Philippa Kaur

Restoring the connection between people and the rest of nature hinges on whole-system science, actions and negotiations.
Those who think about and practise sustainability are constantly looking for holistic interpretations of the world and are trying to understand systemic relations, networks and connections. Biodiversity has all of these things. It shows how every species needs other species to exist and thrive. It shows that all living organisms are part of a sophisticated and fascinating system made up of myriads of links. And humans are undoubtedly a part of it.
Credit: Pulsar Imagens / Alamy Stock PhotoIn the realm of sustainability, experts also ponder about time: how can life exist and thrive over time? Indeed, the above mentioned fascinating system evolves over time. And, over time, it has to adapt to unexpected change. It does that well when it is healthy, and less well when it is ill and constantly disturbed.For a long time, man-made impacts kept accumulating almost completely unchecked by societies, until the consequences for human well-being became untenable. Nowadays, environmental crises make the headlines regularly. They are nothing but the result of a broken connection between people and the rest of nature.Climate change is one major outcome of the broken human–rest of nature connection and has wide ramifications for both people and the planet. We now face imminent disaster, unequally across the world, yet addressing climate change remains an incredibly thorny task. Country representatives from most nations around the world meet regularly at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — most recently at COP27, which was held in Egypt — to continue the debate on what actions are needed to move the climate agenda forward, all while disasters continue to hit the most vulnerable populations. The world has seen 27 COP meetings to the UNFCC so far; one wonders how many more meetings will be needed to see real change happen.Interestingly, country representatives also meet regularly to discuss biodiversity protection; biodiversity decline — the other major consequence of the broken human–rest of nature connection — is just as worrying, with severe and ramified implications that are still largely underappreciated by decision-makers. These gatherings are the COP meetings to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Last year, we wrote about the then forthcoming COP15 to the CBD (Nat. Sustain. 4, 189; 2021), the meeting in which the new conservation targets to be met by 2030 were to be agreed. We highlighted the extent to which experts worried that those new targets might not go far enough. The meeting was postponed more than once due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is finally happening on 7 December 2022, in Montreal, Canada. The world has already seen 15 COP meetings to the CBD, how many more meetings will be needed for the biodiversity crisis to be averted?But let’s go back to thinking about sustainability. Experts look for holistic visions of the world. Here is an interesting example of what holism means. Biodiversity decline and climate change are both the result of the broken connection between people and the rest of nature, they ultimately have the same, deep roots. They are mutually reinforcing phenomena: unhealthy biodiversity contributes to climate change, and climate change makes biodiversity ill. All this is bad news for human and planetary well-being. The climate–biodiversity conundrum, at least to some degree, has been recognized at a higher level — during COP27, leaders dedicated one day to biodiversity.Yet, given that these issues are highly interconnected and have the same origin, why is the world insisting on discussing them as separate agendas? Why are we still holding two separate COPs? How are these meetings going to promote any fruitful synergy? How will they lead people to reconnect with the rest of nature? Country representatives should be breaking silos, embracing holism and bringing these intertwined issues, and their multiple ramifications, to the same negotiating table.Nature Sustainability welcomes the long-awaited COP15 to the CBD and hopes that countries will agree on feasible yet ambitious 2030 targets to protect and enhance biodiversity. But most of all, we hope that all of the experts and leaders involved in addressing the environmental crises embrace holism to promote meaningful actions across the world aimed at restoring people’s connection with the rest of nature. We are eager to see progress to this end. In the meantime, the collection we started in March 2021 with Nature Ecology & Evolution has been updated to renew our support to the biodiversity community. More

The isotopic spread for each study siteThe overall linear relationship between δ2H and δ18O values for hair (n = 81) and toenails (n = 39), respectively, were (Fig. 2):$$delta^{2} {text{H}}_{{text{hair(VSMOW)}}} = , 0.89 times delta^{18} {text{O}}_{{text{hair(VSMOW)}}} {-} , 86.16,;{text{R}}^{2} = , 0.19,;p , < , 0.01$$ (1) $$delta^{2} {text{H}}_{{text{toenail(VSMOW)}}} = , 0.15 times delta^{18} {text{O}}_{{text{toenail(VSMOW)}}} {-} , 91.69,;{text{R}}^{2} = , 0.00,;p , = , 0.69$$ (2) Figure 2δ2H and δ18O values (‰) of all samples for both hair (δ2H: n = 81, δ18O: n = 82) and toenails (δ2H and δ18O: n = 39). The solid black line represents the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) [δ2H = 8 (times) δ18O + 10] and is included in the graph for comparison purposes. The regression lines between oxygen and hydrogen values for hair [δ2Hhair(VSMOW) = 0.89 × δ18Ohair(VSMOW) − 86.16, R2 = 0.19, p  − 82‰ were then split further where any samples with δ2Hhair values less than − 73‰ were initially classified as Site 2. These samples were then split again to either Site 2 (δ2Hhair ≥ 76‰) or Site 4 (δ2Hhair  − 73‰ were classified as Site 4. No samples could be classified as originating from Site 3. The second CART model was built for stable hydrogen and oxygen isotopes of toenails (Model 2) (Fig. 5b). The model included only two decision nodes in which the first predictor variable was δ2Htoenail value, where samples with values less than − 93‰ were predicted to be from Site 1. For toenail samples with hydrogen values greater than − 93‰, oxygen values were used to determine whether they could be classified as Site 2 or Site 4. Those samples with δ18Otoenail values less than 9.6‰ were classified as Site 2 and those with values greater than 9.6‰ were predicted as Site 4. No samples were predicted to be from Site 3 purely from stable hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in toenails. Finally, the third model consisted of stable hydrogen and oxygen isotope values in both hair and toenail samples (Model 3) (Fig. 5c). Model 3 selected toenails as the best attribute for classification, which indicates that toenail isotope values are the better predictor when both hair and toenail samples are present for analysis from Sites 1–4. The model was similar to that of Model 2.Figure 5Decision trees developed from both δ2H and δ18O values of (a) hair [Model 1, trained with n = 65], (b) toenails [Model 2, trained with n = 32] and (c) of both hair and toenails [Model 3, trained with n = 28]. The predicted study site numbers are shown on the first row within each bubble. The proportions of samples in each node are shown as decimals for Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively. The percentages indicate the proportion of samples within each sub-partition.Full size imageConfusion matrices (Table 1) were constructed for all three models to evaluate the performance of the classification models. Of the three models, Model 3 proved to be the most accurate model with an overall accuracy of 71.4% (see Supplementary Fig S2. online). The performance evaluation summary, including measures for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for all three models, is provided in (see Supplementary Table S3. online).Intra-individual differencesBoth hair and toenail samples were retrieved from 35 of the 86 individuals. The paired difference between δ2H values in hair and toenails of the same individual was tested using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank's test for non-normal data as the dataset failed the Shapiro–Wilk's normality test at the α = 0.05 significance level. Significant differences were found between δ2H values of hair (n = 35, mean = − 78.0‰, s.d. = 3.06) and toenails (n = 35, mean = − 90.9‰, s.d. = 3.27) from the same individual (p  0.05. Overall, the isotopic values of δ2H in hair were higher than those of toenail from the same individual by 13.0‰, on average, with a standard deviation of 8.4‰. For δ18O, the average was 1.5‰ with a standard deviation of 4.6‰ (Fig. 6).Figure 6(a) δ2H and (b) δ18O values in hair and toenails for all individuals that provided both tissue types (n = 35). Study site information are also shown by shapes. The standard deviations of each sample, ran in either duplicates or triplicates, are shown by error bars. Note that error bars cannot be seen for some samples due to small standard deviations. The average difference between the isotopic values of hair and toenail from the same individual were 13.0‰ with a standard deviation of 8.4‰ for δ2H and 1.5‰ with a standard deviation of 4.6‰ for δ18O.Full size imageThe linear relationships between δ2H in hair and toenails for all individuals were (see Supplementary Fig S3. online):$$delta^{2} {text{H}}_{{{text{hair}}}} = , 0.48 times delta^{2} {text{H}}_{{text{toenail }}} {-} , 34.72,;{text{R}}^{2} = , 0.16,;p , < , 0.05$$ (19) and for δ18O:$$delta^{18} {text{O}}_{{{text{hair}}}} = , 0.55 times delta^{18} {text{O}}_{{{text{toenail}}}} + , 5.16,;{text{R}}^{2} = , 0.13,;p , < 0.05$$ (20) Overall, both equations showed a weak relationship, as seen by the small R2 values. More

Aagaard-Tillery KM, Grove K, Bishop J, Ke X, Fu Q, McKnight R et al. (2008) Developmental origins of disease and determinants of chromatin structure: maternal diet modifies the primate fetal epigenome. J Mol Endocrinol 41:91–102Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alekseev V, Lampert W (2001) Maternal control of resting – egg production in Daphnia. Nature 414:899–901Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson OS, Sant KE, Dolinoy DC (2012) Nutrition and epigenetics: an interplay of dietary methyl donors, one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation. J Nutritional Biochem 23:853–859Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Agrawal AA, Laforsch C, Tollrian R (1999) Transgenerational induction of defenses in animals and plants. Nature 401:60–63Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Asselman J, De Coninck DIM, Vandegehuchte MB, Jansen M, Decaestecker E, De Meester L, Busshe JV, Vanhaecke L, Janssen CR, De Schamphelaere KAC (2015) Global cytosine methylation in Daphnia magna depends on genotype, environment, and their interaction. Environ Toxicol 34:5
Google Scholar 
Bernardo J (1996) Maternal effects in animal ecology. Am Zool 36:83–105Article 

