5288 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schultz, T. R. & Brady, S. G. Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 5435–5440 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fowler, H. G. Latitudinal gradients and diversity of the leaf-cutting ants (Atta and Acromyrmex)(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Rev. Biol. Trop. 31, 213–216 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Jackson, D. E. & Ratnieks, F. L. Communication in ants. Curr. Biol. 16, R570–R574 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roces, F. & Hölldobler, B. Vibrational communication between hitchhikers and foragers in leaf-cutting ants (Atta cephalotes). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 297–302 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hubbell, S. P., Johnson, L. K., Stanislav, E., Wilson, B. & Fowler, H. Foraging by bucket-brigade in leaf-cutter ants. Biotropica 1, 210–213 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boi, S., Couzin, I. D., Buono, N. D., Franks, N. & Britton, N. Coupled oscillators and activity waves in ant colonies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 266, 371–378 (1999).Cole, B. J. Short-term activity cycles in ants: generation of periodicity by worker interaction. Am. Nat. 137, 244–259 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cornejo, A., Dornhaus, A., Lynch, N. & Nagpal, R. in International Symposium on Distributed Computing. 46–60 (Springer).Franks, N. R., Bryant, S., Griffiths, R. & Hemerik, L. Synchronization of the behaviour within nests of the antleptothorax acervorum (fabricius)—I. Discovering the phenomenon and its relation to the level of starvation. Bull. Math. Biol. 52, 597–612 (1990).Pagliara, R., Gordon, D. M. & Leonard, N. E. Regulation of harvester ant foraging as a closed-loop excitable system. PLoS Comp. Biol. 14, e1006200 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schmickl, T. & Karsai, I. Integral feedback control is at the core of task allocation and resilience of insect societies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 13180–13185 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Solé, R. V., Miramontes, O. & Goodwin, B. C. Oscillations and chaos in ant societies. J. Theor. Biol. 161, 343–357 (1993).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, D. M., Goodwin, B. C. & Trainor, L. E. A parallel distributed model of the behaviour of ant colonies. J. Theor. Biol. 156, 293–307 (1992).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aoki, S. K. et al. A universal biomolecular integral feedback controller for robust perfect adaptation. Nature 570, 533–537 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, W., Trusina, A., El-Samad, H., Lim, W. A. & Tang, C. Defining network topologies that can achieve biochemical adaptation. Cell 138, 760–773 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Niemeyer, N., Schleimer, J.-H. & Schreiber, S. Biophysical models of intrinsic homeostasis: Firing rates and beyond. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 70, 81–88 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rombouts, J., Vandervelde, A. & Gelens, L. Delay models for the early embryonic cell cycle oscillator. PLoS ONE 13, e0194769 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tyson, J. J., Chen, K. C. & Novak, B. Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signaling pathways in the cell. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15, 221–231 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bryant, B. D. & Miikkulainen, R. Foundations of Trusted Autonomy 87–115 (Springer, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Masad, D. & Kazil, J. in 14th PYTHON in Science Conference. 53–60 (Citeseer).Knaden, M. & Graham, P. The sensory ecology of ant navigation: from natural environments to neural mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 61, 63–76 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Overall frameworkCells in our model are arranged along independent radial files, with each cell in one of either the proliferation, enlargement-only, wall thickening, or mature zones, depending on the distance of the cell’s centre from the inside edge of the phloem and the time of year. Only cells that contribute to the formation of xylem tracheids are treated explicitly. A daily timestep is used, on which cells in the proliferation and enlargement-only zones can enlarge in the radial direction if these zones are non-dormant, and on which secondary-wall thickening can occur in the wall thickening zone. Cells in the proliferation zone divide periclinally if they reach a threshold radial length. Cell-size control at division is intermediate between a critical size and a critical increment22. Mother cells divide asymmetrically, with the subsequent relative growth rates of the daughters inversely proportional to their relative sizes. Size at division and asymmetry of division are computed with added statistical noise22, and therefore the model is run for an ensemble of independent radial files with perturbed initial conditions.Equations and parametersCell enlargement and divisionCells in the proliferation and enlargement-only zones, when not dormant, enlarge in the radial direction at a rate dependent on temperature and relative sibling birth size. A Boltzmann-Arrhenius approach is used for the temperature dependence30:$$mu={mu }_{0}{e}^{frac{{E}_{a}}{k}left(frac{1}{{T}_{0}}-frac{1}{T}right)}$$
(1)
where μ is the relative rate of radial cell growth at temperature T (μm μm−1 day−1), μ0 is μ at temperature T0 (=283.15 K), Ea is the effective activation energy for cell enlargement, k is the Boltzmann constant (i.e. 8.617 x 10−5 eV K−1), and T is temperature (K). μ0 was calibrated to an observed mean radial file length at the end of the elongation period dataset23 (Table 1; see “Observations”), and Ea was calibrated to an observed temperature dependence of annual ring width dataset31 (Table 1; Supplementary Fig. 4; see “Observations”).Table 1 Model parameters calibrated to observationsFull size tableRadial length of an individual cell then increases according to:$${{Delta }}{L}_{r}={L}_{r}({e}^{epsilon mu }-1)$$
(2)
where ΔLr is the radial increment of the cell (μm day−1), Lr is the radial length of the cell (μm), and ϵ is the cell’s growth dependence on relative birth size, given by22:$$epsilon=1-{g}_{asym}{alpha }_{b}$$
(3)
where gasym is the strength of the dependence of relative growth rate on asymmetric division (Table 2; unitless), and αb is the degree of asymmetry relative to the cell’s sister22 (scalar):$${alpha }_{b}=frac{{L}_{r}{,}_{b}-{L}_{r}{,}_{b}^{sis}}{{L}_{r}{,}_{b}+{L}_{r}{,}_{b}^{sis}}$$
(4)
where Lr,b is the radial length of the cell at birth (μm) and ({L}_{r}{,}_{b}^{sis}) is the radial length of its sister at birth (μm), which are calculated stochastically22:$${L}_{r}{,}_{b}={L}_{r}{,}_{d}(0.5-{Z}_{a})$$
(5)
$${L}_{r}{,}_{b}^{sis}={L}_{r}{,}_{d}(0.5+{Z}_{a})$$
(6)
