Philippa Kaur

Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ordiz, A., Stoen, O. G., Delibes, M. & Swenson, J. E. Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears. Oecologia 166, 59–67 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glass, T. W., Breed, G. A., Robards, M. D., Williams, C. T. & Kielland, K. Trade-off between predation risk and behavioural thermoregulation drives resting behaviour in a cold-adapted mesocarnivore. Anim. Behav. 175, 163–174 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daan, S. & Aschoff, J. Circadian rhytms of locomotor activity in captive birds and mammals: Their variation with seasons and latitude. Oecologia 18, 269–316 (1975).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kronfeld-Schor, N. & Dayan, T. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 153–181 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Curio, E. The Ethology of Predation (Springer-Verlag, 1976).Book 

Google Scholar 
Linkie, M. & Ridout, M. S. Assessing tiger-prey interactions in Sumatran rainforests. J. Zool. 284, 224–229 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heurich, M. et al. Activity patterns of Eurasian lynx are modulated by light regime and individual traits over a wide latitudinal range. PLoS ONE 9, e114143 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Harmsen, B. J., Foster, R. J., Silver, S. C., Ostro, L. E. T. & Doncaster, C. P. Jaguar and puma activity patterns in relation to their main prey. Mamm. Biol. 76, 320–324 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, V. C. et al. Jaguar and puma activity patterns and predator-prey interactions in four Brazilian biomes. Biotropica 45, 373–379 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theuerkauf, J. et al. Daily patterns and duration of wolf activity in the Bialowieza forest, Poland. J. Mammal. 84, 243–253 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hebblewhite, M., Merrill, E. H. & McDonald, T. L. Spatial decomposition of predation risk usign resource selection functions: An example in a wolf-elk predator-prey system. Oikos 111, 101–111 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Balme, G., Hunter, L. & Slotow, R. Feeding habitat selection by hunting leopards Panthera pardus in a woodland Savanna: Prey catchability versus abundance. Anim. Behav. 74, 589–598 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, J. A. et al. Where and when to hunt? Decomposing predation success of an ambush carnivore. Ecology 101, e03172 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hopcraft, J. G. C., Sinclair, A. R. E. & Packer, C. Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 559–566 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theuerkauf, J. What drives wolves: Fear or hunger? Humans, diet, climate and wolf activity patterns. Ethology 115, 649–657 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Funston, P. J., Mills, M. G. & Biggs, H. C. Factors affecting the hunting success of male and female lions in the Kruger National Park. J. Zool. 253, 419–431 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaller, G. The Serengeti lion (The University of Chicago Press, IL, 1972).
Google Scholar 
Bailey, T. N. The African Leopard, Ecology and Behaviour of a Solitary Felid (The Blackburn Press, 1993).Book 

Google Scholar 
Jenny, D. & Zuberbühler, K. Hunting behaviour in West African forest leopards. Afr. J. Ecol. 43, 197–200 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Packer, C., Swanson, A., Ikanda, D. & Kushnir, H. Fear of darkness, the full moon and the nocturnal ecology of African lions. PLoS ONE 6, e22285 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, M. S., Fieberg, J., Swanson, A., Kosmala, M. & Packer, C. A “dynamic” landscape of fear: Prey responses to spatiotemporal variations in predation risk across the lunar cycle. Ecol. Letters 20, 1364–1373 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinmetz, R., Seuaturien, N. & Chutipong, W. Tigers, leopards, and dholes in a half-empty forest: Assessing species interactions in a guild of threatened carnivores. Biol. Cons. 163, 68–78 (2013).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
George, S. L. & Crooks, K. R. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biol. Cons. 133, 107–117 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beltrán, J. F. & Delibes, M. Environmental determinants of circadian activity of free-ranging Iberian lynxes. J. Mammal. 75, 382–393 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
McNab, B. K. The standard energetics of mammalian carnivores: Felidae and Hyaenidae. Sikes Can. J. Zool. 78, 2227–2239 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mishra, C. et al. Increasing risks for emerging infectious diseases within a rapidly changing High Asia. Ambio 51, 494–507 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mishra, C., Redpath, S. M. & Suryawanshi, K. R. Livestock predation by snow leopards: Conflicts and the search for solutions. In Snow Leopards (eds McCarthy, T. M. & Mallon, D.) 59–67 (Academic Press, 2016).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Farrington, J. D., and J. Li. 2016. Climate change impacts on snow leopard range. In: McCarthy, T.M., Mallon, D., editors. Snow Leopards. Academic Press.Jackson, R. Home Range, Movements and Habitat use of Snow Leopard in Nepal (Dissertation niversity of London, London, 1996).
Google Scholar 
McCarthy, T. M., Fuller, T. K. & Munkhtsog, B. Movements and activities of snow leopards in Southwestern Mongolia. Biol. Cons. 124, 527–537 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvatori, M. et al. Co-occurrence of snow leopard, wolf and Siberian ibex under livestock encroachment into protected areas across the Mongolian Altai. Biol. Cons. 261, 109294 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rode, J. et al. Population monitoring of snow leopards using camera trapping in Naryn state nature reserve, Kyrgyzstan, between 2016 and 2019. Global Ecol. Conserv. 31, e01850 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, R. K. et al. Spatial variation in population-density of snow leopards in a multiple use landscape in Spiti Valley Trans-Himalay. PLoS ONE 16, e0250900 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kachel, S. M., Karimov, K. & Wirsing, A. J. Predator niche overlap and partitioning and potential interactions in the mountains of Central Asia. J. Mammal. 103, 1019–1029 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, Ö., Simms, A. & McCarthy, T. M. From VHF to satellite GPS collars: Advancements in snow leopard telemetry. In Snow leopards (eds McCarthy, T. M. & Mallon, D.) p355-365 (Academic Press, 2016).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, Ö. et al. Snow leopard predation in a livestock dominated landscape in Mongolia. Biol. Cons. 184, 251–258 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Havmøller, R. W., Jacobsen, N. S., Scharff, N., Rovero, F. & Zimmermann, F. Assessing the activity pattern overlap among leopards (Panthera pardus), potential prey and competitors in a complex landscape in Tanzania. J. Zool. 311, 175–182 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kitchener, A. C., Van Valkenburgh, B. & Yamaguchi, N. Felid form and function. In Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids (eds MacDonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. J.) 83–106 (Oxford University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Fuglesteg, B. N., Haga, Ø. E., Folkow, L. P., Fuglei, E. & Blix, A. S. Seasonal variations in basal metabolic rate, lower critical temperature and responses to temporary starvation in the arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) from Svalbard. Polar Biol. 29, 308–319 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doris, P. A. & Baker, M. A. Effect of dehydration on thermoregulation in cats exposed to high ambient temperatures. J. Appl. Physiol. 51, 46–54 (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Forrest, J. L. et al. Conservation and climate change: Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya. Biol. Cons. 150, 129–135 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, R. K., Bhatnagar, Y. V. & Mishra, C. Does livestock benefit or harm snow leopards?. Biol. Cons. 190, 8–13 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samelius, G. et al. Keeping predators out: Testing fences to reduce livestock depredation at night-time corrals. Oryx 55, 466–472 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hebblewhite, M. & Merrill, E. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 834–844 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, Ö., Malmsten, J., Mishra, C., Lkhagvajav, P. & McCarthy, T. Reversible immobilization of free-ranging snow leopards (Panthera uncia) with a combination of medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam. J. Wildl. Dis. 49, 338–346 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, Ö., Kachel, S. & Weckworth, B. Guidelines for telemetry studies on snow leopards. Animals 12, 1663 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bjørneraas, K., Van Moorter, B., Rolandsen, C. M. & Herfindal, I. Screening global positioning system location data for errors using animal movement characteristics. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1361–1366 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pålsson O. 2022. Maternal behaviour of the snow leopard (Panthera uncial). MSc thesis. Uppsala University, Uppsala; Sweden https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1668965/FULLTEXT01.pdf.du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 20. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nygren, E. 2015. Activity patterns of snow leopards (Panthera uncia) at their kill sites. MSc thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/8109/1/nygren_e_150625.pdf.Johansson, Ö. et al. Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation. Biol. Cons. 203, 1–7 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, Ö. et al. The timing of breeding and independence for snow leopard females and their cubs. Mamm. Biol. 101, 173–180 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nouvellet, P., Rasmussen, G. S. A., Macdonald, D. W., Courchamp, F. & Braae, A. Noisy clocks and silent sunrises: Measurement methods of daily activity pattern. J. Zool. 286, 179–184 (2012).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
R Development core team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/.Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 73, 3–36 (2011).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Russia invades UkraineThe global science community was quick to condemn Russian’s invasion of Ukraine in February. Research organizations moved fast to cut ties with Russia, stopping funding and collaborations, and journals came under pressure to boycott Russian authors.The situation escalated when Russian forces attacked Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia, in March, prompting fears of a nuclear accident. Russian troops continue to occupy the power plant. Since the invasion began, thousands of civilians have been killed and millions displaced; many others, including scientists, have fled the country.The war has affected research in space and climate science, disrupted fieldwork and played a significant part in the global energy crisis. The invasion could also precipitate a new era for European defence research.JWST delights astronomers