Google Scholar 
Berger SL (2007) The complex language of chromatin regulation during transcription. Nature 447:407–412Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bewick AJ, Vogel KJ, Moore AJ, Schmitz RJ (2017) Evolution of DNA methylation across insects. Mol Biol Evol 34:654–665CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bird A (2007) Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature 447:396–398Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boersma M (1995) The allocation of resources to reproduction in Daphnia galeata: against the odds? Ecology 76(4):121–1261Article 

Google Scholar 
Boersma M (1997) Offspring size in Daphnia: does it pay to be overweight? Hydrobiologia 360:79–88Article 

Google Scholar 
Boycott AE, Diver C (1923) On the inheritance of the sinistrality in Limnea peregra. Proc R Soc Lond B 95:207–213Article 

Google Scholar 
Brett MT (1993) Resource quality effects on Daphnia longispina offspring fitness. J Plankton Res 15(4):403–412Article 

Google Scholar 
Burns CW (1995) Effects of crowding and different food levels on growth and reproductive investment of Daphnia. Oecologia 101:234–244Article 

Google Scholar 
Cameron NM, Shahrokh D, Del Corpo A, Dhir SK, Szyf M, Champagne FA, Meaney MJ (2008) Epigenetic programming of phenotypic variations in reproductive strategies in the rat through maternal care. J Neuroendocrinol 20:795–801Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Champagne FA (2012) Epigenetics and developmental plasticity across species. Dev Psychobiol 55:33–41Article 

Google Scholar 
Chan SY, Vasilopoulou E, Kilby MD (2009) The role of the placenta in thyroid hormone delivery to the fetus. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 5:45–54Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chong S, Whitelaw E (2004) Epigenetic germline inheritance. Curr Opin Genet Dev 14(6):692–696Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clark J, Garbutt JS, McNally L, Little TJ (2017) Disease spread in age structured populations with maternal age effects. Ecol Lett 20:445–451Article 

Google Scholar 
Colbourne JK, Herbert PDN, Taylor DJ (1997) Evolutionary origins of phenotypic diversity. In: Givnish TJ, Systma KJ (eds) Daphnia in molecular evolution and adaptive radiation. Cambridge University Press. p 163–188Colbourne JK, Pfrender ME, Gilbert D, Thomas WK, Tucker A, Oakley TH et al. (2011) The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex. Science 331(6017):555–561Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Desmarais KH (1997) Keeping Daphnia out of the surface film with cetyl alcohol. J Plankton Res 19(1):149–154Article 

Google Scholar 
Dorts J, Falisse E, Schoofs E, Flamion E, Kestermont P, Silvestre F (2016) DNA methyltransferases and stress-related genes expression in zebrafish larvae after exposure to heat and copper during reprogramming of DNA methylation. Sci Rep 6:34254Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ducker GS, Rabinowitz JD (2016) One-carbon metabolism in health and disease. Cell Metab 25:27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.08Dudycha JL, Brandon CS, Deitz KC (2012) Population genomics of resource exploitation: insights from gene expression profiles of two Daphnia ecotypes fed alternate resources. Ecol Evol 2:329–340Dzialowski EM, Reed WL, Sotherland PR (2009) Effects of egg size on double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) egg composition and hatchling phenotype. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 152:262–267Article 

Google Scholar 
Frost PC, Ebert D, Larson JH, Marcus MA, Wagner ND, Zalewski A (2010) Transgenerational effects of poor elemental food quality on Daphnia magna. Oecologia 162(4):865–872Article 

Google Scholar 
Gabsi F, Glazier DS, Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT, Preuss TG (2014) How to interactive maternal traits and environmental factors determine offspring size in Daphnia magna?. Ann Limnol 50:9–18Article 

Google Scholar 
Garbutt JS, Little TJ (2016) Bigger is better: changes in body size explain a maternal effect of food on offspring disease resistance. Ecol Evolution 7:1403–1409Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibney ER, Nolan CM (2010) Epigenetics and gene expression. Heredity 105:4–13Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gillis MK, Walsh MR (2019) Individual variation in plasticity dulls transgenerational responses to stress. Funct Ecol 33:1993–2002Glazier DS (1992) Effects of food, genotype, and maternal size and age on offspring investment in Daphnia magna. Ecology 73(3):910–926Article 

Google Scholar 
Gliwicz ZM, Guisande C (1992) Family planning in Daphnia: resistance to starvation in offspring born to mothers grown at different food levels. Oceologia 91:463–467Article 

Google Scholar 
Goos JM, Swain CJ, Munch SB, Walsh MR (2018) Maternal diet and age alter direct and indirect relationships between lifer-history traits across multiple generations. Funct Ecol 33:491–502Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulden CE, Horning LL (1980) Population oscillations and energy reserves in planktonic cladocera and their consequences to competition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:1716–1720Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Groothuis TG, Schwabl H (2008) Hormone-mediated maternal effects in birds: mechanisms matter but what do we know of them? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:1647–1661Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guisande C, Gliwicz ZM (1992) Egg size and clutch size in two Daphnia species at different food levels. J Plankton Res 14(7):997–1007Article 

Google Scholar 
Hearn J, Chow FW-N, Barton H, Tung M, Wilson P, Blaxter M et al. (2018) Daphnia magna microRNAs respond to nutritional stress and ageing but are not transgenerational. Mol Ecol 27:1402–1412Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hearn J, Pearson M, Blaxter M, Wilson PJ, Little TJ (2019) Genome-wide methylation is modified by caloric restriction in Daphnia magna. BCM Genetics 20:197Hearn J, Plenderleith F, Little TJ (2021) DNA methylation differs extensively between strains of the same geographical origin and changes with age in Daphnia magna. Epigenetics Chromatin 14:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13072-020-00379-zHead JA (2014) Patterns of DNA methylation in animals: an ecotoxicological perspective. Integr Comp Biol 54:77–86Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hebert PDN (1981) Obligate asexuality in Daphnia. Am Nate 117:784–789Article 

Google Scholar 
Herman JJ, Sultan SE (2016) DNA methylation mediates genetic variation for adaptive transgenerational plasticity. Proc Biol Sci 283(1838):20160988. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0988Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hiruta C, Nishida C, Tochinai S (2010) Abortive meiosis in the oogenesis of parthenogenetic Daphnia pulex. Chromosome Res 18:833–840Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ho DH, Burggren WW (2010) Epigenetics and transgenerational transfer: a physiological perspective. J Exp Biol 213:3–16Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ho DH (2008) Morphological and physiological developmental consequences of parental effects in the chicken embryo (Gallus gallus domesticus) and the zebrafish larva (Danio rerio). Diss: University of North TexasInnes DJ, Fox CJ, Winsor GL (2000) Avoiding the cost of males in obligately asexual Daphnia pulex (Leydig). Proc: Biol Sci 267(1447):991–997CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jeremias G, Barbosa J, Marques SM, De Schamphelaere KAC, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Deforce D, Gonçalves FJM, Pereira JL, Asselman J (2018) Transgenerational inheritance of dna hypomethylation in Daphnia magna in response to salinity stress. Environ Sci Technol 52(17):10114–10123Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jian X, Yang W, Zhao S, Liang H, Zhao Y, Chen L et al. (2013) Maternal effects of inducible tolerance against the toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa in the grazer Daphnia carinata. Environ Pollut 178:142–146Article 

Google Scholar 
Keating KI (1985) The influence of vitamin-B12 deficiency on the reproduction of Daphnia-Pulex Leydig (Cladocera). J Crustacean Biol 5:30–136Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleiven OT, Larsson P, Hobaek A (1992) Sexual reproduction in Daphnia magna requires three stimulie. Oikos 65:197–206Article 

Google Scholar 
Kusari F, O’Doherty AM, Hodges NJ, Wojewodzic MW (2017) Bi-directional effects of vitamin B12 and methotrexate on Daphnia magna fitness and genomic methylation. Sci Rep 7:11872Article 

Google Scholar 
Kvist J, Athanasio CG, Solari OS, Brown JB, Colbourne JK, Pfrender ME, Mirbahai L (2018) Pattern of DNA methylation in Daphnia: evolutionary perspective. Genome Biol Evolution 10(8):1988–2007Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lamka GF, Harder AM, Sundaram M, Schwartz TS, Christie MR, DeWoody JA, Willoughby JR (2022) Epigenetics in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Front Ecol Evol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.871791LaMontagne JM, McCauley E (2001) Maternal effects in Daphnia: what mothers are telling their offspring and do they listen. Ecol Lett 4:64–71Article 

Google Scholar 
Li Q, Jiang X (2014) Offspring tolerance to toxic Microcystis aeruginosa in Daphnia pulex shaped by maternal food availability and age. Fundam Appl Limnol 185:315–319Article 

Google Scholar 
Mastorci F, Vicentini M, Viltart O, Manghi M, Graiani G, Quaini Fet al. (2009) Long-term effects of prenatal stress: changes in adult cardiovascular regulation and sensitivity to stress. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 33:191–203Article 

Google Scholar 
Mkee D, Ebert D (1996) The interactive effects of temperature, food level and maternal phenotype on offspring size in Daphnia magna. Oecologia 107(2):189–196Article 