where Lr,d is the length of the mother cell when it divides (μm) and Za is Gaussian noise with mean zero and standard deviation σa (Table 2; −0.49 ≤Za≤ 0.49 for numerical stability).Table 2 Parameters used in the model that are taken directly from literatureFull size tableLength at division is derived as22:$${L}_{r}{,}_{d}=f{L}_{r}{,}_{b}+{chi }_{b}(2-f+Z)$$
(7)
where f is the mode of cell-size regulation (Table 2; unitless), χb is the mean cell birth size (Table 3; μm), and Z is Gaussian noise with mean zero and standard deviation σ (Table 2).Table 3 Parameters used in the model that are calculated from observationsFull size tableThe first cell in each radial file is an initial, which produces phloem mother cells outwards and xylem mother cells inwards. It grows and divides as other cells in the proliferation zone, but on division one of the daughters is stochastically assigned to phloem or xylem, the other remaining as the initial. The probability of the daughter being on the phloem side is fphloem (Table 3).Cell-wall growthBoth primary and secondary cell-wall growth are influenced by temperature, carbohydrate concentration, and lumen volume. A Michaelis-Menten equation is used to relate the rate of wall growth to the concentration of carbohydrates in the cytoplasm:$${{Delta }}M=frac{{{Delta }}{M}_{max}theta }{theta+{K}_{m}}$$
(8)
where ΔM is the rate of cell-wall growth (mg cell−1 day−1), ΔMmax is the carbohydrate-saturated rate of wall growth (mg cell−1 day−1), θ is the concentration of carbohydrates in the cell’s cytoplasm (mg ml−1), and Km is the effective Michaelis constant (mg ml−1; Table 1).The maximum rate of cell-wall growth, ΔMmax, is assumed to depend linearly on lumen volume (a proxy for the amount of machinery for wall growth), and on temperature as in Eq. (1):$${{Delta }}{M}_{max}=omega {V}_{l}{e}^{frac{{E}_{aw}}{k}left(frac{1}{{T}_{0}}-frac{1}{T}right)}$$
(9)
where ω is the normalised rate of cell-wall mass growth (i.e. the rate at T0; Table 1; mg ml−1 day−1), Vl is the cell lumen volume (ml cell−1), and Eaw is the effective activation energy for wall building (eV; Table 1). ω and Km were calibrated to an observed distribution of carbohydrates23 (see next section). Eaw was calibrated to an observed temperature dependence of maximum density31 (Table 1; see “Observations”).Lumen volume is given by:$${V}_{l}={V}_{c}-{V}_{w}$$
(10)
where Vc is total cell volume (ml cell−1) and Vw is total wall volume (ml cell−1). Cells are assumed cuboid and therefore Vc is given by:$${V}_{c}={L}_{a}{L}_{t}{L}_{r}/1{0}^{12}$$
(11)
where La is axial length (μm; Table 2) and Lt is tangential length (μm; Table 3). Vw is given by:$${V}_{w}=M/rho$$
(12)
where M is wall mass (mg cell−1) and ρ is wall-mass density (Table 2; mg[DM] ml−1).Cells in the proliferation and enlargement-only zones only have primary cell walls. ΔMmax (Eq. (9)) is therefore given the following limit:$${{Delta }}{M}_{max}=min ({{Delta }}{M}_{max},rho {V}_{{w}_{p}}-M)$$
(13)
where ({V}_{{w}_{p}}) is the required primary wall volume:$${V}_{{w}_{p}}={V}_{c}-({L}_{a}-2{W}_{p})({L}_{t}-2{W}_{p})({L}_{r}-2{W}_{p})/1{0}^{12}$$
(14)
where Wp is primary cell-wall thickness (Table 3; μm).Carbohydrate distributionThe distribution of carbohydrates across each radial file is calculated independently from the balance of diffusion from the phloem and the uptake into primary and secondary cell walls. The carbohydrate concentration in the phloem is prescribed at the mean value observed across the three observational dates in23, as described below in “Observations”, and the resulting concentration in the cytoplasm of the furthest living cell from the phloem is solved numerically. The inside wall of this cell is assumed to be impermeable to carbohydrates and therefore provides the inner boundary to the solution. It is assumed that the rate of diffusion across each file is rapid relative to the rate of cell-wall building, and therefore concentrations are assumed to be in equilibrium on each day. Carbohydrate diffusion between living cells is assumed to be proportional to the concentration gradient:$${q}_{i}=({theta }_{i-1}-{theta }_{i})/eta$$
(15)
where qi is the rate of carbohydrate diffusion from cell i − 1 to cell i (mg day−1) and η is the resistance to flow between cells (calibrated to the observed distribution of carbohydrates23, see next section; Table 1; day ml−1).As it is assumed that carbohydrates cannot diffuse between radial files, at equilibrium the flux into a given cell must equal the rate of wall growth in that cell plus the wall growth in all cells further along the radial file away from the phloem. From this it can be shown that the equilibrium carbohydrate concentration in the furthest living cell from the phloem in each radial file is given by:$${theta }_{n}={theta }_{p}-eta mathop{sum }limits_{i=1}^{n}mathop{sum }limits_{j=i}^{n}{{Delta }}{M}_{j}$$
(16)
where θp is the concentration of carbohydrates in the phloem (Table 3; mg ml−1) and n is the number of living cells in the file (phloem mother cells are ignored for simplicity). The rate of wall growth in each cell depends on the concentration of carbohydrates (Eq. (8)), and therefore θn must be found that results in an equilibrium flow across the radial file. This is done using Brent’s method41 as implemented in the “ZBRENT” function42.Zone widthsThe widths of the proliferation, enlargement-only, and secondary wall thickening zones vary through the year, and are fitted to observations on three dates23 (see Supplementary Fig. 2 and “Observations”). Linear responses to daylength were found, which are therefore used to determine widths for the observational period and later days:$${z}_{k}={a}_{k}+{b}_{k}{{{{{{{rm{dl}}}}}}}};{{mathrm{DOY}}}ge 185$$
(17)
where zk is the distance of the inner edge of the zone from the inner edge of the phloem (μm), k is proliferation (p), secondary wall thickening (t), or enlargement-only (e), ak and bk are constants (Table 3), dl is daylength (s), and DOY is day-of-year. The proliferation zone width on earlier days when non-dormant was fixed at its DOY 185 width (assuming this to be its maximum, and that it would reach its maximum very soon after cambial dormancy is broken in the spring). During dormancy, the proliferation zone width is fixed at its value on DOY 231 (the first day of dormancy23). The enlargement-only zone width prior to DOY 185, the first observational day, is assumed to be a linear extension of the rate of change after DOY 185. The wall-thickening zone width plays little role prior to DOY 185 at the focal site, and so was set to its Eq. (17) value each earlier day. On all days the condition zt≥ze≥zp is imposed, and zone widths cannot exceed their values at 24 h daylength (necessary for sites north of the Arctic circle). Supplementary Figure 2 shows the resulting progression of zone widths through the year, together with the observed values.DormancyProliferation was observed to be finished by DOY 23123, and so the proliferation and enlargement-only zones are assumed to enter dormancy then. Release from dormancy in the spring is calculated using an empirical thermal time/chilling model33. It was necessary to adjust the asymptote and temperature threshold of the published model because the heat sum on the day of release calculated from observations in Sweden (see “Observations”) was much lower than reported for Sitka spruce buds in Britain in the original work:$${{{{{{{{rm{dd}}}}}}}}}_{req}=15+4401.8{e}^{-0.042{{{{{{{rm{cd}}}}}}}}}$$