Stephans Quintet, a grouping of five galaxies, taken by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope.Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI via Getty

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) — the most complex telescope ever built — reached its destination in space in January after decades of planning. In July, astronomers were awed by the telescope’s first image — of thousands of distant galaxies in the constellation Volans. Since then, the US$10-billion observatory has captured a steady stream of spectacular images, and astronomers have been working feverishly on early data. Insights include detailed observations of an exoplanet, and leading contenders for the most distant galaxy ever seen.NASA also decided not to rename the telescope, despite calls from some astronomers to do so because the telescope’s namesake, a former NASA administrator, held high-ranking government positions in the 1950s and 1960s, when the United States systematically fired gay and lesbian government employees. A NASA investigation “found no evidence that Webb was either a leader or proponent of firing government employees for their sexual orientation”, the agency said in a statement in November.AI predicts protein structuresResearchers announced in July that they had used the revolutionary artificial-intelligence (AI) network AlphaFold to predict the structures of more than 200 million proteins from roughly one million species, covering almost every known protein from all organisms whose genomes are held in databases. The development of AlphaFold netted its creators at the London-based AI company DeepMind, owned by Alphabet, one of this year’s US$3-million Breakthrough prizes — the most lucrative awards in science.AlphaFold isn’t the only player on the scene. Meta (formerly Facebook), in California, has developed its own AI network, called ESMFold, and used it to predict the shapes of roughly 600 million possible proteins from bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms that have not been isolated or cultured. Scientists are using these tools to dream up proteins that could form the basis of new drugs and vaccines.Monkeypox goes global

The monkeypox virus (shown here as a coloured transmission electron micrograph) is related to the smallpox virus.Credit: CDC/Science Photo Library

The rapid global spread of monkeypox (recently renamed ‘mpox’ by the World Health Organization) this year caught many scientists off guard. Previously, the virus had mainly been confined to Central and West Africa, but from May this year, infections started appearing in Europe, the United States, Canada and many other countries, mostly in young and middle-aged men who have sex with men. The virus is related to smallpox, and the circulating strain only rarely causes severe disease or death. But its fast spread led the World Health Organization to declare the global outbreak a ‘public-health emergency of international concern’, the agency’s highest alert level, in July.As cases soared, researchers got to work trying to understand the dynamics of the disease. Studies confirmed that it is transmitted primarily through repeated skin-to-skin contact, and trials of possible treatments got under way. Existing smallpox vaccines were also used to suppress the virus in some countries. Six months after mpox infections first started increasing, vaccination efforts and behavioural changes seemed to have curbed its spread in Europe and the United States. Researchers predict a range of scenarios from here — the most hopeful being that the virus fizzles out in non-endemic countries over the next few months or years.The Moon has a revivalThe Moon has become a popular destination for space missions this year. First off the launch pad, in August, was South Korea’s Danuri probe, which is expected to arrive at its destination in January and orbit the Moon for a year. The mission is the country’s first foray beyond Earth’s orbit and is carrying a host of experiments.Last month, NASA’s hotly anticipated Artemis programme — which aims to send astronauts to the Moon in the next few years — finally kicked off with the launch of an uncrewed capsule called Orion, a joint venture with the European Space Agency. As part of a test flight to see whether the system can transport people safely to the Moon, the capsule flew out past the Moon and made its way back to Earth safely this month.A lunar spacecraft made by a Japanese company launched this month. ispace’s M1 lander is aiming to be the first of several private ventures to land on the surface of the Moon next year. The lander will carry two rovers, one for the United Arab Emirates and another for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, JAXA. The rovers will be a first for both countries.Climate-change funding

People cross a flooded highway in Sindh province, Pakistan in August.Credit: Waqar Hussein/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

There were many reasons to feel despondent about the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP27) in Egypt last month, but an agreement on a new ‘loss and damage’ fund was one bright spot. The fund will help low- and middle-income countries to cover the cost of climate-change impacts, such as the catastrophic floods in Pakistan this year, which caused more than US$30 billion worth of damage and economic losses.But calls at COP27 to phase out fossil fuels were blocked by oil-producing states, and many blamed the lack of progress on the energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. High natural-gas prices have led some European nations to rely temporarily on coal. Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels are expected to hit 37.5 billion tonnes this year, a new record. The window to limit warming to 1.5–2 ºC above pre-industrial temperatures is disappearing fast — and might even have passed.Omicron’s offspring drive the pandemicOmicron and its descendants dominated all other coronavirus variants this year. The fast-spreading strain was first detected in southern Africa in November 2021, and quickly spread around the globe. From early on, it was clear that Omicron could evade immune-system defences more successfully than previous variants, which has meant that vaccines are less effective. Throughout the year, a diverse group of immune-dodging offshoots of Omicron has emerged, making it challenging for scientists to predict coming waves of infection.Vaccines based on Omicron variants have been rolled out in some countries in the hope they will offer greater protection than previous jabs, but early data suggest the extra benefit is modest. Nasal sprays against COVID-19 have also become a tool in the vaccine arsenal. The idea is that these stop the virus at the site where it first takes hold. In September, China and India approved needle-free COVID-19 vaccines that are delivered through the nose or mouth, and many similar vaccines are in various stages of development.Pig organs transplanted into people

Surgeons in Baltimore, Maryland transplanted the first pig heart into a person in January.Credit: EyePress News/Shutterstock

In January, US handyman David Bennett became the first person to receive a transplanted heart from a genetically modified pig — a crucial first step in determining whether animals could provide a source of organs for people who need them. Bennett survived for another eight weeks after the transplant, but researchers were impressed that he lived for that long, given that the human immune system attacks non-genetically modified pig organs in minutes. A few months later, two US research groups independently reported transplanting pig kidneys into three people who had been declared legally dead because they did not have brain function. The organs weren’t rejected and started producing urine. Researchers say the next step is clinical trials to test such procedures thoroughly in living people.Elections and science

Luís Inácio Lula da Silva was elected president of Brazil in October.Credit: Fabio Vieira/FotoRua/NurPhoto via Getty

National elections in Brazil, Australia and France brought relief for many researchers. After three years of science-damaging policies under right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil narrowly elected leftist labour leader and former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to lead the country in October. Scientists are hopeful that Lula’s return will result in a desperately needed boost to research funding and greater protection for the Amazon rainforest.French researchers were buoyed by President Emmanuel Macron’s victory over far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in April, and the election of Anthony Albanese as prime minister in Australia in May was seen as a good thing for science and climate-change action, too. In China, Xi Jinping cemented his legacy with an historic third term as head of the Chinese Communist Party. Xi has placed science and innovation at the heart of his country’s growth strategy.In other nations, it was unclear how research would fare under new leaders, such as Giorgia Meloni, the far-right candidate elected as Italy’s first female prime minister in October. Science was not a priority for the United Kingdom’s three prime ministers this year, although they have retained previous commitments to raise research funding. After Boris Johnson reisgned, Liz Truss was in the position for just seven weeks before she too resigned and the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took over.Environmental push beginsThis week, conservation and political leaders are attempting to finalize a global deal to protect the environment. The UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties (COP15) is under way in Montreal, Canada. A new biodiversity treaty, known as the post-2020 Global Diversity Framework, has been delayed by more than two years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Progress towards an agreement has been slow, and the deal looked under threat when negotiations stalled over financing during international talks in Nairobi in June. Financial pledges from some nations to support biodiversity helped discussions to move forward, but estimates suggest that US$700 billion more is needed annually to protect the natural world. At the meeting, delegates will hopefully agree on targets to stabilize species’ declines by 2030 and reverse them by mid-century. More