Google Scholar 
Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:403–407Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen ND, Matsuura T, Kato Y, Watanabe H (2020) Caloric restriction upregulates the expression of DNMT3.1, lacking the conserved catalytic domain, in Daphnia magna. Genesis 58:12Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen ND, Matsuura T, Kato Y, Watanabe H (2021) DNMT3.1 controls trade-offs between growth, reproduction, and life span under starved conditions in Daphnia magna. Sci Rep 11:7326Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nusslein-Volhard C, Frohnhofer HG, Lehmann R (1987) Determination of anteroposterior polarity in Drosophila. Science 238:1675–1681Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pieters BJ, Liess M (2006) Maternal nutritional state determines the sensitivity of Daphnia magna offspring to short-term fenvalerate exposure. Aquat Toxicol 76:286–277Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environmental for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Richards EJ (2006) Inherited epigenetic variation – revisiting soft inheritance. Nat Rev Genet 7:395–401Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stollewerk A (2010) The water flea Daphnia – a new model system for ecology and evolution? J Biol 9(2):21Article 

Google Scholar 
Sturtevant AH (1923) Inheritance of direction of coiling in Limnea. Science 58:269Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suter MA, Chen A, Burdine MS, Choudhury M, Harris RA, Lane RH et al. (2012) A maternal high-fat diet modulates fetal SIRT1 histone and protein deacetylase activity in nonhuman primates. FASEB J 26:5106–5114Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tessier AJ, Consolatti NL (1989) Variation in offspring size in Daphnia and consequences for individual fitness. Oikos 56:269–276Article 

Google Scholar 
Tessier AJ, Consolatti NL (1991) Resource quantity and offspring quality in Daphnia. Ecology 72(2):468–478Article 

Google Scholar 
Trerotola M, Relli V, Simeone P, Alberti S (2015) Epigenetic inheritance and the missing heritability. Hum Genomics 9(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-015-0041-3Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trijau M, Asselman J, Armant O, Adam-Guillermin C, De Schamphelaere KAC, Alonzo F (2018) Transgenerational DNA methylation changes in Daphnia magna exposed to chronic γ irradiation. Environ Sci Technol 52(7):4331–4339Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urabe J, Sterner RW (2001) Contrasting effects of different types of resource depletion on life-history traits in Daphnia. Funct Ecol 15:165–174Article 

Google Scholar 
Vandegehuchte MB, Kyndt T, Vanholme B, Haegeman A, Gheysen G, Janssen CR (2009a) Occurrence of DNA methylation in Daphnia magna and influence of multigeneration Cd exposure. Environ Int 35(4):700–706Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vandegehuchte MB, Lemiere F, Janssen CR (2009b) Quantitative DNA-methylation in Daphnia magna and effects of multigeneration Zn exposure. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 150:343–348Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR (2011) Epigenetics and its implications for ecotoxicology. Ecotoxicology 20:607–624Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR (2014) Epigenetics in an ecotoxicological context. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 764–765:36–45Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh MR, La Pierre KJ, Post DM (2014) Phytoplankton composition modifies predator-driven life history evolution in Daphnia. Evol Ecol 28:397–411Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh MR, Cooley F, Biles K, Munch SB (2015) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity within- and across generations: a challenge for theory? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20142205Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.orgWolf JB, Wade MJ (2009) What are maternal effects (and what are they not)? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1520):1107–1115Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaffagnini F (1987) Reproduction in Daphnia. Mem Ist Ital Idrobiol 45:245–284
Google Scholar 
Zhao S, Fernald RD (2005) Comprehensive algorithm for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. J Comput Biol 12(8):1045–1062Article 

Google Scholar  More

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will meet this month to finalize the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the text for the stand-alone target on gender equality (Target 22). This target aims to reshape conservation policy and practice to make them more inclusive, equitable and effective.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More