(18)
where ddreq is the required sum of degree-days (°C) from DOY 32 for dormancy release and cd is the chill-day sum from DOY 306. The degree-day sum is the sum of daily mean temperatures above 0 °C, and the chill-day sum is the number of days with mean temperatures below 0 °C. Dormancy can only be released during the first half of the year.Simulation protocolsEach simulation consisted of an ensemble of 100 independent radial files. Each radial file was initialised by producing a file of 100 cells with radial lengths χb(1+Za), allowing these to divide once, ignoring the second daughter from each division, and then limiting the remaining daughters to only those falling inside the proliferation zone on DOY 1. Values for ϵ (the relative growth of daughter cells) and Lr,d (the radial length at division) were derived for each cell. The main simulations were conducted at the observation site in boreal Sweden (64.35°N, 19.77°E) over 1951–1995 to capture the growth period of the observed trees23. Results are mostly presented for 1995 when the observations were made. Simulations for calibration of the effective activation energies (i.e. Ea and Eaw) were performed at 68.26°N, 19.63°E in Arctic Sweden over 1901–200431. Daily mean temperatures for both sites were derived from the appropriate gridbox in a 6 h 1/2 degree global-gridded dataset43.ObservationsObservations of cellular characteristics and carbohydrate concentrations23 were used to derive a number of model parameters, and to test model output (model calibration and testing were performed using different outputs). According to the published study we used, samples were cut from three 44 yr old Scots pine trees growing in Sweden (64°21’ N; 19°46’ E) at different times during the growing season. 30 μm thick longitudinal tangential sections of the cambial region were made, and the radial distributions of soluble carbohydrates measured using microanalytical techniques23. Cell sizes, wall thicknesses, and positions in their Fig. 123, an image of transverse sections on three sampling dates, were digitised using “WebPlotDigitizer”44. These, together with the numbers of cells in each zone and their sizes given in the text of that paper, were used to estimate zone widths, which were then regressed against daylength to give the parameters for Eq. (17) (Table 3), mean cell size in the proliferation zone on the first sampling date (used to derive χb; Table 3), mean cell tangential length (Table 3), and final ring width (used to calibrate μ0; Table 1). The thickness of the primary cell wall (Table 3) was derived by plotting cell-wall thickness against time and taking the low asymptote.The distributions of carbohydrates along the radial files on the last sampling date for “Tree 1” and “Tree 3” (results for “Tree 2” were not shown for this date) shown in Fig. 2 of the observational paper23 were calculated. The masses for each of sucrose, glucose, and fructose in each 30 μm section were digitised using the same method as for cell properties and then summed and converted to concentrations, with the results shown in Supplementary Figure 5. Mean observed carbohydrate concentrations and cell masses at four points were used to calibrate values for the η, ω, and Km parameters in Table 1. Calibration was performed by minimising the summed relative error across the observations.The calibration target for the effective activation energy for wall deposition (i.e. Eaw) was the observed relationship between maximum density and mean June-July-August temperature over 1901-2004 in northern Sweden31 (Supplementary Fig. 3), and for the effective activation energy for cell enlargement the relationship between ring width and temperature (i.e. Ea) target was the same study (Supplementary Fig. 4). These observations were made on living and subfossil Scots pine sample material from the Lake Tornesträsk area (68.21–68.31°N; 19.45–19.80°E; 350–450 m a.s.l.) using X-ray densitometry for maximum density, and standardised to remove non-climatic information31.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Orr, M. R. & Smith, T. B. Ecology and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 502–506 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. Speciation (Sinauer Associates, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Gillespie, R. G. Adaptive radiation: Convergence and non-equilibrium. Curr. Biol. 23, R71–R74 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Price, T. Speciation in Birds (Roberts and Company Publishers, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Schluter, D. Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative. Science 323, 737–741 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stroud, J. T. & Losos, J. B. Ecological opportunity and adaptive radiation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 507–532 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jønsson, K. A. et al. Ecological and evolutionary determinants for the adaptive radiation of the Madagascan vangas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 6620–6625 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. Speciation and ecology revisited: Phylogenetic niche conservatism and the origin of species. Evolution 58, 193–197 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Barve, N. et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222, 1810–1819 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. & Graham, C. H. Niche Conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 519–539 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petitpierre, B. et al. Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science 335, 1344–1348 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winger, B. M., Barker, F. K. & Ree, R. H. Temperate origins of long-distance seasonal migration in New World songbirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 12115–12120 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alerstam, T., Hedenström, A. & Åkesson, S. Long-distance migration: Evolution and determinants. Oikos 103, 247–260 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez, C., Tenorio, E. A., Montoya, P. & Cadena, C. D. Niche-tracking migrants and niche-switching residents: Evolution of climatic niches in New World warblers (Parulidae). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20152458 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menchaca, A., Arteaga, M. C., Medellin, R. A. & Jones, G. Conservation units and historical matrilineal structure in the tequila bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 23, e01164 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Medellín, R. A. et al. Follow me: Foraging distances of Leptonycteris yerbabuenae (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) in Sonora determined by fluorescent powder. J. Mammal. 99, 306–311 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broennimann, O. et al. Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecol. Lett. 10, 701–709 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Meyer, E., Peterson, A. T. & Hargrove, W. W. Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 305–314 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soto-Centeno, J. A. & Steadman, D. W. Fossils reject climate change as the cause of extinction of Caribbean bats. Sci. Rep. 5, 7971 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Avise, J. C. Phylogeography: The History and Formation of Species (Harvard University Press, 2000).Book 