Valiela, I., Bowen, J. L. & York, J. K. Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical Environments: At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known threatened environments. Bioscience 51, 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuenzer, C., Bluemel, A., Gebhardt, S., Quoc, T. V. & Dech, S. Remote sensing of mangrove ecosystems: A review. Remote Sens. 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3050878 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turschwell, M. P. et al. Multi-scale estimation of the effects of pressures and drivers on mangrove forest loss globally. Biol. Cons. 247, 108637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108637 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. (2005).Nagelkerken, I. et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: A review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.12.007 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamilton, S. E. & Casey, D. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21). Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12449 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friess, D. A. et al. The state of the world’s Mangrove forests: Past, present, and future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Y., Friess, D. A., Sarira, T. V., Siman, K. & Koh, L. P. Global potential and limits of mangrove blue carbon for climate change mitigation. Curr. Biol. 31, 1737-1743.e1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.070 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, P. S. E. et al. Fishers who rely on mangroves: Modelling and mapping the global intensity of mangrove-associated fisheries. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 247, 106975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106975 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walters, A. D. et al. Do hotspots fall within protected areas? A geographic approach to planning analysis of regional freshwater biodiversity. Freshw. Biol. 64, 2046–2056. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13394 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blasco, F., Saenger, P. & Janodet, E. Mangroves as indicators of coastal change. CATENA 27, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(96)00013-6 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilman, E. L., Ellison, J., Duke, N. C. & Field, C. Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options: A review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.12.009 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamilton, S. Assessing the role of commercial aquaculture in displacing mangrove forest. Bull. Mar. Sci. 89, 585–601 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovelock, C. E. et al. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature 526, 559–563. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15538 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Richards Daniel, R. & Friess Daniel, A. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510272113 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Appeltans, W. et al. The magnitude of global marine species diversity. Curr. Biol. 22, 2189–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, R. D., Friess, D. A., Day, R. H. & MacKenzie, R. A. Impacts of climate change on mangrove ecosystems: A region by region overview. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2, e01211. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1211 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van der Stocken, T., Vanschoenwinkel, B., Carroll, D., Cavanaugh, K. C. & Koedam, N. Mangrove dispersal disrupted by projected changes in global seawater density. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01391-9 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alongi, D. M. The impact of climate change on Mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 1, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giri, C. et al. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kristensen, E. Mangrove crabs as ecosystem engineers; with emphasis on sediment processes. J. Sea Res. 59, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2007.05.004 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Penha-Lopes, G. et al. Are fiddler crabs potentially useful ecosystem engineers in mangrove wastewater wetlands?. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1694–1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.06.015 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sharifian, S., Kamrani, E. & Saeedi, H. Global biodiversity and biogeography of mangrove crabs: Temperature, the key driver of latitudinal gradients of species richness. J. Therm. Biol 92, 102692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2020.102692 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 135, 147–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12189 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guisan, A., Thuiller, W. & Zimmermann, N. E. Habitat Suitability and Distribution Models: With Applications in R. (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Luan, J., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Xue, Y. & Ren, Y. Modelling the spatial distribution of three Portunidae crabs in Haizhou Bay, China. PLoS ONE 13, e0207457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207457 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kafash, A. et al. The Gray Toad-headed Agama, Phrynocephalus scutellatus, on the Iranian Plateau: The degree of niche overlap depends on the phylogenetic distance. Zool. Middle East 64, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2017.1401309 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yousefi, M., Shabani, A. A. & Azarnivand, H. Reconstructing distribution of the Eastern Rock Nuthatch during the Last Glacial Maximum and Last Interglacial. Avian Biol. Res. 13, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758155919874537 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Rock, P. et al. Predicting large-scale habitat suitability for cetaceans off Namibia using MinxEnt. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 619, 149–167 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Saeedi, H., Basher, Z. & Costello, M. J. Modelling present and future global distributions of razor clams (Bivalvia: Solenidae). Helgol. Mar. Res. 70, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10152-016-0477-4 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bosso, L. et al. The rise and fall of an alien: why the successful colonizer Littorina saxatilis failed to invade the Mediterranean Sea. Biol. Invas. 24, 3169–3187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02838-y (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moradmand, M. & Yousefi, M. Ecological niche modelling and climate change in two species groups of huntsman spider genus Eusparassus in the Western Palearctic. Sci. Rep. 12, 4138. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08145-9 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Compton, T. J., Leathwick, J. R. & Inglis, G. J. Thermogeography predicts the potential global range of the invasive European green crab (Carcinus maenas). Divers. Distrib. 16, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00644.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kafash, A., Ashrafi, S. & Yousefi, M. Modeling habitat suitability of bats to identify high priority areas for field monitoring and conservation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 25881–25891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17412-7 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leathwick, J. et al. Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conserv. Lett. 1, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00012.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charrua, A. B., Bandeira, S. O., Catarino, S., Cabral, P. & Romeiras, M. M. Assessment of the vulnerability of coastal mangrove ecosystems in Mozambique. Ocean Coast. Manag. 189, 105145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105145 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khajoei Nasab, F., Mehrabian, A. & Mostafavi, H. Mapping the current and future distributions of Onosma species endemic to Iran. J. Arid Land 12, 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-020-0080-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allyn, A. J. et al. Comparing and synthesizing quantitative distribution models and qualitative vulnerability assessments to project marine species distributions under climate change. PLoS ONE 15, e0231595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231595 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Makki, T., Mostafavi, H., Matkan, A. & Aghighi, H. Modelling Climate-Change Impact on the Spatial Distribution of Garra Rufa (Heckel, 1843) (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. A: Sci. 45, 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-021-01088-2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolon, I. et al. What is the impact of snakebite envenoming on domestic animals? A nation-wide community-based study in Nepal and Cameroon. Toxicon: X 9–10, 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100068 (2021).Sharma, A., Dubey, V. K., Johnson, J. A., Rawal, Y. K. & Sivakumar, K. Is there always space at the top? Ensemble modeling reveals climate-driven high-altitude squeeze for the vulnerable snow trout Schizothorax richardsonii in Himalaya. Ecol. Ind. 120, 106900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106900 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yousefi, M., Naderloo, R. & Keikhosravi, A. Freshwater crabs of the Near East: Increased extinction risk from climate change and underrepresented within protected areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 38, e02266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02266 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheykhi Ilanloo, S. et al. Applying opportunistic observations to model current and future suitability of the Kopet Dagh Mountains for a Near Threatened avian scavenger. Avian Biol. Res. 14, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758155920962750 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naderloo, R. Grapsoid crabs (Decapoda: Brachyura: Thoracotremata) of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Zootaxa 3048(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3048.1.1 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naderloo, R. Atlas of crabs of the Persian Gulf. (2017).Innocenti, G., Schubart, C. D. & Fratini, S. Description of Metopograpsus cannicci, new species, a pseudocryptic crab species from East Africa and the Western Indian Ocean (Decapoda: Brachyura: Grapsidae). Raffles Bull. Zool. (RBZ) 68, 619–628 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hemmati, M. R., Shojaei, M. G., Taheri Mirghaed, A., Mashhadi Farahani, M. & Weigt, M. Food sources for camptandriid crabs in an arid mangrove ecosystem of the Persian Gulf: a stable isotope approach. Isotop. Environ. Health Stud. 57, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/10256016.2021.1925665 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09329 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kordas, R. L., Harley, C. D. G. & O’Connor, M. I. Community ecology in a warming world: The influence of temperature on interspecific interactions in marine systems. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 400, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.029 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, S. & Thatje, S. Temperature-driven biogeography of the deep-sea family Lithodidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in the Southern Ocean. Polar Biol. 34, 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0890-0 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, L. Climate Change Biology. Academic Press (2015).Ali, H. et al. Expanding or shrinking? range shifts in wild ungulates under climate change in Pamir-Karakoram mountains, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 16, e0260031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260031 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yousefi, M. et al. Climate change is a major problem for biodiversity conservation: A systematic review of recent studies in Iran. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 12, 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425519040127 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doney, S. C. et al. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-041911-111611 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. in Climate Change (Second Edition) (ed Trevor M. Letcher) 195–212 (Elsevier, 2016).Ramírez, F., Afán, I., Davis, L. S. & Chiaradia, A. Climate impacts on global hot spots of marine biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601198. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601198 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314, 787–790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lester, S. E. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Daru, B. H. & le Roux, P. C. Marine protected areas are insufficient to conserve global marine plant diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12412 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sala, E. et al. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Embling, C. B. et al. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biol. Cons. 143, 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.005 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magris, R. A. & Déstro, G. F. G. Predictive modeling of suitable habitats for threatened marine invertebrates and implications for conservation assessment in Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 58, 57–68 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Welch, H., Pressey, R. L. & Reside, A. E. Using temporally explicit habitat suitability models to assess threats to mobile species and evaluate the effectiveness of marine protected areas. J. Nat. Conserv. 41, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.12.003 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhoden, C. M., Peterman, W. E. & Taylor, C. A. Maxent-directed field surveys identify new populations of narrowly endemic habitat specialists. PeerJ 5, e3632–e3632. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3632 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ancillotto, L., Mori, E., Bosso, L., Agnelli, P. & Russo, D. The Balkan long-eared bat (Plecotus kolombatovici) occurs in Italy—First confirmed record and potential distribution. Mamm. Biol. 96, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.03.014 (2019).
Article 

Google Scholar 
Imtiyaz, B. B., Sweta, P. D., Prakash, K. K. Threats to marine biodiversity. Mar. Biodivers.: Present Status Prospects (2011).Robinson, N. M., Nelson, W. A., Costello, M. J., Sutherland, J. E. & Lundquist, C. J. A systematic review of marine-based species distribution models (SDMs) with recommendations for best practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 421 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fabri-Ruiz, S., Danis, B., David, B. & Saucède, T. Can we generate robust species distribution models at the scale of the Southern Ocean?. Divers. Distrib. 25, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12835 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, D. L., Stelzenmüller, V., Eastwood, P. D. & Rogers, S. I. Modelling the spatial distribution of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), sole (Solea solea) and thornback ray (Raja clavata) in UK waters for marine management and planning. J. Sea Res. 61, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2008.11.008 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, C. E., Glegg, G. A. & Howell, K. L. Species distribution modelling to support marine conservation planning: The next steps. Mar. Policy 45, 330–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.003 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
GBIF. GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.khpu28. GBIF (2021).Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57, 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basher, Z., Bowden, D. A. & Costello, M. J. Global marine environment datasets (GMED). World Wide Web Electron. Publ. 14, 1 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Barnes, D. Ecology of subtropical hermit crabs in SW Madagascar: short-range migrations. Mar. Biol. 142, 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-002-0968-5 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimullah, M. et al. Association of environmental factors in the Taiwan Strait with distributions and habitat characteristics of three swimming crabs. Remote Sens. 12, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142231 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Malvé, M. E., Rivadeneira, M. M. & Gordillo, S. Northward range expansion of the European green crab Carcinus maenas in the SW Atlantic: a synthesis after ~20 years of invasion history. bioRxiv, 2020.2011.2004.368761, doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.04.368761 (2020).Merow, C., Smith, M. J. & Silander, J. A. Jr. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36, 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimi, B. & Araújo, M. B. sdm: a reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography 39, 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01881 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2020).Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892997000088 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swets John, A. Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems. Science 240, 1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3287615 (1988).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E. & Blair, M. E. Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent. Ecography 40, 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03049 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.3–7 (2020).UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM). UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2021). More

Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability‐diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schläpfer, F. & Schmid, B. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: a classification hypotheses and exploration of empirical results. Ecol. Appl. 9, 893–912 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehman, C. L. & Tilman, D. Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities. Am. Nat. 156, 534–552 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allan, E. et al. More diverse plant communities have higher functioning over time due to turnover in complementary dominant species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17034–17039 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wagg, C. et al. Plant diversity maintains long-term ecosystem productivity under frequent drought by increasing short-term variation. Ecology 98, 2952–2961 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526, 574–577 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science 336, 589–592 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R. et al. Diversity-dependent temporal divergence of ecosystem functioning in experimental ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1639–1642 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, S. T. et al. Effects of biodiversity strengthen over time as ecosystem functioning declines at low and increases at high biodiversity. Ecosphere 7, e01619 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y. et al. Impacts of species richness on productivity in a large-scale subtropical forest experiment. Science 362, 80–83 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bongers, F. J. et al. Functional diversity effects on productivity increase with age in a forest biodiversity experiment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1594–1603 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weisser, W. W. et al. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in a 15-year grassland experiment: Patterns, mechanisms, and open questions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 23, 1–73 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R., Reich, P. B., Wagg, C., Ciobanu, M. & Eisenhauer, N. Diversity-dependent plant–soil feedbacks underlie long-term plant diversity effects on primary productivity. Ecosphere 10, e02704 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. The shape that matters: how important is biodiversity for ecosystem functioning. Sci. China Life Sci. 65, 651–653 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marquard, E. et al. Plant species richness and functional composition drive overyielding in a six-year grassland experiment. Ecology 90, 3290–3302 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuppinger-Dingley, D. et al. Selection for niche differentiation in plant communities increases biodiversity effects. Nature 515, 108–111 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. How complementarity and selection affect the relationship between ecosystem functioning and stability. Ecology 102, e03347 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, Y. et al. Mechanistic links between biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and stability in a multi-site grassland experiment. J. Ecol. 109, 3370–3378 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barry, K. E. et al. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 167–180 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. & Loreau, M. The causes and consequences of compensatory dynamics in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 393–414 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thibaut, L. M. & Connolly, S. R. Understanding diversity–stability relationships: towards a unified model of portfolio effects. Ecol. Lett. 16, 140–150 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craven, D. et al. Multiple facets of biodiversity drive the diversity–stability relationship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1579–1587 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (Princeton Univ. Press,2010).Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. Quantifying effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning across times and places. Ecol. Lett. 21, 763–778 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maron, J. L., Marler, M., Klironomos, J. N. & Cleveland, C. C. Soil fungal pathogens and the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 36–41 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schnitzer, S. A. et al. Soil microbes drive the classic plant diversity–productivity pattern. Ecology 92, 296–303 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marquard, E. et al. Changes in the abundance of grassland species in monocultures versus mixtures and their relation to biodiversity effects. PLoS ONE 8, e75599 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roscher, C. et al. Identifying population- and community-level mechanisms of diversity–stability relationships in experimental grasslands. J. Ecol. 99, 1460–1469 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Civitello, D. J. et al. Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence for the dilution effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8667–8671 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H. & Heavilin, J. Plant–soil feedbacks provide an additional explanation for diversity–productivity relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 3020–3026 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Moorsel, S. J. et al. Co-occurrence history increases ecosystem stability and resilience in experimental plant communities. Ecology 102, e03205 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schöb, C., Brooker, R. W. & Zuppinger-Dingley, D. Evolution of facilitation requires diverse communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1381–1385 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Temperton, V. M., Mwangi, P. N., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B. & Buchmann, N. Positive interactions between nitrogen-fixing legumes and four different neighbouring species in a biodiversity experiment. Oecologia 151, 190–205 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Furey, G. N. & Tilman, D. Plant biodiversity and the regeneration of soil fertility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2111321118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gubsch, M. et al. Foliar and soil δ15N values reveal increased nitrogen partitioning among species in diverse grassland communities. Plant Cell Environ. 34, 895–908 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roscher, C., Schmid, B., Buchmann, N., Weigelt, A. & Schulze, E.-D. Legume species differ in the responses of their functional traits to plant diversity. Oecologia 165, 437–452 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Plant diversity effects on soil microorganisms support the singular hypothesis. Ecology 91, 485–496 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fornara, D. A. & Tilman, D. Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. J. Ecol. 96, 314–322 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lange, M. et al. Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage. Nat. Commun. 6, 6707 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, S. et al. Species richness promotes ecosystem carbon storage: evidence from biodiversity-ecosystem functioning experiments. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20202063 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cong, W.-F. et al. Plant species richness promotes soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in grasslands without legumes. J. Ecol. 102, 1163–1170 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leimer, S. et al. Mechanisms behind plant diversity effects on inorganic and organic N leaching from temperate grassland. Biogeochemistry 131, 339–353 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Q. et al. Consistently positive effect of species diversity on ecosystem, but not population, temporal stability. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2256–2266 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hector, A. et al. General stabilizing effects of plant diversity on grassland productivity through population asynchrony and overyielding. Ecology 91, 2213–2220 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Turnbull, L. A., Levine, J. M., Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Coexistence, niches and biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Ecol. Lett. 16, 116–127 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, A. J. et al. Flooding disturbances increase resource availability and productivity but reduce stability in diverse plant communities. Nat. Commun. 6, 6092 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, F. M. et al. Plant species richness and functional traits affect community stability after a flood event. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150276 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roscher, C. et al. A functional trait-based approach to understand community assembly and diversity–productivity relationships over 7 years in experimental grasslands. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 15, 139–149 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Res. Ideas Outcomes 5, e47042 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Moorsel, S. J., Schmid, M. W., Hahl, T., Zuppinger-Dingley, D. & Schmid, B. Selection in response to community diversity alters plant performance and functional traits. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 33, 51–61 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Moorsel, S. J. et al. Community evolution increases plant productivity at low diversity. Ecol. Lett. 21, 128–137 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roeder, A. et al. Plant diversity effects on plant longevity and their relationships to population stability in experimental grasslands. J. Ecol. 109, 2566–2579 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cadotte, M. W., Dinnage, R. & Tilman, D. Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology 93, S223–S233 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pu, Z., Daya, P., Tan, J. & Jiang, L. Phylogenetic diversity stabilizes community biomass. J. Plant Ecol. 7, 176–187 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrara, F., Giometto, A., Seymour, M., Rinaldo, A. & Altermatt, F. Experimental evidence for strong stabilizing forces at high functional diversity of aquatic microbial communities. Ecology 96, 1340–1350 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a conceensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruijven, J. V. & Berendse, F. Contrasting effects of diversity on the temporal stability of plant populations. Oikos 116, 1323–1330 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proulx, R. et al. Diversity promotes temporal stability across levels of ecosystem organization in experimental grasslands. PLoS ONE 5, e13382 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B. & Tukey, J. W. Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. JASA 81, 991–999 (1986).Article 
MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Species synchrony and its drivers: neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 172, E48–E66 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gross, K. et al. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am. Nat. 183, 1–12 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmid, B., Baruffol, M., Wang, Z. & Niklaus, P. A. A guide to analyzing biodiversity experiments. J. Plant Ecol. 10, 91–110 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Putz, F. E. et al. Conserv. Lett. 5, 296–303 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D. & Johnson, S. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2011. ITTO Tech. Ser. No. 38 (International Tropical Timber Organization, 2011); available at https://go.nature.com/3usq2an
Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05523-1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zwerts, J. A. et al. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e568 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkie, D. S., Bennett, E. L., Peres, C. A. & Cunningham, A. A. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1223, 120–128 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Putz, F. E., Blate, G. M., Redford, K. H., Fimbel, R. & Robinson, J. Conserv. Biol. 15, 7–20 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Sampling strategies and dataThe inner Oslofjorden phytoplankton dataset is a compilation of data mostly assembled from the monitoring program, financed since 1978 by a cooperation between the municipalities around the fjord, united in the counsel for technical water and sewage cooperation called “Fagrådet for Vann- og avløpsteknisk samarbeid i Indre Oslofjord”. The monitoring program started in 1973 and is ongoing. The program has sampled environmental parameters and chlorophyll since 1973, but for the first 25 years, phytoplankton data is only reported for the years 1973, 1974, 1988/9, 1990, 1994 and 1995. Since 1998, yearly sampling has been conducted, and from 2006 to 2019, the sampling frequency was approximately monthly. In addition, we have compiled research and monitoring data from researchers at the University of Oslo from 1896 and 1916, 1933–34 and 1962–1965.The records from 1896 and 1897 were collected using zoo-plankton net13. The phytoplankton collection in 1916–1917 used buckets or Nansen flasks for sampling. From 1933 to 1984, phytoplankton samples were collected using Nansen bottles and then from 1985–2020 with Niskin bottles from research vessels. The exception is the period from 2006 to 2018 when samples were also collected with FerryBox- equipped ships of opportunity14 with refrigerated autosamplers (Table 2).Since the 1990s, quantitative phytoplankton samples have mostly been preserved in Lugol’s solution, except for spring and autumn samples in the period 1990–2000 that were preserved in formalin. The records from 1896, 1897 and 1916 were preserved in ethanol, and between 1933 and 1990, samples were preserved in formalin. Sampling strategies and methods are listed in Table 2.The records from 1896 and 1897 were quantified by weight, and taxon abundance is categorised as “rare” (r), “rather common” (+), “common” (c) and “very common” (cc)13. In 1916 and 1917, Grans filtration method15 was used, and the number was given in cell counts per litre. From 1916 to 1993, the data is reported only as phytoplankton abundance (N, number of cells per litre). For most years after 1994, the dataset includes both abundance and biomass (μg C per litre), except for 2003, 2004, 2017 and 2018. Phytoplankton was identified and quantified using the sedimentation method of Utermöhl (1958)16. Biovolume for each species is calculated according to HELCOM 200617 and converted to biomass (μg C) following Menden-Deuer & Lessards (2000)18.Data inventoryThe inner Oslofjorden Phytoplankton dataset was compiled in 2020, comprising quantitative phytoplankton cell counts from inner Oslofjorden since 1896. Previously, parts of the data have been available as handwritten or printed tables in reports and published sources19,20,21 (Fig. 2). All sources are digitally available from the University of Oslo Library, the website for “Fagrådet” (http://www.indre-oslofjord.no/) or the NIVA online report database (https://www.niva.no/rapporter). Data from 1994 and onwards have been accessed digitally from the NIVA’s databases. They are also available from client reports from the monitoring project for inner Oslofjorden from the online sites listed above.The first known, published investigation of hydrography and plankton in the upper water column of the inner Oslofjorden was by Hjort & Gran (1900)13. Samples were collected during a hydrographical and biological investigation covering both the Skagerrak and Oslofjorden. There is only one sampling event from Steilene (Dk 1), but some phytoplankton data were obtained at Drøbak, just south of the shallow sill separating the inner and outer Oslofjorden, from winter 1896 to autumn 1897. Twenty years later, Gran and Gaarder (1927)22 conducted a study that included culture experiments at Drøbak field station (at the border between the inner and outer Oslofjorden) in March – April 1916 and August – September 1917. A higher frequency investigation was carried out from June 1933 to May 1934, covering 12 stations in inner and outer Oslofjorden where phytoplankton was analysed by microscopic examination23. The extensive program (the Oslofjord Project) conducted from 1962–1964 covered many parameters, and we have extracted the data for phytoplankton. From 1973 and onward, the research vessel-based monitoring program was financed by the municipalities around the fjord, and since 2006 NIVA has supplemented the monitoring program using FerryBox ships of opportunity. Samples from 4 m depth were collected using a refrigerated autosampler system (Teledyne ISCO) connected to a FerryBox system on M/S Color Festival and M/S Color Fantasy through cooperation between NIVA and Color Line A/S. Since 2018, the FerryBox has been part of the Norwegian Ships of Opportunity Program research infrastructure funded by the Research Council of Norway.The indicated depth of 3.5–4 m is an estimated average, as the actual sampling depth depends on shipload and sea conditions.Several other research projects have sampled from inner Oslofjorden between 1886 and 2000 with different aims. Data from relevant projects reporting on the whole phytoplankton community have also been included in this database.Data compilationThe data already digitalised were compiled from MS Excel files, and other data were manually entered into the standard format in MS Excel files. All collected data were then integrated into one MS Excel database, and this file was used for upload into GBIF. Data can be downloaded from GBIF in different formats and be linked together by the measurementsorfacts table.Quality control and standardisationAfter compilation, the data were checked for errors that could occur during manual digitalisation or just the compilation process. Duplicates and zero values were removed (Fig. 2). The major quantitative unit is phytoplankton abundance in cells per litre. Due to varying scopes of sampling and the development of gear and instruments, the number of species identified may vary between projects. Some of the earliest records were registered as “present”, indicating the amount in comments.Metadata, such as geographical reference, depth and methodology accessed from papers and reports, were accessible from the data source. When data was accessed from the NIVA internal databases, the metadata information was provided by the database owners/researchers.TaxonomyThe taxonomy of microalgae is in constant revision as new knowledge and techniques for identification are developing. Several historical species names recorded in this database are synonyms of accepted names in 2021. We have used the original names in our database and matched them to accepted names and Aphia ID using the taxon match tool available in the open-access reference system; World Register of Marine Species (Worms)24. The taxon match was conducted in March 2021.The nomenclature in Worms is quality assured by a wide range of taxonomic specialists. The Aphia ID is a unique and stable identifier for each available name in the database24. We also cross-checked the last updated nomenclature in Algaebase25 (March 2022) to assign species to a valid taxon name. When Algaebase and Worms were not in accordance, Algaebase taxonomy was usually chosen except in the case of Class Bacillariophyceae.Before matching the species list, the original species names were cleaned from spelling mistakes or just spelling mismatches like spaces, commas, etc. The original name is, however, left in one column in the database. For registrations where a species identification is uncertain, e.g. Alexandrium cf. tamarense, we used only Alexandrium. For registrations where the full name is uncertain, e.g. cf. Alexandrium tamarense, we used the name and Aphia ID for higher taxa, in this case, order. For others, e.g. “pennate diatoms” or “centric diatoms“, we used the name and Aphia ID for class. When names for, e.g. order and class were not recognised automatically by the matching tool in World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), these were matched manually. Only very few records, mostly “cysts” and “unidentified monads”, could not be matched neither automatically nor manually but were assigned to general “protists” with affiliated ID. More