Pimentel, D. et al. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84, 1–20 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hulme, P. E. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 10–18 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bebber, D. P., Holmes, T. & Gurr, S. J. The global spread of crop pests and pathogens. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1398–1407 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592, 571–576 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McNeely, J. A. As the world gets smaller, the chances of invasion grow. Euphytica 148, 5–15 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seebens, H. et al. Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E2264–E2273 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roques, A. et al. Temporal and interspecific variation in rates of spread for insect species invading Europe during the last 200 years. Biol. Invasions 18, 907–920 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Poorter, M. & Browne, M. The Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and international information exchange: Using global expertise to help in the fight against invasive alien species. Plant Prot. Plant Health Eur. 9–11, 49–54 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Tay, W. T. & Gordon, K. H. J. Going global: Genomic insights into insect invasions. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 31, 123–130 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paini, D. R. et al. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7575–7579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prentis, P. J., Wilson, J. R. U., Dormontt, E. E., Richardson, D. M. & Lowe, A. J. Adaptive evolution in invasive species. Trends Plant Sci. 13, 288–294 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertelsmeier, C. Globalization and the anthropogenic spread of invasive social insects. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 46, 16–23 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawley, M. J. et al. The population biology of invaders. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 314, 711–731 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petren, K. & Case, T. J. An experimental demonstration of exploitation competition in an ongoing invasion. Ecology 77, 118–132 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kowarik, I. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. Plant Invasions Gen. Asp. Spec. Probl. 1, 15–38 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Andrews, K. L. The whorlworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Cent. Am. Neighb. Areas Fla. Entomol. 63, 456–467 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sparks, A. N. A review of the biology of the fall armyworm. Fla. Entomol. 1, 82–87 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westbrook, J. K., Nagoshi, R. N., Meagher, R. L., Fleischer, S. J. & Jairam, S. Modeling seasonal migration of fall armyworm moths. Int. J. Biometeorol. 60, 255–267 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gutiérrez-Moreno, R. et al. Field-evolved resistance of the Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to synthetic insecticides in Puerto Rico and Mexico. J. Econ. Entomol. 112, 792–802 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco, C. A. et al. Susceptibility of isofamilies of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry1Ac and Cry1Fa proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Southw. Entomol. 35, 409–416 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Storer, N. P. et al. Discovery and characterization of field resistance to Bt maize: Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Puerto Rico. J. Econ. Entomol. 103, 1031–1038 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandrasena, D. I. et al. Characterization of field-evolved resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis-derived Cry1F δ-endotoxin in Spodoptera frugiperda populations from Argentina. Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 746–754 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pashley, D. P. Host-associated genetic differentiation in fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): A sibling species complex?. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 79, 898–904 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pashley, D. P. & Martin, J. A. Reproductive incompatibility between host strains of the Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 80, 731–733 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dumas, P. et al. Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) host-plant variants: Two host strains or two distinct species?. Genetica 143, 305–316 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, Y. J., Kochert, G. D., Isenhour, D. J. & Adang, M. J. Molecular characterization of a strain-specific repeated DNA sequence in the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Mol. Biol. 3, 123–130 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pashley, D. P. Host-associated differentiation in armyworms (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): An allozymic and mtDNA perspective. in Electrophoretic Studies on Agricultural Pests, vol. 39, 103–114 (Clarendon Press, 1989).Nagoshi, R. N. The fall armyworm Triosephosphate Isomerase (Tpi) gene as a marker of strain identity and interstrain mating. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 103, 283–292 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dumas, P. et al. Phylogenetic molecular species delimitations unravel potential new species in the pest genus Spodoptera Guenée, 1852 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). PLoS ONE 10, e0122407 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goergen, G., Kumar, P. L., Sankung, S. B., Togola, A. & Tamò, M. First report of outbreaks of the Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new alien invasive pest in West and Central Africa. PLoS ONE 11, e0165632 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Day, R. et al. Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Pest Manag. 28, 196–201 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nuss, E. T. & Tanumihardjo, S. A. Maize: A paramount staple crop in the context of global nutrition. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9, 417–436 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L. et al. Genetic structure and insecticide resistance characteristics of fall armyworm populations invading China. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 1682–1696 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, D. et al. Insecticide resistance monitoring for the invasive populations of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in China. J. Integr. Agric. 20, 783–791 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gui, F. et al. Genomic and transcriptomic analysis unveils population evolution and development of pesticide resistance in fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. Protein Cell 1, 1–19 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schlum, K. A. et al. Whole genome comparisons reveal panmixia among fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) from diverse locations. BMC Genomics 22, 179 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stokstad, E. New crop pest takes Africa at lightning speed. Science 356, 473–474 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagoshi, R. N. et al. The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo. PLoS ONE 16, e0253528 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caniço, A., Mexia, A. & Santos, L. Farmers’ knowledge, perception and management practices of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda Smith) in Manica province, Mozambique. NeoBiota 68, 127 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagoshi, R. N. et al. Comparative molecular analyses of invasive fall armyworm in Togo reveal strong similarities to populations from the eastern United States and the Greater Antilles. PLoS ONE 12, e0181982 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagoshi, R. N., Goergen, G., Plessis, H. D., van den Berg, J. & Meagher, R. Genetic comparisons of fall armyworm populations from 11 countries spanning sub-Saharan Africa provide insights into strain composition and migratory behaviors. Sci. Rep. 9, 8311 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Create your own Custom Map. MapChart https://mapchart.net/index.html.Sharanabasappa, S. et al. First report of the Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Manag. Hortic. Ecosyst. 24, 23–29 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Liu, H. et al. Chromosome level draft genomes of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest in China. BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/671560 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gimenez, S. et al. Adaptation by copy number variation increases insecticide resistance in the fall armyworm. Commun. Biol. 3, 664 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gouin, A. et al. Two genomes of highly polyphagous lepidopteran pests (Spodoptera frugiperda, Noctuidae) with different host-plant ranges. Sci. Rep. 7, 11816 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nam, K. et al. Positive selection alone is sufficient for whole genome differentiation at the early stage of speciation process in the fall armyworm. BMC Evol. Biol. 20, 152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fiteni, E. et al. Host-plant adaptation as a driver of incipient speciation in the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). BMC Ecol. Evol. 22, 133 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tay, W. T. et al. Global population genomic signature of Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) supports complex introduction events across the Old World. Commun. Biol. 5, 1–15 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guan, F. et al. Whole-genome sequencing to detect mutations associated with resistance to insecticides and Bt proteins in Spodoptera frugiperda. Insect Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12838 (2020).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: Recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, W256–W259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cruickshank, T. E. & Hahn, M. W. Reanalysis suggests that genomic islands of speciation are due to reduced diversity, not reduced gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3133–3157 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavlidis, P., Živković, D., Stamatakis, A. & Alachiotis, N. SweeD: likelihood-based detection of selective sweeps in thousands of genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 2224–2234 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charlesworth, B., Morgan, M. T. & Charlesworth, D. The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation. Genetics 134, 1289–1303 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aikio, S., Duncan, R. P. & Hulme, P. E. Lag-phases in alien plant invasions: separating the facts from the artefacts. Oikos 119, 370–378 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morimoto, N., Kiritani, K., Yamamura, K. & Yamanaka, T. Finding indications of lag time, saturation and trading inflow in the emergence record of exotic agricultural insect pests in Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 54, 437–450 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aagaard, K. & Lockwood, J. Exotic birds show lags in population growth. Divers. Distrib. 20, 547–554 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Azzurro, E., Maynou, F., Belmaker, J., Golani, D. & Crooks, J. A. Lag times in Lessepsian fish invasion. Biol. Invasions 18, 2761–2772 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonnell, A. M. & Dang, C. H. Basic review of the cytochrome P450 system. J. Adv. Pract. Oncol. 4, 263–268 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Giraudo, M. et al. Cytochrome P450s from the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): responses to plant allelochemicals and pesticides. Insect Mol. Biol. 24, 115–128 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, W. et al. Multi-faceted epigenetic dysregulation of gene expression promotes esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 11, 3675 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yainna, S. et al. Geographic monitoring of insecticide resistance mutations in native and invasive populations of the Fall Armyworm. Insects 12, 468 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tapadia, M. G. & Lakhotia, S. C. Expression of mdr49 and mdr65 multidrug resistance genes in larval tissues of Drosophila melanogaster under normal and stress conditions. Cell Stress Chaperones 10, 7–11 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, H. et al. Characterization and expression profiling of serine protease inhibitors in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). BMC Genomics 18, 162 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Fouchier, A. et al. Functional evolution of Lepidoptera olfactory receptors revealed by deorphanization of a moth repertoire. Nat. Commun. 8, 15709 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tataroglu, O. & Emery, P. The molecular ticks of the Drosophila circadian clock. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 7, 51–57 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hänniger, S. et al. Genetic basis of allochronic differentiation in the fall armyworm. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 68 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schöfl, G., Heckel, D. G. & Groot, A. T. Time-shifted reproductive behaviours among fall armyworm (Noctuidae: Spodoptera frugiperda) host strains: Evidence for differing modes of inheritance. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1447–1459 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haenniger, S. et al. Sexual communication of Spodoptera frugiperda from West Africa: Adaptation of an invasive species and implications for pest management. Sci. Rep. 10, 2892 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feder, J. L. et al. Genome-wide congealing and rapid transitions across the speciation continuum during speciation with gene flow. J. Hered. 105, 810–820 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schubert, M., Lindgreen, S. & Orlando, L. AdapterRemoval v2: Rapid adapter trimming, identification, and read merging. BMC Res. Notes 9, 88 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKenna, A. et al. The genome analysis toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, Y. & Adang, M. J. Distinguishing fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) strains using a diagnostic mitochondrial DNA marker. Fla. Entomol. 1, 48–55 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meng, G., Li, Y., Yang, C. & Liu, S. MitoZ: A toolkit for animal mitochondrial genome assembly, annotation and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e63–e63 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamura, K. et al. MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 2731–2739 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. Tabix: fast retrieval of sequence features from generic TAB-delimited files. Bioinformatics 27, 718–719 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rentería, M. E., Cortes, A. & Medland, S. E. Using PLINK for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and data analysis. Methods Mol. Biol. 1019, 193–213 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ernst, M. D. Permutation methods: a basis for exact inference. Stat. Sci. 4, 676–685 (2004).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pickrell, J. K. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population splits and mixtures from genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002967 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kergoat, G. J. et al. A novel reference dated phylogeny for the genus Spodoptera Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Noctuinae): New insights into the evolution of a pest-rich genus. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 161, 107161 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lefort, V., Desper, R. & Gascuel, O. FastME 2.0: A comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 2798–2800 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Plotree, D. & Plotgram, D. PHYLIP-phylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5, 163–166 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Nelson, D. R. The cytochrome p450 homepage. Hum. Genomics 4, 1–7 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., Macdonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frieler, K. et al. Understanding the weather signal in national crop-yield variability. Earths Future 5, 605–616 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, E. et al. The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 054010 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zscheischler, J. et al. A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 333–347 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ridder, N. N., Ukkola, A. M., Pitman, A. J. & Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E. Increased occurrence of high impact compound events under climate change. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 5, 3 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lesk, C. & Anderson, W. Decadal variability modulates trends in concurrent heat and drought over global croplands. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 055024 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarhadi, A., Ausín, M. C., Wiper, M. P., Touma, D. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Multidimensional risk in a nonstationary climate: joint probability of increasingly severe warm and dry conditions. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau3487 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B., Bänziger, M., Magorokosho, C. & Vivek, B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 42–45 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossiord, C. et al. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol. 226, 1550–1566 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buckley, T. N. How do stomata respond to water status? New Phytol. 224, 21–36 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, D. G., Gentine, P., Seneviratne, S. I. & Teuling, A. J. Land–atmospheric feedbacks during droughts and heatwaves: state of the science and current challenges. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1436, 19–35 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, B. & Seneviratne, S. I. Hot days induced by precipitation deficits at the global scale. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12398–12403 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, I., Zandalinas, S. I., Huck, C., Fritschi, F. B. & Mittler, R. Meta-analysis of drought and heat stress combination impact on crop yield and yield components. Physiol. Plant 171, 66–76 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostmeyer, T. et al. Impacts of heat, drought, and their interaction with nutrients on physiology, grain yield, and quality in field crops. Plant Physiol. Rep. 25, 549–568 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matiu, M., Ankerst, D. P. & Menzel, A. Interactions between temperature and drought in global and regional crop yield variability during 1961–2014. PLoS ONE 12, e0178339 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheff, J., Mankin, J. S., Coats, S. & Liu, H. CO2-plant effects do not account for the gap between dryness indices and projected dryness impacts in CMIP6 or CMIP5. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034018 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ukkola, A. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Roderick, M. L., Abramowitz, G. & Pitman, A. J. Robust future changes in meteorological drought in CMIP6 projections despite uncertainty in precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087820 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allan, R. P. et al. Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1472, 49–75 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ault, T. R. On the essentials of drought in a changing climate. Science 368, 256–260 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fowler, H. J. et al. Anthropogenic intensification of short-duration rainfall extremes. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 107–122 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, C. et al. Understanding and managing connected extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 611–621 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, G. et al. Closing the global ozone yield gap: quantification and cobenefits for multistress tolerance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 4869–4893 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pandey, P., Irulappan, V., Bagavathiannan, M. V. & Senthil-Kumar, M. Impact of combined abiotic and biotic stresses on plant growth and avenues for crop improvement by exploiting physio-morphological traits. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 537 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Couasnon, A. et al. Measuring compound flood potential from river discharge and storm surge extremes at the global scale. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 489–504 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen, L. T. T. et al. Flooding and prolonged drought have differential legacy impacts on soil nitrogen cycling, microbial communities and plant productivity. Plant Soil 431, 371–387 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Medrano, H., Escalona, J. M., Bota, J., Gulías, J. & Flexas, J. Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Ann. Bot. 89, 895–905 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scafaro, A. P. et al. Responses of leaf respiration to heatwaves. Plant Cell Environ. 44, 2090–2101 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Atkin, O. K. & Tjoelker, M. G. Thermal acclimation and the dynamic response of plant respiration to temperature. Trends Plant Sci. 8, 343–351 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lukac, M., Gooding, M. J., Griffiths, S. & Jones, H. E. Asynchronous flowering and within-plant flowering diversity in wheat and the implications for crop resilience to heat. Ann. Bot. 109, 843–850 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coast, O., Murdoch, A. J., Ellis, R. H., Hay, F. R. & Jagadish, K. S. V. Resilience of rice (Oryza spp.) pollen germination and tube growth to temperature stress. Plant. Cell Environ. 39, 26–37 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., Delucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14628 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, L. X. et al. How does the waterlogging regime affect crop yield? A global meta-analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 634898 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langan, P. et al. Phenotyping for waterlogging tolerance in crops: current trends and future prospects. J. Exp. Bot. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erac243 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tong, C. et al. Opportunities for improving waterlogging tolerance in cereal crops — physiological traits and genetic mechanisms. Plants 10, 1560 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colmer, T. D., Cox, M. C. H. & Voesenek, L. A. C. J. Root aeration in rice (Oryza sativa): evaluation of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene as possible regulators of root acclimatizations. New Phytol. 170, 767–778 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hattori, Y. et al. The ethylene response factors SNORKEL1 and SNORKEL2 allow rice to adapt to deep water. Nature 460, 1026–1030 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prasad, P. V. V., Pisipati, S. R., Momčilović, I. & Ristic, Z. Independent and combined effects of high temperature and drought stress during grain filling on plant yield and chloroplast EF-Tu expression in spring wheat. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 197, 430–441 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suzuki, N., Rivero, R. M., Shulaev, V., Blumwald, E. & Mittler, R. Abiotic and biotic stress combinations. New Phytol. 203, 32–43 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hussain, H. A. et al. Interactive effects of drought and heat stresses on morpho-physiological attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and oxidative status in maize hybrids. Sci. Rep. 9, 3890 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mittler, R. Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 15–19 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choudhury, F. K., Rivero, R. M., Blumwald, E. & Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species, abiotic stress and stress combination. Plant J. 90, 856–867 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Der Wiel, K., Selten, F. M., Bintanja, R., Blackport, R. & Screen, J. A. Ensemble climate-impact modelling: extreme impacts from moderate meteorological conditions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034050 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, C. E. et al. The effect of increasing temperature on crop photosynthesis: from enzymes to ecosystems. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 2822–2844 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahad, S. et al. Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1147 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zandalinas, S. I., Fritschi, F. B. & Mittler, R. Signal transduction networks during stress combination. J. Exp. Bot. 71, 1734–1741 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H. & Sonnewald, U. Differences and commonalities of plant responses to single and combined stresses. Plant J. 90, 839–855 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zscheischler, J. & Seneviratne, S. I. Dependence of drivers affects risks associated with compound events. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700263 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horton, R. M., Mankin, J. S., Lesk, C., Coffel, E. & Raymond, C. A review of recent advances in research on extreme heat events. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2, 242–259 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trenberth, K. E. & Shea, D. J. Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L14703 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, D. G., Teuling, A. J., Van Heerwaarden, C. C. & De Arellano, J. V. G. Mega-heatwave temperatures due to combined soil desiccation and atmospheric heat accumulation. Nat. Geosci. 7, 345–349 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, A. et al. Land–atmosphere feedbacks amplify aridity increase over land under global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 869–874 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koster, R. D., Chang, Y., Wang, H. & Schubert, S. D. Impacts of local soil moisture anomalies on the atmospheric circulation and on remote surface meteorological fields during boreal summer: a comprehensive analysis over North America. J. Clim. 29, 7345–7364 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. et al. Soil moisture–atmosphere feedbacks mitigate declining water availability in drylands. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 38–44 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, A., Lintner, B., Findell, K. & Giannini, A. Soil moisture influence on seasonality and large-scale circulation in simulations of the West African monsoon. J. Clim. 30, 2295–2317 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lesk, C. et al. Stronger temperature–moisture couplings exacerbate the impact of climate warming on global crop yields. Nat. Food 2, 683–691 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, Z. et al. Revisiting the contribution of transpiration to global terrestrial evapotranspiration. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 2792–2801 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lian, X. et al. Partitioning global land evapotranspiration using CMIP5 models constrained by observations. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 640–646 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teuling, A. J. et al. Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nat. Geosci. 3, 722–727 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, C. et al. Increasing spatiotemporal proximity of heat and precipitation extremes in a warming world quantified by a large model ensemble. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 035005 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, C. et al. On the controlling factors for globally extreme humid heat. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL096082 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Speizer, S., Raymond, C., Ivanovich, C. & Horton, R. M. Concentrated and intensifying humid heat extremes in the IPCC AR6 regions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL097261 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ning, G. et al. Rising risks of compound extreme heat‐precipitation events in China. Int. J. Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7561 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiery, W. et al. Warming of hot extremes alleviated by expanding irrigation. Nat. Commun. 11, 290 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, N. D. et al. Global relationships between cropland intensification and summer temperature extremes over the last 50 years. J. Clim. 30, 7505–7528 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Kage, H. & Graß, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield — on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, D. et al. Distinct influences of land cover and land management on seasonal climate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 12017–12039 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luan, X. & Vico, G. Canopy temperature and heat stress are increased by compound high air temperature and water stress and reduced by irrigation — a modeling analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 1411–1423 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siebert, S., Webber, H., Zhao, G. & Ewert, F. Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054023 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sinha, R. et al. Differential regulation of flower transpiration during abiotic stress in annual plants. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18162 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, Y., Lee, E. & Mankin, J. S. Seasonal tropospheric cooling in Northeast China associated with cropland expansion. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034032 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alter, R. E., Douglas, H. C., Winter, J. M. & Eltahir, E. A. B. Twentieth century regional climate change during the summer in the Central United States attributed to agricultural intensification. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1586–1594 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez, B., Rasmussen, A. & Porter, J. R. Temperatures and the growth and development of maize and rice: a review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 408–417 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prasad, P. V. V., Bheemanahalli, R. & Jagadish, S. V. K. Field crops and the fear of heat stress — opportunities, challenges and future directions. Field Crops Res. 200, 114–121 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schauberger, B. et al. Consistent negative response of US crops to high temperatures in observations and crop models. Nat. Commun. 8, 13931 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 497–501 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sadok, W. & Jagadish, S. V. K. The hidden costs of nighttime warming on yields. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 644–651 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Troy, T. J., Kipgen, C. & Pal, I. The impact of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 054013 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, B. I., Shukla, S. P., Puma, M. J. & Nazarenko, L. S. Irrigation as an historical climate forcing. Clim. Dyn. 44, 1715–1730 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. Quantifying irrigation cooling benefits to maize yield in the US Midwest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 3065–3078 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Entekhabi, B. D. et al. The Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP). IEEE Proc. 98, 704–716 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Wang, H., Carrillo, C. M. & Ault, T. R. Unpacking the climatic drivers of US agricultural yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 064003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rigden, A. J., Mueller, N. D., Holbrook, N. M., Pillai, N. & Huybers, P. Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nat. Food 1, 127–133 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proctor, J., Rigden, A., Chan, D. & Huybers, P. Accurate specification of water availability shows its importance for global crop production. Preprint at EarthArXiv https://doi.org/10.31223/X5ZS7P (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, E. K., Melkonian, J., Riha, S. J. & Shaw, S. B. Separating heat stress from moisture stress: analyzing yield response to high temperature in irrigated maize. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 094012 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamed, R., Van Loon, A. F., Aerts, J. & Coumou, D. Impacts of compound hot-dry extremes on US soybean yields. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12, 1371–1391 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, S., Hao, Z., Zhang, X. & Hao, F. Probabilistic evaluation of the impact of compound dry-hot events on global maize yields. Sci. Total Environ. 689, 1228–1234 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haqiqi, I., Grogan, D. S., Hertel, T. W. & Schlenker, W. Quantifying the impacts of compound extremes on agriculture. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 551–564 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, P., Zhuang, Q., Archontoulis, S. V., Bernacchi, C. & Müller, C. Dissecting the nonlinear response of maize yield to high temperature stress with model-data integration. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 2470–2484 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Z. et al. Do maize models capture the impacts of heat and drought stresses on yield? Using algorithm ensembles to identify successful approaches. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 3112–3126 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filipa Silva Ribeiro, A., Russo, A., Gouveia, C. M., Páscoa, P. & Zscheischler, J. Risk of crop failure due to compound dry and hot extremes estimated with nested copulas. Biogeosciences 17, 4815–4830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hsiao, J., Swann, A. L. S. & Kim, S. H. Maize yield under a changing climate: the hidden role of vapor pressure deficit. Agric. For. Meteorol. 279, 107692 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heinicke, S., Frieler, K., Jägermeyr, J. & Mengel, M. Global gridded crop models underestimate yield responses to droughts and heatwaves. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 044026 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, B. I. et al. Twenty-first century drought projections in the CMIP6 forcing scenarios. Earths Future 8, e2019EF001461 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, Y., Hu, X., Xu, W., Fang, J. & Shi, P. Increased probability and severity of compound dry and hot growing seasons over world’s major croplands. Sci. Total Environ. 824, 153885 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Y. et al. Global observations and CMIP6 simulations of compound extremes of monthly temperature and precipitation. GeoHealth 5, e2021GH000390 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Hao, Z., Zhang, X. & Hao, F. Anthropogenically forced increases in compound dry and hot events at the global and continental scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024018 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y., Liao, Z., Shi, Y., Tian, Y. & Zhai, P. Detectable increases in sequential flood-heatwave events across China during 1961–2018. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL092549 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Raymond, C., Matthews, T. & Horton, R. M. The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw1838 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, M. M. et al. Regional amplification of projected changes in extreme temperatures strongly controlled by soil moisture–temperature feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1511–1519 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia-Herrera, R., Díaz, J., Trigo, R. M., Luterbacher, J. & Fischer, E. M. A review of the European summer heat wave of 2003. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 267–306 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wegren, S. Food security and Russia’s 2010 drought. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 52, 140–156 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christian, J. I., Basara, J. B., Hunt, E. D., Otkin, J. A. & Xiao, X. Flash drought development and cascading impacts associated with the 2010 Russian heatwave. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094078 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glotter, M. & Elliott, J. Simulating US agriculture in a modern Dust Bowl drought. Nat. Plants 3, 16193 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, X., Wang, L. & Wood, E. F. Anthropogenic intensification of southern African flash droughts as exemplified by the 2015/16 season. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99, S86–S90 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ben-Ari, T. et al. Causes and implications of the unforeseen 2016 extreme yield loss in the breadbasket of France. Nat. Commun. 9, 1627 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gampe, D. et al. Increasing impact of warm droughts on northern ecosystem productivity over recent decades. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 772–779 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iizumi, T. & Ramankutty, N. Changes in yield variability of major crops for 1981–2010 explained by climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brás, T. A., Seixas, J., Carvalhais, N. & Jagermeyr, J. Severity of drought and heatwave crop losses tripled over the last five decades in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 065012 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B., Deines, J. M. & Di Tommaso, S. Changes in the drought sensitivity of US maize yields. Nat. Food 1, 729–735 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5 °C. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376, 20160450 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfleiderer, P., Schleussner, C. F., Kornhuber, K. & Coumou, D. Summer weather becomes more persistent in a 2 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 666–671 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mankin, J. S., Seager, R., Smerdon, J. E., Cook, B. I. & Williams, A. P. Mid-latitude freshwater availability reduced by projected vegetation responses to climate change. Nat. Geosci. 12, 983–988 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai, A., Zhao, T. & Chen, J. Climate change and drought: a precipitation and evaporation perspective. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 4, 301–312 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9326–9331 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lesk, C., Coffel, E. & Horton, R. Net benefits to US soy and maize yields from intensifying hourly rainfall. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 819–822 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulart, H. M. D., Van Der Wiel, K., Folberth, C., Balkovic, J. & Van Den Hurk, B. Weather-induced crop failure events under climate change: a storyline approach. Earth Syst. Dyn. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-40 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franke, J. A. et al. Agricultural breadbaskets shift poleward given adaptive farmer behavior under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 167–181 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jägermeyr, J. et al. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food 2, 873–885 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waha, K. et al. Multiple cropping systems of the world and the potential for increasing cropping intensity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 64, 102131 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, T., Fonseca De Lima, C. F. & De Smet, I. The heat is on: how crop growth, development, and yield respond to high temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 7359–7373 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Lizaso, J. I. et al. Impact of high temperatures in maize: phenology and yield components. Field Crops Res. 216, 129–140 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezaei, E. E., Siebert, S. & Ewert, F. Intensity of heat stress in winter wheat — phenology compensates for the adverse effect of global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 024012 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, K. et al. Climate change shifts forward flowering and reduces crop waterlogging stress. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 094017 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bagley, J. et al. The influence of photosynthetic acclimation to rising CO2 and warmer temperatures on leaf and canopy photosynthesis models. Global Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004848 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hossain, M. A. et al. Heat or cold priming-induced cross-tolerance to abiotic stresses in plants: key regulators and possible mechanisms. Protoplasma 255, 399–412 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolz, K. J., Wertin, T. M., Abordo, M., Wang, D. & Leakey, A. D. B. Diversity in stomatal function is integral to modelling plant carbon and water fluxes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1292–1298 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. 30 years of free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): what have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation? Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 27–49 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toreti, A. et al. Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated CO2 on crops. Nat. Food 1, 775–782 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers, S. S. et al. Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health 38, 259–277 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skinner, C. B., Poulsen, C. J. & Mankin, J. S. Amplification of heat extremes by plant CO2 physiological forcing. Nat. Commun. 9, 1094 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Houshmandfar, A., Fitzgerald, G. J., Armstrong, R., Macabuhay, A. A. & Tausz, M. Modelling stomatal conductance of wheat: an assessment of response relationships under elevated CO2. Agric. For. Meteorol. 214–215, 117–123 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chavan, S. G., Duursma, R. A., Tausz, M. & Ghannoum, O. Elevated CO2 alleviates the negative impact of heat stress on wheat physiology but not on grain yield. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 6447–6459 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gray, S. B. et al. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean. Nat. Plants 2, 16132 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coffel, E. D. et al. Future hot and dry years worsen Nile basin water scarcity despite projected precipitation increases. Earths Future 7, 967–977 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mishra, V., Thirumalai, K., Singh, D. & Aadhar, S. Future exacerbation of hot and dry summer monsoon extremes in India. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 3, 10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bevacqua, E., Zappa, G., Lehner, F. & Zscheischler, J. Precipitation trends determine future occurrences of compound hot–dry events. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 350–355 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seager, R. et al. Climate variability and change of Mediterranean-type climates. J. Clim. 32, 2887–2915 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, M. M., Hauser, M. & Seneviratne, S. I. Projected changes in hot, dry and wet extreme events’ clusters in CMIP6 multi-model ensemble. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094021 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. et al. Land–atmosphere feedbacks exacerbate concurrent soil drought and atmospheric aridity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 18848–18853 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, M. P. Amplified warming of extreme temperatures over tropical land. Nat. Geosci. 14, 837–841 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDermid, S. S. et al. Disentangling the regional climate impacts of competing vegetation responses to elevated atmospheric CO2. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 126, e2020JD034108 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swann, A. L. S., Hoffman, F. M., Koven, C. D. & Randerson, J. T. Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10019–10024 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, H., Fowler, H. J., Lenderink, G., Lewis, E. & Pritchard, D. Consistent large-scale response of hourly extreme precipitation to temperature variation over land. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090317 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M., Liu, C., Ikeda, K. & Prein, A. F. A new mechanism for warm-season precipitation response to global warming based on convection-permitting simulations. Clim. Dyn. 55, 343–368 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fishman, R. More uneven distributions overturn benefits of higher precipitation for crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 024004 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shortridge, J. Observed trends in daily rainfall variability result in more severe climate change impacts to agriculture. Clim. Chang. 157, 429–444 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guan, K., Sultan, B., Biasutti, M., Baron, C. & Lobell, D. B. What aspects of future rainfall changes matter for crop yields in West Africa? Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8001–8010 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, M. P. & O’Gorman, P. A. Trends in continental temperature and humidity directly linked to ocean warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 4863–4868 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coffel, E. D., Horton, R. M. & De Sherbinin, A. Temperature and humidity based projections of a rapid rise in global heat stress exposure during the 21st century. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014001 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matthews, T. Humid heat and climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 42, 391–405 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinnon, K. A. & Poppick, A. Estimating changes in the observed relationship between humidity and temperature using noncrossing quantile smoothing splines. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 25, 292–314 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parsons, L. A. et al. Global labor loss due to humid heat exposure underestimated for outdoor workers. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 014050 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ridder, N. N., Pitman, A. J. & Ukkola, A. M. Do CMIP6 climate models simulate global or regional compound events skillfully? Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091152 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, Z., Aghakouchak, A. & Phillips, T. J. Changes in concurrent monthly precipitation and temperature extremes. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034014 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, B. & Soden, B. J. Constraining climate model projections of regional precipitation change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 10522–10531 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nat. Commun. 3, 1293 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butler, E. E., Mueller, N. D. & Huybers, P. Peculiarly pleasant weather for US maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11935–11940 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lombardozzi, D. L. et al. Simulating agriculture in the Community Land Model Version 5. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005529 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Puma, M. J. & Cook, B. I. Effects of irrigation on global climate during the 20th century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 115, D16120 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coffel, E. D., Lesk, C., Winter, J. M., Osterberg, E. C. & Mankin, J. S. Crop–climate feedbacks boost US maize and soy yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024012 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, N. D. et al. Cooling of US Midwest summer temperature extremes from cropland intensification. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 317–322 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaveri, E. & B. Lobell, D. The role of irrigation in changing wheat yields and heat sensitivity in India. Nat. Commun. 10, 4144 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeLucia, E. H. et al. Are we approaching a water ceiling to maize yields in the United States? Ecosphere 10, e02773 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, B. I. et al. Divergent regional climate consequences of maintaining current irrigation rates in the 21st century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD031814 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tigchelaar, M., Battisti, D. S., Naylor, R. L. & Ray, D. K. Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6644–6649 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, W. et al. Future climate change significantly alters interannual wheat yield variability over half of harvested areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 094045 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Global irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield. Nat. Commun. 12, 1235 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosa, L., Chiarelli, D. D., Rulli, M. C., Dell’Angelo, J. & D’Odorico, P. Global agricultural economic water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz6031 (2020).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Livneh, B. & Badger, A. M. Drought less predictable under declining future snowpack. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 452–458 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jägermeyr, J. et al. Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 025002 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosa, L. et al. Potential for sustainable irrigation expansion in a 3 °C warmer climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 29526–29534 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & Van Beek, L. P. H. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhattarai, N. et al. The impact of groundwater depletion on agricultural production in India. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 085003 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nie, W. et al. Irrigation water demand sensitivity to climate variability across the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 57, e2020WR027738 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, W.-Y. et al. Divergent effects of climate change on future groundwater availability in key mid-latitude aquifers. Nat. Commun. 11, 3710 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jain, M. et al. Groundwater depletion will reduce cropping intensity in India. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd2849 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kerr, R. B., Hasegawa, T. & Lasco, R. Food, fibre and other ecosystem products. In IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report 11–13 Ch. 5 (IPCC, 2022).Zandalinas, S. I. & Mittler, R. Plant responses to multifactorial stress combination. New Phytol. 234, 1161–1167 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, C. B. et al. Bundling innovations to transform agri-food systems. Nat. Sustain. 3, 974–976 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, B. & Guan, K. Harmonizing climate-smart and sustainable agriculture. Nat. Food 2, 853–854 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zabel, F. et al. Large potential for crop production adaptation depends on available future varieties. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 3870–3882 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Challinor, A. J., Koehler, A.-K., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Whitfield, S. & Das, B. Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 954–958 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, E. & Meyer, R. Climate Change, Climate Extremes, and Global Food Production — Adaptation in the Agricultural Sector. Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate Change (Elsevier Inc., 2018).Lal, R. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 5, 212–222 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, K. F., Downs, S. & Gephart, J. A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2, 54–65 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldos, U. L. C. & Hertel, T. W. The role of international trade in managing food security risks from climate change. Food Secur. 7, 275–290 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deguines, N. et al. Large-scale trade-off between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 212–217 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vyas, S., Dalhaus, T., Kropff, M., Aggarwal, P. & Meuwissen, M. P. M. Mapping global research on agricultural insurance. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 103003 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hazell, P. & Varangis, P. Best practices for subsidizing agricultural insurance. Glob. Food Sec. 25, 100326 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Funk, C. et al. Recognizing the famine early warning systems network over 30 years of drought early warning science advances and partnerships promoting global food security. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1011–1027 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reichstein, M., Riede, F. & Frank, D. More floods, fires and cyclones — plan for domino effects on sustainability goals. Nature 592, 347–349 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, C. et al. Exploring uncertainties in global crop yield projections in a large ensemble of crop models and CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034040 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, Z., Hao, F., Xia, Y., Singh, V. P. & Zhang, X. A monitoring and prediction system for compound dry and hot events. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 114034 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benami, E. et al. Uniting remote sensing, crop modelling and economics for agricultural risk management. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 140–159 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Famine Early Warning System Network. East Africa seasonal monitor. FEWS https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/EAST_AFRICA_Seasonal_Monitor_20_May_2022_1.pdf (2022).Becker-Reshef, I. et al. The GEOGLAM crop monitor for AMIS: assessing crop conditions in the context of global markets. Glob. Food Sec. 23, 173–181 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
GEOGLAM Crop Monitor. Special report: unprecedented 4th consecutive poor rainfall season for the Horn of Africa. Crop Monitor https://cropmonitor.org/documents/SPECIAL/reports/Special_Report_20220523_East_Africa.pdf (2022).Geange, S. R. et al. The thermal tolerance of photosynthetic tissues: a global systematic review and agenda for future research. New Phytol. 229, 2497–2513 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reynolds, M. P. et al. Harnessing translational research in wheat for climate resilience. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 5134–5157 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Makondo, C. C. & Thomas, D. S. G. Climate change adaptation: linking indigenous knowledge with western science for effective adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 88, 83–91 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharafi, L., Zarafshani, K., Keshavarz, M., Azadi, H. & Van Passel, S. Farmers’ decision to use drought early warning system in developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 758, 142761 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, K. Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral — A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution. Res. Policy 45, 1185–1194 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glauber, J., Baldwin, K., Antón, J. & Ziebinska, U. Design principles for agricultural risk management policies. OECD Food Agric. Fish. Pap. https://doi.org/10.1787/1048819f-en (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Annan, F. & Schlenker, W. Federal crop insurance and the disincentive to adapt to extreme heat. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 262–266 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deryugina, T. & Konar, M. Impacts of crop insurance on water withdrawals for irrigation. Adv. Water Resour. 110, 437–444 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agrimonti, C., Lauro, M. & Visioli, G. Smart agriculture for food quality: facing climate change in the 21st century. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61, 971–981 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sloat, L. L. et al. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nat. Commun. 11, 1243 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Willmott, C. J. & Matsuura, K. Terrestrial Air Temperature and Precipitation: Monthly and Annual Time Series (1950–1999). University of Delaware http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/README.ghcn_ts.html (2000).Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations — the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int. J. Clim. 34, 623–642 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G. & Wood, E. F. Development of a 50-year high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modeling. J. Clim. 19, 3088–3111 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beyer, R. M., Hua, F., Martin, P. A., Manica, A. & Rademacher, T. Relocating croplands could drastically reduce the environmental impacts of global food production. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 49 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Pristine ecosystems such as mangrove forests protect against the effects of climate change.Credit: Karine Aigner/Nature Picture Library