Google Scholar 
Hickerson, M. J. et al. Phylogeography’s past, present, and future: 10 years after Avise, 2000. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 54, 291–301 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pahad, G., Montgelard, C. & Jansen van Vuuren, B. Phylogeography and niche modelling: Reciprocal enlightenment. Mammalia 84, 10–25 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flanders, J. et al. Phylogeography of the greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum: Contrasting results from mitochondrial and microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. 18, 306–318 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Machado, A. F. et al. Integrating phylogeography and ecological niche modelling to test diversification hypotheses using a Neotropical rodent. Evol. Ecol. 33, 111–148 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalkvik, H. M., Stout, I. J., Doonan, T. J. & Parkinson, C. L. Investigating niche and lineage diversification in widely distributed taxa: Phylogeography and ecological niche modeling of the Peromyscus maniculatus species group. Ecography 35, 54–64 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Ring distribution patterns—diversification or speciation? Comparative phylogeography of two small mammals in the mountains surrounding the Sichuan Basin. Mol. Ecol. 30, 2641–2658 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soto-Centeno, J. A., Barrow, L. N., Allen, J. M. & Reed, D. L. Reevaluation of a classic phylogeographic barrier: New techniques reveal the influence of microgeographic climate variation on population divergence. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1603–1613 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amador, L. I., Moyers Arévalo, R. L., Almeida, F. C., Catalano, S. A. & Giannini, N. P. Bat systematics in the light of unconstrained analyses of a comprehensive molecular supermatrix. J. Mamm. Evol. 25, 37–70 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rojas, D., Warsi, O. M. & Dávalos, L. M. Bats (Chiroptera: Noctilionoidea) challenge a recent origin of extant neotropical diversity. Syst. Biol. 65, 432–448 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, J. J. & Rabosky, D. L. Speciation dynamics during the global radiation of extant bats. Evolution 69, 1528–1545 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dumont, E. R. et al. Morphological innovation, diversification and invasion of a new adaptive zone. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 1797–1805 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Leiser-Miller, L. B. & Santana, S. E. Morphological diversity in the sensory system of phyllostomid bats: Implications for acoustic and dietary ecology. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1416–1427 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedrick, B. P. & Dumont, E. R. Putting the leaf-nosed bats in context: A geometric morphometric analysis of three of the largest families of bats. J. Mammal. 99, 1042–1054 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clare, E. L. Cryptic species? Patterns of maternal and paternal gene flow in eight neotropical bats. PLoS One 6, e21460 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaverri, G. et al. Unveiling the hidden bat diversity of a neotropical montane forest. PLoS One 11, e0162712 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Calahorra-Oliart, A., Ospina-Garcés, S. M. & León-Paniagua, L. Cryptic species in Glossophaga soricina (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae): Do morphological data support molecular evidence?. J. Mammal. 102, 54–68 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lim, B. K., Loureiro, L. O. & Garbino, G. S. T. Cryptic diversity and range extension in the big-eyed bat genus Chiroderma (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae). Zookeys 918, 41–63 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loureiro, L. O., Engstrom, M., Lim, B., González, C. L. & Juste, J. Not all Molossus are created equal: Genetic variation in the mastiff bat reveals diversity masked by conservative morphology. Acta Chiropterologica 21, 51 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morales, A., Villalobos, F., Velazco, P. M., Simmons, N. B. & Piñero, D. Environmental niche drives genetic and morphometric structure in a widespread bat. J. Biogeogr. 43, 1057–1068 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedrick, B. P. et al. Morphological diversification under high integration in a hyper diverse mammal clade. J. Mamm. Evol. 27, 563–575 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morales, A. E. & Carstens, B. C. Evidence that myotis lucifugus “subspecies” are five nonsister species, despite gene flow. Syst. Biol. 67, 756–769 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simmons, N. B. & Cirranello, A. L. Bat species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic database. https://batnames.org.Russell, A. L., Pinzari, C. A., Vonhof, M. J., Olival, K. J. & Bonaccorso, F. J. Two tickets to paradise: Multiple dispersal events in the founding of hoary bat populations in Hawai’i. PLoS One 10, 1–13 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Shump, K. A. & Shump, A. U. Lasiurus cinereus. Mamm. Species 185, 1–5 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Ziegler, A. C., Howarth, F. G. & Simmons, N. B. A second endemic land mammal for the Hawaiian Islands: A new genus and species of fossil bat (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Am. Museum Novit. 1–52 (2016).Bonaccorso, F. J. & McGuire, L. P. Modeling the colonization of Hawaii by hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus). In Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation (eds Adams, R. A. & Pedersen, S. C.) 187–205 (Springer, 2013).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Baird, A. B. et al. Molecular systematic revision of tree bats (Lasiurini): Doubling the native mammals of the Hawaiian Islands. J. Mammal. 