Gruninger, R. J., Ribeiro, G. O., Cameron, A. & McAllister, T. A. Invited review: Application of meta-omics to understand the dynamic nature of the rumen microbiome and how it responds to diet in ruminants. Animal 13, 1843–1854 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morgavi, D. P., Kelly, W. J., Janssen, P. H. & Attwood, G. T. Rumen microbial (meta)genomics and its application to ruminant production. Animal 7, 184–201 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bergman, E. N. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiol. Rev. 70, 567–590 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flint, H. J. The rumen microbial ecosystem—Some recent developments. Trends Microbiol. 5, 483–488 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hobson, P. N. & Stewart, C. S. The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. (Springer, 2012).Moraïs, S. & Mizrahi, I. The road not taken: The rumen microbiome, functional groups, and community states. Trends Microbiol. 27, 538–549 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Cheng, K. J., Forsberg, C. W., Minato, H. & Costerton, J. W. in Physiological Aspects of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (eds T. Tsuda, Y. Sasaki, & R. Kawashima) 595–624 (Academic Press, 1991).McSweeney, C. S., Palmer, B., McNeill, D. M. & Krause, D. O. Microbial interactions with tannins: Nutritional consequences for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 91, 83–93 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Skene, I. K. & Brooker, J. D. Characterization of tannin acylhydrolase activity in the ruminal bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Anaerobe 1, 321–327 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Khanbabaee, K. & van Ree, T. Tannins: Classification and definition. Nat. Prod. Rep. 18, 641–649 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Makkar, H. P. S. & Becker, K. Isolation of tannins from leaves of some trees and shrubs and their properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42, 731–734 (1994).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bhat, T. K., Kannan, A., Singh, B. & Sharma, O. P. Value addition of feed and fodder by alleviating the antinutritional effects of tannins. Agr. Res. 2, 189–206 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shimada, T. Salivary proteins as a defense against dietary tannins. J. Chem. Ecol. 32, 1149–1163 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, J., Filippich, L. J. & Alsalami, M. T. Tannic acid intoxication in sheep and mice. Res. Vet. Sci. 53, 280–292 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kohl, K. D., Stengel, A. & Dearing, M. D. Inoculation of tannin-degrading bacteria into novel hosts increases performance on tannin-rich diets. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1720–1729 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, K., Chaudhary, L. C., Agarwal, N. & Kamra, D. N. Isolation and characterization of tannin-degrading bacteria from the rumen of goats fed oak (Quercus semicarpifolia) leaves. Agr. Res. 3, 377–385 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Odenyo, A. A. et al. Characterization of tannin-tolerant bacterial isolates from East African ruminants. Anaerobe 7, 5–15 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grilli, D. J. et al. Analysis of the rumen bacterial diversity of goats during shift from forage to concentrate diet. Anaerobe 42, 17–26 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Tong, J. et al. Illumina sequencing analysis of the ruminal microbiota in high-yield and low-yield lactating dairy cows. PLoS ONE 13, e0198225 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Pope, P. B. et al. Metagenomics of the Svalbard reindeer rumen microbiome reveals abundance of polysaccharide utilization loci. PLoS ONE 7, e38571 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Østbye, K., Wilson, R. & Rudi, K. Rumen microbiota for wild boreal cervids living in the same habitat. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 363, fnw233 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gruninger, R. J., Sensen, C. W., McAllister, T. A. & Forster, R. J. Diversity of rumen bacteria in Canadian cervids. PLoS ONE 9, e89682 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Henderson, G. et al. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci. Rep. 5, 14567 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reese, A. T. & Kearney, S. M. Incorporating functional trade-offs into studies of the gut microbiota. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 50, 20–27 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moeller, A. H. et al. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500997 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Okano, T. & Matsuda, H. Biocultural diversity of Yakushima Island: Mountains, beaches, and sea. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2, 69–77 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Agetsuma, N., Agetsuma-Yanagihara, Y. & Takafumi, H. Food habits of Japanese deer in an evergreen forest: Litter-feeding deer. Mamm. Biol. 76, 201–207 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Higashi, Y., Hirota, S. K., Suyama, Y. & Yahara, T. Geographical and seasonal variation of plant taxa detected in faces of Cervus nippon yakushimae based on plant DNA analysis in Yakushima Island. Ecol. Res. 37, 582–597 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuroiwa, A. Nutritional ecology of the Yakushika (Cervus nippon yakushimae) population under high density Ph.D. thesis, Kyushu University, (2017).Koda, R., Agetsuma, N., Agetsuma-Yanagihara, Y., Tsujino, R. & Fujita, N. A proposal of the method of deer density estimate without fecal decomposition rate: A case study of fecal accumulation rate technique in Japan. Ecol. Res. 26, 227–231 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Yahara, T. in Deer eats world heritages: Ecology of deer and forets (eds T. Yumoto & H. Matsuda) 168–187 (Bunichi-Sogo-Shuppan, 2006).Onoda, Y. & Yahara, T. in Challenges for Conservation Ecology in Space and Time. (eds T. Miyashita & J. Nishihiro) 126–149 (University of Tokyo Press, 2015).Kagoshima Prefecture Nature Conservation Division. The current status of Yakusika in FY 2020, available at https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/kyusyu/fukyu/shika/attach/pdf/yakushikaWG_R3_2-23.pdf (2020).Kuroiwa, A., Kuroe, M. & Yahara, T. Effects of density, season, and food intake on sika deer nutrition on Yakushima Island, Japan. Ecol. Res. 32, 369–378 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Hiura, T., Hashidoko, Y., Kobayashi, Y. & Tahara, S. Effective degradation of tannic acid by immobilized rumen microbes of a sika deer (Cervus nippon yesoensis) in winter. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 155, 1–8 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kawarai, S. et al. Seasonal and geographical differences in the ruminal microbial and chloroplast composition of sika deer (Cervus nippon) in Japan. Sci. Rep. 12, 6356 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, Z. et al. Response of the rumen microbiota of sika deer Cervus nippon fed different concentrations of tannin rich plants. PLoS ONE 10, e0123481 (2015).
Google Scholar 
McDonald, D. et al. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J. 6, 610–618 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M., Morrison, M. & Yu, Z. Status of the phylogenetic diversity census of ruminal microbiomes. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 76, 49–63 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Weimer, P. J. Redundancy, resilience, and host specificity of the ruminal microbiota: Implications for engineering improved ruminal fermentations. Front. Microbiol. 6, 296 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Scott, K. P., Gratz, S. W., Sheridan, P. O., Flint, H. J. & Duncan, S. H. The influence of diet on the gut microbiota. Pharmacol. Res. 69, 52–60 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tapio, I. et al. Taxon abundance, diversity, co-occurrence and network analysis of the ruminal microbiota in response to dietary changes in dairy cows. PLoS ONE 12, e0180260 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ohara, M. in Agriculture in Hokkaido v2 (ed K. Iwama, Ohara, M., Araki, H., Yamada, T., Nakatsuji, H., Kataoka, T., Yamamoto, Y.) 1–18(Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido Univ., 2009).Igota, H., Sakuragi, M. & Uno, H. in Sika Deer: Biology and Management of Native and Introduced Populations (eds. Dale R. McCullough, Seiki Takatsuki, & Koichi Kaji) 251–272 (Springer Japan, 2009).Fernando, S. C. et al. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 7482–7490 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, X. et al. High-throughput analysis reveals seasonal variation of the gut microbiota composition within forest musk deer (Moschus berezovskii). Front. Microbiol. 9, (2018).Artzi, L., Morag, E., Shamshoum, M. & Bayer, E. A. Cellulosomal expansion: Functionality and incorporation into the complex. Biotechnol. Biofuels 9, 61 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Biddle, A., Stewart, L., Blanchard, J. & Leschine, S. Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in diverse gut communities. Diversity 5, (2013).Eisenhauer, N., Scheu, S. & Jousset, A. Bacterial diversity stabilizes community productivity. PLoS ONE 7, e34517 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Miller, A. W., Oakeson, K. F., Dale, C. & Dearing, M. D. Effect of dietary oxalate on the gut microbiota of the mammalian herbivore Neotoma albigula. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 2669–2675 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Adams, J. M., Rehill, B., Zhang, Y. & Gower, J. A test of the latitudinal defense hypothesis: Herbivory, tannins and total phenolics in four North American tree species. Ecol. Res. 24, 697–704 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nabeshima, E., Murakami, M. & Hiura, T. Effects of herbivory and light conditions on induced defense in Quercus crispula. J. Plant Res. 114, 403–409 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Yang, C.-M., Yang, M.-M., Hsu, J.-M. & Jane, W.-N. Herbivorous insect causes deficiency of pigment–protein complexes in an oval-pointed cecidomyiid gall of Machilus thunbergii leaf. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 44, 315–321 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Agetsuma, N., Agetsuma-Yanagihara, Y., Takafumi, H. & Nakaji, T. Plant constituents affecting food selection by sika deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 669–678 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Couch, C. E. et al. Diet and gut microbiome enterotype are associated at the population level in African buffalo. Nat. Commun. 12, 2267 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goel, G., Puniya, A. K. & Singh, K. Tannic acid resistance in ruminal streptococcal isolates. J. Basic Microbiol. 45, 243–245 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jiménez, N. et al. Genetic and biochemical approaches towards unravelling the degradation of gallotannins by Streptococcus gallolyticus. Microb. Cell Fact. 13, 154 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Nelson, K. E., Thonney, M. L., Woolston, T. K., Zinder, S. H. & Pell, A. N. Phenotypic and phylogenetic characterization of ruminal tannin-tolerant bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, 3824–3830 (1998).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Selwal, M. K. et al. Optimization of cultural conditions for tannase production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa IIIB 8914 under submerged fermentation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26, 599–605 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kohl, K. D., Weiss, R. B., Cox, J., Dale, C. & Denise Dearing, M. Gut microbes of mammalian herbivores facilitate intake of plant toxins. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1238–1246 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Method 7, 335–336 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26, 266–267 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020).Osawa, R. Formation of a clear zone on tannin-treated brain heart infusion agar by a Streptococcus sp. isolated from feces of koalas. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 829–831 (1990).