The Paris climate agreement, signed in December 2015, ranks as one of the most momentous global treaties ever negotiated, setting a crucial goal to seek to limit warming to 1.5–2 °C above pre-industrial levels. At the time, the opening ceremony of the COP21 climate-change conference that led to the agreement also held the record for the largest number of world leaders ever to attend a United Nations event in a single day — more than 150. The two things are probably more than coincidence.Now biodiversity is hoping for its Paris moment. The long-delayed COP15 conference, starting on 7 December in Montreal, Canada, aims to seal a bold new international deal committing countries to precise targets to curb species loss and to protect and restore nature.Many factors suggest the time is ripe. The problem of biodiversity loss is more prominent than ever before. As ecologist Sandra Díaz wrote in Nature last week, researchers have assembled the strongest evidence base yet ahead of COP15, the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (S. Díaz Nature 612, 9; 2022). Initiatives such as the Dasgupta Review, commissioned by the UK government, have made plain that the protection of biodiversity is an economic necessity.
COP15 biodiversity plan risks being alarmingly diluted
There is also much greater public awareness of how pollution and habitat destruction threaten the health of ecosystems on which we depend for food, clean water and disease prevention, and a better understanding of nature’s crucial role in mitigating climate change — for example, by storing carbon in soils and trees — as well as in helping us to adapt to its impacts. Mangrove forests, for instance, are hugely effective in stopping influxes of seawater from tsunamis and sea-level rise.But when it comes to getting stalled negotiations motoring again, the scale of support by world leaders that was a feature of climate’s road to Paris is currently lacking.Change cannot come too soon. Nature is on the brink. Of 20 decadal targets to preserve nature that were set in Aichi, Japan, in 2010, not a single one had been fully met by 2020. That, coupled with underfunding and lack of regard for the rights of Indigenous peoples who steward much of the world’s remaining biodiversity, means more species than ever are at risk of extinction. Serious impacts on human wealth and health from biodiversity loss loom ever larger. Yet over the past three years, four difficult rounds of negotiations aiming to agree on a framework to replace Aichi have not yielded results. Hundreds of issues remain unresolved.
COVID delays are frustrating the world’s plans to save biodiversity
Many experts worry that the lacklustre progress made at COP27, the climate summit held last month in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, augur badly for the biodiversity meeting. But there is also reason for hope. The agreement made at COP27 to establish a ‘loss and damage’ fund to compensate low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for climate impacts indicates that richer nations are open to talking about funding, which has also been a major sticking point in biodiversity negotiations.Global funding for biodiversity is severely in the red. A UN estimate published last week suggests that only US$154 billion per year flows to ‘nature-based solutions’ from all sources, including government aid and private investment — a number the UN says needs to triple by 2030. Many LMICs — which are home to much of the world’s remaining biodiversity — would like rich nations to put fresh finance into a new multilateral fund. One option is that such a fund could compensate LMICs for bio-diversity loss and associated damages driven by the consumption of products in rich nations through international trade.A second major sticking point is how to fairly and equitably share the benefits of digital sequence information — genetic data collected from plants, animals and other organisms. Communities in biodiversity-rich regions where genetic material is collected have little control over the commercialization of the data, and no way to recoup financial or other benefits. A multipurpose fund for bio-diversity could provide a simple and effective way to share the benefits of these data and support other conservation needs of LMICs.Another reason to hope for a breakthrough is the forthcoming change in Brazil’s leadership. Conservation organizations such as the wildlife charity WWF have accused the world’s most biodiverse nation of deliberately obstructing previous negotiations, holding up agreement on targets such as protecting at least 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030. But Brazil’s incoming president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has signalled that the environment is one of his top priorities. Although he does not take over until January 2023, he is thought to be sending an interim team of negotiators to Montreal.
Crucial biodiversity summit will go ahead in Canada, not China: what scientists think
All negotiators face a Herculean task to get a deal over the line at COP15, with many issues in the text still unresolved and contested. What’s needed above all is global leadership to empower national negotiators to reach a strong deal, including a new fund of some kind for biodiversity. More than 90 heads of state and heads of government have signed a pledge to tackle the nature crisis. At the time of writing, only Justin Trudeau, the host nation’s prime minster, has confirmed that he is to attend in person.The no-shows send the wrong signal. It’s also true at the time of writing that neither Canada nor China — the original intended host of COP15 and still the meeting’s chair — has issued formal invitations. But leaders have regularly attended climate COPs for more than a decade. This shows in the ambition of climate agreements, if not in their implementation. Research communities and civil society must continue to pressure leaders to engage similarly with the biodiversity agenda. Otherwise, the world risks failing to grasp this opportunity to secure the kind of ambitious deal that nature — and humanity — desperately needs. More