96, 1255–1274 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, D. S. Morphological divergence in an insular bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus. Funct. Ecol. 10, 622–630 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baird, A. B. et al. Nuclear and mtDNA phylogenetic analyses clarify the evolutionary history of two species of native Hawaiian bats and the taxonomy of Lasiurini (Mammalia: Chiroptera). PLoS One 12, e0186085 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, S. & Subramanian, S. Mutation rates in mammalian genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 803–808 (2002).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie, R. G. et al. Comparing adaptive radiations across space, time, and taxa. J. Hered. 111, 1–20 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fišer, C., Robinson, C. T. & Malard, F. Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept. Mol. Ecol. 27, 613–635 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Espíndola, A. et al. Identifying cryptic diversity with predictive phylogeography. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20161529 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Padial, J. M., Miralles, A., De la Riva, I. & Vences, M. The integrative future of taxonomy. Front. Zool. 7, 1–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fujita, M. K., Leaché, A. D., Burbrink, F. T., McGuire, J. A. & Moritz, C. Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 480–488 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Solari, S., Sotero-Caio, C. G. & Baker, R. J. Advances in systematics of bats: Towards a consensus on species delimitation and classifications through integrative taxonomy. J. Mammal. 100, 838–851 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayr, E. Geographical character gradients and climatic adaptation. Evolution 10, 105–108 (1956).
Google Scholar 
Morales, A. E., De-la-Mora, M. & Piñero, D. Spatial and environmental factors predict skull variation and genetic structure in the cosmopolitan bat Tadarida brasiliensis. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1529–1540 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavan, A. C. & Marroig, G. Integrating multiple evidences in taxonomy: Species diversity and phylogeny of mustached bats (Mormoopidae: Pteronotus). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 103, 184–198 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kozlov, A. M., Darriba, D., Flouri, T., Morel, B. & Stamatakis, A. RAxML-NG: A fast, scalable and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 35, 4453–4455 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, D. & Foulds, L. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53, 131–147 (1981).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pattengale, N. D., Alipour, M., Bininda-Emonds, O. R., Moret, B. M. & Stamatakis, A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary?. J. Comput. Biol. 17, 337–354 (2010).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lemoine, F. et al. Renewing Felsenstein’s phylogenetic bootstrap in the era of big data. Nature 556, 452–456 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ronquist, F. et al. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 61, 539–542 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kapli, P. et al. Multi-rate Poisson Tree Processes for single-locus species delimitation under Maximum Likelihood and Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Bioinformatics 33, 1630–1638 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Z. & Rannala, B. Unguided species delimitation using DNA sequence data from multiple loci. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 3125–3135 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flouri, T., Jiao, X., Rannala, B. & Yang, Z. Species tree inference with BPP using genomic sequences and the multispecies coalescent. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 2585–2593 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Buuren, S. & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. Multivariate imputation by chained equations. J. Stat. Softw. 45, 1–67 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Penone, C. et al. Imputation of missing data in life-history trait datasets: Which approach performs the best?. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 961–970 (2014).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Simmons, N. B. Order Chiroptera. In Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (eds Wilson, D. E. & Reeder, D. M.) 312–529 (The John Hopkins University Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A. Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats (Lynx Editions, 2019).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2022).Kuhn, M. caret: Classification and Regression Training. R package version 6.0-86. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret (2020).Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kuhn, M. & Johnson, K. Applied Predictive Modeling (Springer, 2013).Book 
MATH 

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

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling (2022).Barker, B. S., Rodríguez-Robles, J. A. & Cook, J. A. Climate as a driver of tropical insular diversity: Comparative phylogeography of two ecologically distinctive frogs in Puerto Rico. Ecography 38, 769–781 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Kueffer, C., Daehler, C. & Guisan, A. Selecting predictors to maximize the transferability of species distribution models: Lessons from cross-continental plant invasions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 275–287 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H. G. & Samson, A. Variance inflation factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open J. Stat. 05, 754–767 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Izenman, A. J. Linear discriminant analysis. in Modern Multivariate Statistical Techniques 237–280 (2013).Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of significance: Principal component analysis. Nat. Methods 14, 641–642 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guisan, A., Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Daehler, C. & Kueffer, C. Unifying niche shift studies: Insights from biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 260–269 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Cola, V. et al. ecospat: An R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions. Ecography 40, 774–787 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broennimann, O. et al. Measuring ecological niche overlap from occurrence and spatial environmental data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 481–497 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, C., Wolter, C., Xian, W. & Jeschke, J. M. Most invasive species largely conserve their climatic niche. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 23643–23651 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: Quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution 62, 2868–2883 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. ENMTools: A toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33, 607–611 (2010).