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hamamura, N., Olson, S. H., Ward, D. M. & Inskeep, W. P. Diversity and functional analysis of bacterial communities associated with natural hydrocarbon seeps in acidic soils at Rainbow Springs, Yellowstone National Park. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 5943–5950 (2005).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D36–D42 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, I.-M. A. et al. The IMG/M data management and analysis system v.6.0: new tools and advanced capabilities. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D751–D763 (2020)Suzuki, M. T., Taylor, L. T. & Delong, E. F. Quantitative analysis of small-subunit rRNA genes in mixed microbial populations via 5 ’-nuclease assays. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 4605–4614 (2000).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Human-modified forests, such as selectively logged forests, are often characterized as degraded ecosystems because of their altered structure and low biomass. The concept of ecosystem degradation can be a double-edged sword. It rightly draws attention to the conservation value of old-growth systems and the importance of ecosystem restoration. However, it can also suggest that human-modified ecosystems are of low ecological value and therefore, in some cases, suitable for conversion to agriculture (such as oil palm plantations) and other land uses3,4,5.Selectively logged and other forms of structurally altered forests are becoming the prevailing vegetation cover in much of the tropical forest biome2. Such disturbance frequently leads to a decline in old-growth specialist species1, and also in non-specialist species in some contexts6,7,8. However, species-focused biodiversity metrics are only one measure of ecosystem vitality and functionality, and rarely consider the collective role that suites of species play in maintaining ecological functions9.An alternative approach is to focus on the energetics of key taxonomic groups, and the number and relative dominance of species contributing to each energetic pathway. Energetic approaches to examining ecosystem structure and function have a long history in ecosystem ecology10. Virtually all ecosystems are powered by a cascade of captured sunlight through an array of autotroph tissues and into hierarchical assemblages of herbivores, carnivores and detritivores. Energetic approaches shine light on the relative significance of energy flows among key taxa and provide insight into the processes that shape biodiversity and ecosystem function. The common currency of energy enables diverse guilds and taxa to be compared in a unified and physically meaningful manner: dominant energetic pathways can be identified, and the resilience of each pathway to the loss of individual species can be assessed. Quantitative links can then be made between animal communities and the plant-based ecosystem productivity on which they depend. The magnitude of energetic pathways in particular animal groups can often be indicators of key associated ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, seed dispersal and pollination, or trophic factors such as intensity of predation pressure or availability of resource supply, all unified under the common metric of energy flux11,12.Energetics approaches have rarely been applied in biodiverse tropical ecosystems because of the range of observations they require11,12,13. Such analyses rely on: population density estimates for a very large number of species; understanding of the diet and feeding behaviour of the species; and reliable estimation of net primary productivity (NPP). Here we take advantage of uniquely rich datasets to apply an energetics lens to examine and quantify aspects of the ecological function and vitality of habitats in Sabah, Malaysia, that comprise old-growth forests, logged forest and oil palm plantation (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Fig. 1). Our approach is to calculate the short-term equilibrium production or consumption rates of food energy by specific species, guilds or taxonomic groups. We focus on three taxonomic groups (plants, birds and mammals) that are frequently used indicators of biodiversity and are relatively well understood ecologically.Fig. 1: Maps of the study sites in Sabah, Borneo.a–d, Maps showing locations of NPP plots and biodiversity surveys in old-growth forest, logged forest and oil palm plantations in the Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystems Project landscape (a), Maliau Basin (b), Danum Valley (c) and Sepilok (d). The inset in a shows the location of the four sites in Sabah. The shade of green indicates old-growth (dark green), twice-logged (intermediate green) or heavily logged (light green) forests. The camera and trap grid includes cameras and small mammal traps. White areas indicate oil palm plantations.Full size imageWe are interested in the fraction of primary productivity consumed by birds and mammals, and how it varies along the disturbance gradient, and how and why various food energetic pathways in mammals and birds, and the diversity of species contributing to those pathways, vary along the disturbance gradient. To estimate the density of 104 mammal and 144 bird species in each of the three habitat types, we aggregated data from 882 camera sampling locations (a total of 42,877 camera trap nights), 508 bird point count locations, 1,488 small terrestrial mammal trap locations (34,058 live-trap nights) and 336 bat trap locations (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Fig. 1). We then calculated daily energetic expenditure for each species based on their body mass, assigned each species to a dietary group and calculated total food consumption in energy units. For primary productivity, we relied on 34 plot-years (summation of plots multiplied by the number of years each plot is monitored) of measurements of the key components of NPP (canopy litterfall, woody growth, fine root production) using the protocols of the Global Ecosystem Monitoring Network14,15,16 across old-growth (n = 4), logged (n = 5) and oil palm (n = 1) plots. This dataset encompasses more than 14,000 measurements of litterfall, 20,000 tree diameter measurements and 2,700 fine root samples.Overall bird species diversity is maintained across the disturbance gradient and peaks in the logged forest; for mammals, there is also a slight increase in the logged forest, followed by rapid decline in the oil palm (Fig. 2b,c). Strikingly, both bird and mammal biomass increases substantially (144% and 231%, respectively) in the logged forest compared to the old-growth forest, with mammals contributing about 75% of total (bird plus mammal) biomass in both habitat types (Fig. 2b,c).Fig. 2: Variation of ecosystem energetics along the disturbance gradient from old-growth forest through logged forest to oil palm.a, Total NPP along the gradient (mean of intensive 1-ha plots; n = 4 for old growth (OG), n = 5 for logged and n = 1 for oil palm (OP); error bars are 95% confidence intervals derived from propagated uncertainty in the individually measured NPP components), with individual plot data points overlaid. b,c, Total body mass (bars, left axis) and number of species counted (blue dots and line, right axis) of birds (b) and mammals (c). d,e, Total direct energetic food intake by birds (d) and mammals (e). f,g, Percentage of NPP directly consumed by birds (f) and mammals (g). In b–e, body mass and energetics were estimated for individual bird and mammal species, with the bars showing the sum. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals derived from 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation estimates incorporating uncertainty in body mass, population density, the daily energy expenditure equation, assimilation efficiency of the different food types, composition of the diet of each species and NPP. In f,g, the grey bars indicate direct consumption of NPP, white bars denote the percentage of NPP indirectly supporting bird and mammal food intake when the mean trophic level of consumed invertebrates is assumed to be 2.5, with the error bars denoting assumed mean trophic levels of 2.4 and 2.6. Note the log scale of the y axis in f,g. Numbers for d,e provided in Supplementary Data Tables 1, 2.Full size imageThe total flow of energy through consumption is amplified across all energetic pathways by a factor of 2.5 (2.2–3.0; all ranges reported are 95% confidence intervals) in logged forest relative to old-growth forest. In all three habitat types, total energy intake by birds is much greater than by mammals (Fig. 2d,e and Extended Data Table 1). Birds account for 67%, 68% and 90% of the total direct consumption by birds and mammals combined in old-growth forests, logged forests and oil palm, respectively. Although mammal biomass is higher than bird biomass in the old-growth and logged forests, the metabolism per unit mass is much higher in birds because of their small body size; hence, in terms of the energetics and consumption rates, the bird community dominates. The total energy intake by birds alone increases by a factor of 2.6 (2.1–3.2) in the logged forest relative to old-growth forest. This is mainly driven by a 2.5-fold (1.7–2.8) increase in foliage-gleaning insectivory (the dominant energetic pathway), and most other feeding guilds also show an even larger increase (Figs. 2d and 3). However, total bird energy intake in the oil palm drops back to levels similar to those in the old-growth forest, with a collapse in multiple guilds. For mammals, there is a similar 2.4-fold (1.9–3.2) increase in total consumption when going from old-growth to logged forest, but this declines sharply in oil palm plantation. Most notable is the 5.7-fold (3.2–10.2) increase in the importance of terrestrial mammal herbivores in the logged relative to old-growth forests. All four individual old-growth forest sites show consistently lower bird and mammal energetics than the logged forests (Extended Data Fig. 5).Fig. 3: Magnitude and species diversity of energetic pathways in old-growth forest, logged forest and oil palm.The size of the circles indicates the magnitude of energy flow, and the colour indicates birds or mammals. S, number of species; E, ESWI, an index of species redundancy and, therefore, resilience (high values indicate high redundancy; see main text). For clarity, guilds with small energetic flows are not shown, but are listed in Supplementary Data 4. Images created by J. Bentley.Full size imageThe fraction of NPP flowing through the bird and mammal communities increases by a factor of 2.1 (1.5–3.0) in logged forest relative to old-growth forest. There is very little increase in NPP in logged relative to old-growth forests (Fig. 2a) because increased NPP in patches of relatively intact logged forest is offset by very low productivity in more structurally degraded areas such as former logging platforms14,15. In oil palm plantations, oil palm fruits account for a large proportion of NPP, although a large fraction of these is harvested and removed from the ecosystem17. As a proportion of NPP, 1.62% (1.35–2.13%) is directly consumed by birds and mammals in the old-growth forest; this rises to 3.36% (2.57–5.07%) in the logged forest but drops to 0.89% (0.57–1.44%) in oil palm (Fig. 2f,g and Extended Data Table 2).If all invertebrates consumed are herbivores or detritivores (that is, at a trophic level of 2.0), and trophic efficiency is 10% (ref. 10), the total amount of NPP supporting the combined bird and mammal food intake would be 9%, 16% and 5% for old-growth forest, logged forest and oil palm, respectively. However, if the mean trophic level of consumed invertebrates is 2.5 (that is, a mix of herbivores and predators), the corresponding proportions would be 27%, 51% and 17% (Fig. 2f,g). As insectivory is the dominant feeding mode for the avian community, these numbers are dominated by bird diets. For birds in the old-growth forests, 0.35% of NPP supports direct herbivory and frugivory, but around 22% of NPP (assumed invertebrate trophic level 2.5) is indirectly required to support insectivory. The equivalent numbers for birds in logged forest are 0.83% and 46%. Hence, birds account for a much larger indirect consumption of NPP. Bird diet studies in old-growth and logged forest in the region suggest that consumed invertebrates have a mean trophic level of 2.5 (ref. 18; K. Sam, personal communication), indicating that the higher-end estimates of indirect NPP consumption (that