Google Scholar  More

IPBES. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES secretariat, 2019).Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).Travis, J. M. J. Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail. P. R. Soc. B. 270, 467–473 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. P. R. Soc. B. 285, 20180792 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, K. J., Allen, A. P., Gillooly, J. F. & Brown, J. H. Temperature-dependence of biomass accumulation rates during secondary succession. Ecol. Lett. 9, 673–682 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fridley, J. D. & Wright, J. P. Temperature accelerates the rate fields become forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 4702–4706 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, A. G., Kimberley, A., Plue, J. & Waldén, E. Super-regional land-use change and effects on the grassland specialist flora. Nat. Commun. 9, 3464 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, A. G. & Thomas, C. D. Synergistic and antagonistic effects of land use and non-native species on community responses to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 4303–4314 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hill, M. O. Local frequency as a key to interpreting species occurrence data when recording effort is not known. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 195–205 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., Strien, A. J., van, August, T. A., Zeeuw, M. Pde & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tyler, T., Herbertsson, L., Olofsson, J. & Olsson, P. A. Ecological indicator and traits values for Swedish vascular plants. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106923 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, M., Bullock, J. M. & Hooftman, D. A. P. Mapping ecosystem service and biodiversity changes over 70 years in a rural English county. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 841–850 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2021).Van Calster, H. et al. Unexpectedly high 20th century floristic losses in a rural landscape in northern France. J. Ecol. 96, 927–936 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staude, I. R. et al. Replacements of small- by large-ranged species scale up to diversity loss in Europe’s temperate forest biome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 802–808 (2020).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Platts, P. J. et al. Habitat availability explains variation in climate-driven range shifts across multiple taxonomic groups. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Macgregor, C. J. et al. Climate-induced phenology shifts linked to range expansions in species with multiple reproductive cycles per year. Nat. Commun. 10, 4455 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dullinger, S. et al. Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 619–622 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Svenning, J.-C. & Sandel, B. Disequilibrium vegetation dynamics under future climate change. Am. J. Bot. 100, 1266–1286 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cannone, N. & Pignatti, S. Ecological responses of plant species and communities to climate warming: upward shift or range filling processes? Climatic Change 123, 201–214 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. Climate-Related Local Extinctions Are Already Widespread among Plant and Animal Species. PLOS Biol. 14, e2001104 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, M. O. & Preston, C. D. Disappearance of boreal plants in southern Britain: habitat loss or climate change? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 598–610 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynn, J. S., Klanderud, K., Telford, R. J., Goldberg, D. E. & Vandvik, V. Macroecological context predicts species’ responses to climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2088–2101 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, D. et al. Species selection under long-term experimental warming and drought explained by climatic distributions. N. Phytol. 217, 1494–1506 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buitenwerf, R., Sandel, B., Normand, S., Mimet, A. & Svenning, J.-C. Land surface greening suggests vigorous woody regrowth throughout European semi-natural vegetation. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5789–5801 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suggitt, A. J. et al. Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 713–717 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
De Frenne, P. et al. Latitudinal gradients as natural laboratories to infer species’ responses to temperature. J. Ecol. 101, 784–795 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ash, J. D., Givnish, T. J. & Waller, D. M. Tracking lags in historical plant species’ shifts in relation to regional climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1305–1315 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Savage, J. & Vellend, M. Elevational shifts, biotic homogenization and time lags in vegetation change during 40 years of climate warming. Ecography 38, 546–555 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerstner, K., Dormann, C. F., Stein, A., Manceur, A. M. & Seppelt, R. Effects of land use on plant diversity—a global meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1690–1700 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kempel, A. et al. Nationwide revisitation reveals thousands of local extinctions across the ranges of 713 threatened and rare plant species. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12749 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bilz, M., Kell, S. P., Maxted, N. & Lansdown, R. V. European Red List of Vascular Plants (Publications Office of the EU, 2011).Timmermann, A., Damgaard, C., Strandberg, M. T. & Svenning, J.-C. Pervasive early 21st-century vegetation changes across Danish semi-natural ecosystems: more losers than winners and a shift towards competitive, tall-growing species. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 21–30 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staude, I. R. et al. Directional turnover towards larger-ranged plants over time and across habitats. Ecol. Lett. 25, 466–482 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finderup Nielsen, T., Sand‐Jensen, K., Dornelas, M. & Bruun, H. H. More is less: net gain in species richness, but biotic homogenization over 140 years. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1650–1657 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christiansen, D. M., Iversen, L. L., Ehrlén, J. & Hylander, K. Changes in forest structure drive temperature preferences of boreal understorey plant communities. J. Ecol. 110, 631–643 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gossner, M. M. et al. Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities. Nature 540, 266–269 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Duprè, C. et al. Changes in species richness and composition in European acidic grasslands over the past 70 years: the contribution of cumulative atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 344–357 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tyler, T. et al. Climate warming and land‐use changes drive broad‐scale floristic changes in Southern Sweden. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2607–2621 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Steinbauer, M. J. et al. Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming. Nature 556, 231 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Halley, J. M., Monokrousos, N., Mazaris, A. D., Newmark, W. D. & Vokou, D. Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nat. Commun. 7, 12283 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bertrand, R. et al. Changes in plant community composition lag behind climate warming in lowland forests. Nature 479, 517–520 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Plue, J. et al. Buffering effects of soil seed banks on plant community composition in response to land use and climate. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 128–139 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Honnay, O. & Bossuyt, B. Prolonged clonal growth: escape route or route to extinction? Oikos 108, 427–432 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ozinga, W. A. et al. Dispersal failure contributes to plant losses in NW Europe. Ecol. Lett. 12, 66–74 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Svenning, J.-C., Normand, S. & Skov, F. Postglacial dispersal limitation of widespread forest plant species in nemoral Europe. Ecography 31, 316–326 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J., Gégout, J. C., Marquet, P. A., de Ruffray, P. & Brisse, H. A significant upward shift in plant species optimum elevation during the 20th century. Science 320, 1768–1771 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R., Price, J., Graham, E., Forstenhaeusler, N. & VanDerWal, J. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C rather than 2 °C. Science 360, 791–795 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garrido, P. et al. Experimental rewilding may restore abandoned wood-pastures if policy allows. Ambio 50, 101–112 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kowalczyk, R., Kamiński, T. & Borowik, T. Do large herbivores maintain open habitats in temperate forests? For. Ecol. Manag. 494, 119310 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, A. G., Schmucki, R., Reimark, J. & Cousins, S. A. O. Grazing networks provide useful functional connectivity for plants in fragmented systems. J. Veg. Sci. 23, 970–977 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fricke, E. C., Ordonez, A., Rogers, H. S. & Svenning, J.-C. The effects of defaunation on plants’ capacity to track climate change. Science 375, 210–214 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blomgren, E., Falk, E. & Herloff, B. Bohusläns Flora (Föreningen Bohusläns Flora, 2011).Fries, H. Göteborgs och Bohus Läns Fanerogamer och Ormbunkar (Elanders Boktryckeri, 1945).Lidberg, R. & Lindström, H. Medelpads Flora (The vascular plants of Medelpad) (SBF Förlaget, 2010).Sterner, R. Flora der insel Öland Vol. IX (Almqvist & Wiksells, 1938).Almquist, E. Upplands vegetation och flora. Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 1, 1–622 (1929).
Google Scholar 
Jonsell, L. Upplands Flora (SBF Förlaget, 2010).Maad, J., Sundberg, S., Stolpe, P. & Jonsell, L. Floraförändringar i Uppland under 1900-talet—en analys från Projekt Upplands flora [Floristic changes during the 20th century in Uppland, east central Sweden; with English summary]. Sven. Botanisk Tidskr. 103, 67–104 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Auffret, A. G. et al. HistMapR: Rapid digitization of historical land-use maps in R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1453–1457 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
August, T. et al. sparta: Trend analysis for unstructured data. R package version 0.1.44 (2018).Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Redhead, J. W. et al. Potential landscape-scale pollinator networks across Great Britain: structure, stability and influence of agricultural land cover. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1821–1832 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillings, S. et al. Breeding and wintering bird distributions in Britain and Ireland from citizen science bird atlases. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 866–874 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stroh, P. A., Walker, K. J., Humphrey, T. A., Pescott, O. L. & Burkmar, R. J. Plant Atlas 2020: Mapping Changes in the Distribution of the British and Irish Flora (Princeton, planned publication date: 21/03/2023).Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Ausden, M. A., Beale, C. M., Oliver, T. H. & Crick, H. Q. P. Research on the assessment of risks & opportunities for species in England as a result of climate change – NECR175. Natural England Commissioned Reports Vol. 175 (2015).R. Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Telfer, M. G., Preston, C. D. & Rothery, P. A general method for measuring relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biol. Conserv. 107, 99–109 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (2014).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 103–113 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borcard, D. & Legendre, P. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol. Model. 153, 51–68 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.3-5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2016).Meineri, E. & Hylander, K. Fine-grain, large-domain climate models based on climate station and comprehensive topographic information improve microrefugia detection. Ecography 40, 1003–1013 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P. & Makowski, D. performance: an R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3139 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Breheny, P. & Burchett, W. Visualization of regression models using visreg. R. J. 9, 57–71 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.5-8. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2016). More

National negotiators inked a deal to protect nature in the early hours of 19 December in Montreal.Credit: Julian Haber/UN Biodiversity (CC BY 2.0)

Despite earlier signals of possible failure, countries around the world have cemented a deal to safeguard nature — and for the first time, the agreement sets quantitative biodiversity targets akin to the one that nations set seven years ago to limit global warming to 1.5–2 ºC above pre-industrial levels.In the early hours of 19 December, more than 190 countries eked out the deal, known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, during the COP15 international biodiversity summit in Montreal, Canada. A key target it sets is for nations to protect and restore 30% of the world’s land and seas globally by 2030, while also respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples who depend on and steward much of Earth’s remaining biodiversity. Another target is for nations to reduce the extinction rate by 10-fold for all species by 2050.
10 startling images of nature in crisis — and the struggle to save it
Steven Guilbeault, the Canadian environment minister, described COP15 as the most significant biodiversity conference ever held. “We have taken a great step forward in history,” he said at a plenary session where the framework was adopted.At several points during the United Nations summit, which ran from 7–19 December, arguments over details threatened to derail a deal. In the final hours of negotiations, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) objected to how the framework would be funded. Nonetheless, Huang Runqiu, China’s environment minister and president of COP15, brought the gavel down on the agreement.Negotiators from several African countries, which are home to biodiversity hotspots but say they need funding to preserve those areas, thought that China’s presidency strong-armed the deal. Uganda called it “fraud”. A source who spoke to Nature from the African delegation, and who asked not to be named to maintain diplomacy, said the negotiating process was not equitable towards developing countries and that the deal will not enable significant progress towards stemming biodiversity loss. “It was a coup d’état,” they say. However, a legal expert for the Convention on Biological Diversity — the treaty within which the framework now sits — told COP15 attendees that the adoption of the framework is legitimate.Concerns and disappointmentsScientists and conservation groups have welcomed the deal, emphasizing that there has never been an international agreement to protect nature on this scale. Kina Murphy, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Campaign for Nature, a conservation group, says, “It’s a historic moment for biodiversity.”

Huang Runqiu, China’s environment minister and president of COP15, brought the gavel down on the biodiversity deal, despite objections from representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Credit: Julian Haber/UN Biodiversity (CC BY 2.0)

But some concerns and disappointments remain. For one, the deal lacks a mandatory requirement for companies to track and disclose their impact on biodiversity. “Voluntary action is not enough,” says Eva Zabey, executive director of Business for Nature, a global coalition of 330 businesses seeking such a requirement so that firms can compete on a level playing field. Nevertheless, it sends a powerful signal to industry that it will need to reduce negative impacts over time, says Andrew Deutz, an environmental law and finance specialist at the Nature Conservancy, a conservation group in Arlington, Virginia.In addition, the deal is weak on tackling the drivers of biodiversity loss, because it does not specifically call out the most ecologically damaging industries, such as commercial fishing and agriculture, or set precise targets for them to put biodiversity conservation at the centre of their operations, researchers say.
Can the world save a million species from extinction?
“I would have liked more ambition and precision in the targets” to address those drivers, says Sandra Diaz, an ecologist at the National University of Córdoba, in Argentina.The deal is not legally binding, but countries will have to demonstrate progress towards achieving the framework’s goals through national and global reviews. Countries failed to meet the previous Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which were set in 2010 and expired in 2020; scientists have suggested that this failure occurred because of a lack of an accountability mechanism.With the reviews included, the framework “is a very good start, with clear quantitative targets” that will allow us to understand progress and the reasons for success and failure, says Stuart Pimm, an ecologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and head of Saving Nature, a non-profit conservation organization.A long time comingScientists have estimated that one million species are under threat because of habitat loss, mainly through converting land for agriculture. And they have warned that this biodiversity loss could threaten the health of ecosystems on which humans depend for clean water and disease prevention, and called for a new international conservation effort.
Crucial biodiversity summit will go ahead in Canada, not China: what scientists think
The new agreement took 4 years to resolve, in part because of delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (the summit was supposed to take place in Kunming, China, in 2020), but also because of arguments over how to finance conservation efforts. Nations finally agreed that by 2030, funding for biodiversity from all public and private sources must rise to at least US$200 billion per year. This includes at least $30 billion per year, contributed from wealthy to low-income nations. These figures fall short of the approximately $700 billion that researchers say is needed to fully safeguard and restore nature, but represents a tripling of existing donations.Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including the DRC, had called for a brand-new, independent fund for biodiversity financing. Lee White, environment minister from Gabon, told Nature that biodiversity-rich LMICs have difficulty accessing the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the current fund held by the World Bank in Washington DC, and that it is slow to distribute funds.But France and the European Union strongly objected to a new fund, arguing it would take too long to set up. The framework instead compromises by establishing a trust fund by next year under the GEF. The final agreement also calls on the GEF to reform its process to address the concerns of LMICs.Progress without drastic changeAnother sticking point during negotiations was how to fairly and equitably share the benefits of ‘digital sequence information’ — genetic data collected from plants, animals and other organisms. Communities in biodiversity-rich regions where genetic material is collected have little control over the commercialization of the data, and no way to recoup financial or other benefits from them. But countries came to an agreement to set up a mechanism to share profits, the details of which will be worked out by the next international biodiversity summit, COP16, in 2024.Overall, the deal marks progress toward tackling biodiversity loss, but it is not the drastic change scientists say they were hoping for. “I am not so sure that it has enough teeth to curb the activities that do most of the harm,” Diaz says. More