is, around 50% in logged forests) are plausible.It is interesting to compare such high fractions of NPP to direct estimates of invertebrate herbivory. Scans of tree leaf litter from these forests suggest that just 7.0% of tree canopy leaf area (1–3% of total NPP) is removed by tree leaf herbivory14,16, but such estimates do not include other pathways available to invertebrates, including herbivory of the understorey, aboveground and belowground sap-sucking, leaf-mining, fruit- and wood-feeding, and canopy, litter and ground-layer detritivory. An increase in invertebrate biomass and herbivory in logged forest compared to old-growth forest has previously been reported in fogging studies in this landscape19. Such high levels of consumption of NPP by invertebrates could have implications on ecosystem vegetation biomass production, suggesting, first, that invertebrate herbivory has a substantial influence on recovery from logging and, second, that insectivorous bird densities may exert substantial indirect controls on ecosystem recovery.The distributions of energy flows among feeding guilds are remarkably stable among habitat types (Fig. 3), indicating that the amplified energy flows in the logged forests do not distort the overall trophic structure of vertebrate communities. Overall bird diet energetics are dominated by insectivory, which accounts for a strikingly invariant 66%, 63% and 66% of bird energetic consumption in old-growth forest, logged forest and oil palm, respectively. Foliage-gleaning dominates as a mode of invertebrate consumption in all three habitat types, with frugivory being the second most energetically important feeding mode (26%, 27% and 19%, respectively). Mammal diet is more evenly distributed across feeding guilds, but frugivory (31%, 30%, 30%) and folivory (24%, 38%, 26%) dominate. Small mammal insectivores are probably under-sampled (see Methods) so the contribution of mammal insectivory may be slightly greater than that estimated here. The apparent constancy of relative magnitude of feeding pathways across the intact and disturbed ecosystems is noteworthy and not sensitive to plausible shifts in feeding behaviour between habitat types (see Supplementary Discussion). There is no evidence of a substantial shift in dominant feeding guild: the principal feeding pathways present in the old-growth forest are maintained in the logged forest.When examining change at species level in the logged forests, the largest absolute increases in bird food consumption were in arboreal insectivores and omnivores (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 2a). In particular, this change was characterized by large increases in the abundance of bulbul species (Pycnonotus spp.). No bird species showed a significant or substantial reduction in overall energy consumption. In the oil palm plantation, total food consumption by birds was less than in logged forests, but similar to that in old-growth forests. However, this was driven by very high abundance of a handful of species, notably a single arboreal omnivore (yellow-vented bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier) and three arboreal insectivores (Mixornis bornensis, Rhipidura javanica, Copsychus saularis), whereas energy flows through most other bird species were greatly reduced (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 2b).Fig. 4: Changes in energy consumption by species in logged forest and oil palm relative to old-growth forest.a,b, Changes in energy consumption by species in logged forest relative to old-growth forest (a) and in oil palm relative to old-growth forest (b). The 20 species experiencing the largest increase (red) and decrease (blue) in both habitat types are shown. Bird species are shown in a lighter tone and mammal species are shown in a darker tone. The error bars denote 95% confidence intervals, derived from 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation estimates incorporating uncertainty in body mass, population density, the daily energy expenditure equation, assimilation efficiency of the different food types and composition of the diet of each species.Full size imageFor mammals, the increase in consumption in logged forests is dominated by consumption by large terrestrial herbivores increasing by a factor of 5.7 (3.2–10.2), particularly sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus; Fig. 4a and Extended Data Figs. 2b and 3), along with that by small omnivores, predominantly rodents (native spiny rats, non-native black rat; Fig. 4). A few rainforest species show a strong decline (for example, greater mouse-deer Tragulus napu and brown spiny rat Maxomys rajah). In the oil palm, most mammal species collapse (Fig. 4b) and the limited consumption is dominated by a few disturbance-tolerant habitat generalists (for example, red muntjac Muntiacus muntjak, black rat Rattus rattus, civets), albeit these species are at lower densities than observed in old-growth forest (Extended Data Fig. 2).With very few exceptions, the amplified energy flows in logged forest seem to retain the same level of resilience as in old-growth forest. The diversity and dominance of species within any pathway can be a measure of the resilience of that pathway to loss of species. We assessed energetic dominance within individual pathways by defining an energetic Shannon–Wiener index (ESWI) to examine distribution of energy flow across species; low ESWI indicates a pathway with high dependence on a few species and hence potential vulnerability (Fig. 3). The overall ESWI across guilds does not differ between the old-growth and logged forest (t2,34 = −0.363, P = 0.930), but does decline substantially from old-growth forest to oil palm (t2,34 = −3.826, P = 0.0015), and from logged forest to oil palm (t2,34 = −3.639, P = 0.0025; linear mixed-effects models, with habitat type as fixed effect and guild as random effect; for model coefficients see Supplementary Table 3).Hence, for birds, the diversity of species contributing to dominant energetic pathways is maintained in the transition from old-growth to logged forests but declines substantially in oil palm. Mammals generally show lower diversity and ESWI than birds, but six out of ten feeding guilds maintain or increase ESWI in logged forest relative to the old-growth forests but collapse in oil palm (Fig. 3). Terrestrial herbivory is the largest mammal pathway in the logged forest but is dependent on only four species and is probably the most vulnerable of the larger pathways: a few large mammals (especially sambar deer) play a dominant terrestrial herbivory role in the logged forest. In parallel, bearded pigs (Sus barbatus), the only wild suid in Borneo, form an important and functionally unique component of the terrestrial omnivory pathway. These larger animals are particularly sensitive to anthropogenic pressures such as hunting, or associated pathogenic pressures as evidenced by the recent precipitous decline of the bearded pig in Sabah due to an outbreak of Asian swine fever (after our data were collected)20.Vertebrate populations across the tropics are particularly sensitive to hunting pressure21. Our study site has little hunting, but as a sensitivity analysis we explored the energetic consequences of 50% reduction in population density of those species potentially affected by targeted and/or indiscriminate hunting (Extended Data Fig. 4). Targeted hunted species include commercially valuable birds, and gun-hunted mammals (bearded pig, ungulates, banteng and mammals with medicinal value). Indiscriminately hunted species include birds and mammals likely to be trapped with nets and snares. Hunting in the logged forests lowers both bird and mammal energy flows but still leaves them at levels higher than in faunally intact old-growth forests. Such hunting brings bird energetics levels close to (but still above) those of old-growth forests. For mammals, however, even intensively hunted logged forests seem to maintain higher energetic flows than the old-growth forests. Hence, only very heavy hunting is likely to ‘offset’ the amplified energetics in the logged forest.The amplified energetic pathways in our logged forest probably arise as a result of bottom-up trophic factors including increased resource supply, palatability and accessibility. The more open forest structure in logged forest results in more vegetation being near ground level22,23 and hence more accessible to large generalist mammal herbivores, which show the most striking increase of the mammal guilds. The increased prioritization by plants of competition for light and therefore rapid vegetation growth strategies in logged forests results in higher leaf nutrient content and reduced leaf chemical defences against herbivory24,25, along with higher fruiting and flowering rates19 and greater clumping in resource supply9. This increased resource availability and palatability probably supports high invertebrate and vertebrate herbivore densities25. The act of disturbance displaces the ecosystem from a conservative chemically defended state to a more dynamic state with amplified energy and nutrient flow, but not to an extent that causes heavy disruption in animal community composition. Top-down trophic factors might also play a role in amplifying the energy flows in intermediate trophic levels, through mechanisms such as increased protection of ground-dwelling or nesting mammals and birds from aerial predators in the dense vegetation ground layer. This might partially explain the increased abundance of rodents, but there is little evidence of trophic release at this site because of the persisting high density of mammal carnivores26. Overall, the larger number of bottom-up mechanisms and surge in invertebrate consumption suggest that increased resource supply and palatability largely explains the amplification of consumption pathways in the logged forest. An alternative possibility is that the amplified vertebrate energetics do not indicate amplified overall animal energetics but rather a large diversion of energy from unmeasured invertebrate predation pathways (for example, parasitoids); this seems unlikely but warrants further exploration.Oil palm plantations show a large decline in the proportion of NPP consumed by mammals and birds compared to logged forests12. Mammal populations collapse because they are more vulnerable and avoid humans, and there is no suite of mammal generalists that can step in27,28. Birds show a more modest decline, to levels similar to those observed in old-growth forests, as there is a broad suite of generalist species that are able to adapt to and exploit the habitat types across the disturbance gradient, and because their small size and mobility render them less sensitive to human activity29. There is a consistent decline in the oil palm in ESWI for birds and especially for mammals, indicating a substantial increase in ecosystem vulnerability in many pathways.In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates the tremendously dynamic and ecologically vibrant nature of the studied logged forests, even heavily and repeatedly logged forests such as those found across Borneo. It is likely that the patterns, mechanisms and basic ecological energetics we describe are general to most tropical forests; amplification of multiple ecosystem processes after logging has also been reported for logged forests in Kenya9, but similar detailed analyses are needed for a range of tropical forests to elucidate the importance of biogeographic, climatic or other factors. We stress that our findings do not diminish the importance of protecting structurally intact old-growth forests, but rather question the meaning of degradation by shining a new light on the ecological value of logged and other structurally ‘degraded’ forests, reinforcing their significance to the conservation agenda30. We have shown that a wide diversity of species not only persist but thrive in the logged forest environment. Moreover, such ecological vibrancy probably enhances the prospects for ecosystem structural recovery. In terms of faunal intactness, our study landscape is close to a best-case scenario because hunting pressures were low. If logged forests can be protected from heavy defaunation, our analysis demonstrates that they can be vibrant ecosystems, providing many key ecosystem functions at levels much higher than in old-growth forests. Conservation of logged forest landscapes has an essential role to play in the in the protection of global biodiversity and biosphere function. More