Fossil record of insectsWe compiled all species-level fossil occurrences of insects using https://paleobiodb.org/ (PBDB) as a starting point (downloaded October 12, 2021). The dataset obtained from PBDB contained initially 5808 occurrences for a period ranging from the Asselian to the Rhaetian. The dataset was cleaned of synonyms, outdated combinations, nomina dubia, and other erroneous and doubtful records, based on revisions provided in the literature and/or on the expertise of the authors. After correction, including data addition from the literature, our dataset was composed of 3636 species (1784 genera, and 418 families) for 17,250 occurrences resulting from an in-depth study and curation of the entire bibliography of fossil insects, spanning from the Asselian (lowermost Permian) to the Rhaetian (uppermost Triassic). Although most of the taxa included in the datasets are nominal taxa (published and named), a few unnamed taxa (genera or species) that are considered separate from others were also included, although not formally named in the literature or not published yet. These unpublished taxa are identifiable by the notation ‘fam. nov.’ or ‘gen. nov.’ following their names.Occurrences used here are specimens originating from a given stratigraphic horizon assigned to a given taxon. The age of each occurrence is based on data from PBDB, corrected with a more precise age (generally stage, sometimes substage), and the age of each time bin boundaries relies on the stratigraphic framework proposed in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (updated to correspond with the ICS 2022/0295). Similarly, the ages of some species assigned to the wrong stage were corrected. In fact, some species from the French Permian deposit of Lodève were initially considered to be of Artinskian age in PBDB but most species from this deposit originate from the Merifons member, which is of Kungurian age96.Our data compilation allows a robust integration of data before and after our period of interest (i.e. the lower Permian and all geologic stages after the Carnian) to encompass occurrences of genera that may survive until the Late Triassic and to generate a sufficient background for the model to correctly estimate the extinction events around the P/T boundary. Since we used different datasets, the differences between genus-level or family-level occurrence numbers are explained by the systematic placement of some specimens that can only be placed confidently in a family but not in a genus (Supplementary Table 1). Tentative species identifications originally placed with uncertainty (reported as ‘aff.’ or ‘?’) were always included at a higher taxonomic level. Uncertain generic attributions were integrated as occurrences at the family level (e.g. a fossil initially considered Tupus? is recorded as an occurrence of Meganeuridae). Our total dataset was subdivided into smaller datasets, which represent orders or other subclades of insects (e.g. Mecoptera, Holometabola and Polyneoptera). Note that all the ichnospecies—a species name assigned to trace fossils (e.g. resting trace, nest and leaf damage)— and insect eggs (e.g. Clavapartus latus, Furcapartus exilis and Monilipartus tenuis) were not included in the analyses97. To prevent potential issues regarding the diversification estimates for clades with poor delineation, we refrained from analysing several orders that serve as taxonomic ‘wastebaskets’ (e.g. Grylloblattodea). These groups are poorly defined, likely polyphyletic or paraphyletic, and not supported by apomorphic characters—e.g. the monophyly of the ‘Grylloblattodea’ (Grylloblattida Walker, 1914 plus numerous fossil families and genera of uncertain affinities) is not supported by any synapomorphy, nor the relationships within this group. The occurrences assigned to these orders were rather included in analyses conducted at a higher taxonomic level (at the Polyneoptera level in the case of the ‘Grylloblattodea’). The detail of the composition of all the datasets is given in Supplementary Table 14, and each dataset is available in Supplementary Data 1.Studying extinction should, when possible, rely on species-level diversity to better circumscribe extinction events at this taxonomic rank, which is primarily affected by extinction98,99,100. However, in palaeoentomology, species-level occurrence data may contain less information than genus-level data, mainly because species are most of the time only known from one deposit, resulting in reduced life span, and are also sometimes poorly defined. Insects are also less prone to long-lasting genera or species than other lineages, maybe because of the relatively short time between generations (allowing for rapid evolution) or because morphological characters are better preserved or more diagnostic than in other lineages (i.e. wing venation), allowing easier differentiation. Another argument for the use of genus-level datasets is the possibility to add occurrences represented by fossils that cannot be assigned at the species level because of poor preservation or an insufficient number of specimens/available characters. By extension, the genus life span provides clues as to survivor taxa and times of origination during periods of post-extinction or recovery. A genus encompassing extinction events indicates that at least one species of this genus crossed the extinction. To get the best signal and infer a robust pattern of insect dynamics around the P/T events, we have chosen to analyse our dataset at different taxonomic ranks (e.g. genus, family and order levels) to extract as much evidence as possible.To further support our choice to work at these different levels, most recent works aiming to decipher the diversification and extinction in insect lineages have worked using a combination of analyses21,22,26; this also applies to non-insect clades51,101,102. This multi-level approach should maximise our understanding of the Permo–Triassic events.Assessing optimal parameters and preliminary testsPrior to choosing the settings for the final analyses (see detail in Dynamics of origination and extinction), a series of tests were carried out to better evaluate the convergence of our analyses. First, we analysed our genus-level dataset with PyRate36 running for 10 million generations and sampling every 10,000 generations, on ten randomly replicated datasets using the reversible-jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo (RJMCMC) model37 and the parameters of PyRate set by default. As the convergence was too low, new settings were used, notably increasing the number of generations to 50 million generations and monitoring the MCMC mixing and effective sample size (ESS) each 10 million generations. We modified the minimal interval between two shifts (-min_dt option, testing 0.5, 1.5 and 2), and found no major difference in diversification patterns between our tests. We have opted for 50 million generations with a predefined time frame set for bins corresponding to the Permian and Triassic stages, and a minimum interval between two shifts of two Ma. These parameters allow for maintaining a short bin frame and high convergence values while correctly identifying periods of diversification and extinction. For each analysis, ten datasets were generated using the extract.ages function to randomly resample the age of fossil occurrences within their respective temporal ranges (i.e. resampled ages are randomly drawn between the minimum and the maximum ages of the geological stratum). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 after excluding the first 10% of the samples as a burn-in period. The parameters are considered convergent when their ESS are greater than 200.Dynamics of origination and extinctionWe carried out the analyses of the fossil datasets based on the Bayesian framework implemented in the programme PyRate36. We analysed the fossil datasets under two models: the birth–death model with constrained shifts (BDCS38) and the RJMCMC (-A 4 option37). These models allow for a simultaneous estimate for each taxon: (1) the parameters of the preservation process (Supplementary Fig. 17), (2) the times of origination (Ts) and extinction (Te) of each taxon, (3) the origination and extinction rates and their variation through time for each stage and (4) the number and magnitude of shifts in origination and extinction rates.All analyses were set with the best-fit preservation process after comparing (-PPmodeltest option) the homogeneous Poisson process (-mHPP option), the non-homogeneous Poisson process (default option), and the time-variable Poisson process (-qShift option). The preservation process infers the individual origination and extinction times of each taxon based on all fossil occurrences and on an estimated preservation rate, denoted q, expressed as expected occurrences per taxon per Ma. The time-variable Poisson process assumes that preservation rates are constant within a predefined time frame but may vary over time (here, set for bins corresponding to stages). This model is thus appropriate when rates over time are heterogeneous.We ran PyRate for 50 million MCMC generations and a sampling every 50,000 generations for the BDCS and RJMCMC models with time bins corresponding to Permian and Triassic stages (-fixShift option). All analyses were set with a time-variable Poisson process (-qShift option) of preservation and accounted for varying preservation rates across taxa using the Gamma model (-mG option), that is, with gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity with four rate categories36. As explained above, the minimal interval between two shifts (-min_dt option) was modified and a value of 2 was used. The default prior to the vector of preservation rates is a single gamma distribution with shape = 1.5 and rate = 1.5. We reduced the subjectivity of this parameter, and favoured a better adequation to the data, allowing PyRate to estimate the rate parameter of the prior from the data by setting the rate parameter to 0 (-pP option). Therefore, PyRate assigns a vague exponential hyper-prior to the rate and samples the rate along with all other model parameters. Similarly, because our dataset does not encompass the entire fossil record of insects, we assumed that a possible edge effect may interfere with our analyses, with a strong diversification during the lowermost Permian and, conversely a strong extinction during the uppermost Triassic. Because the RJMCMC and BDCS algorithms look for rate shifts, we constrained the algorithm to only search for shifts (-edgeShift option) within the following time range 295.0 to 204.5 Ma. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 after excluding the first 10% of the samples as a burn-in period. The parameters are considered convergent when their ESS are greater than 200.We then combined the posterior estimates of the origination and extinction rates across all replicates to generate rates through-time plots (origination, extinction, and net diversification). Shifts of diversification were considered significant when log Bayes factors were >6 in the RJMCMC model, while we considered shifts to be significant in the BDCS model when mean rates in a time bin did not overlap with the 95% credibility interval (CI) of the rates of adjacent time bins.We replicated all the analyses on ten randomly generated datasets of each clade and calculated estimates of the Ts and the Te as the average of the posterior samples from each replicate. Thus, we obtained ten posterior estimates of the Ts and Te for all taxa and we used these values to estimate the past diversity dynamics by calculating the number of living taxa at each time point. For all the subsequent analyses, we used the estimated Ts and Te of all taxa to test whether or not the origination and the extinction rate dynamics were correlated with particular abiotic factors, as suggested by the drastic changes in environmental conditions known during the Permo–Triassic. We used proxies for abiotic factors, such as global continental fragmentation or the dynamic of major clades of plants, and for biotic factors via species interaction within and between ecological guilds. This approach avoids re-modelling preservation and re-estimating times of origination and extinction, which reduces drastically the computational burden, while still allowing to account for the preservation process and the uncertainties associated with fossil ages. Similarly, the times of origination and extinction used in all the subsequent analyses were obtained while accounting for the heterogeneity of preservation, origination and extinction rates. To discuss the magnitude of the periods of extinction and diversification, we compared the magnitude of these events to the background origination and extinction rates (i.e. not during extinction or diversification peaks).The PyRate approach has proven to be robust following a series of tests and simulations that reflect commonly observed biases when modelling past diversity dynamics31,38. These simulations were based on datasets simulated under a range of potential biases (i.e. violations of the sampling assumptions, variable preservation rates, and incomplete taxon sampling) and reflecting the limitations of the fossil record. Simulation results showed that PyRate is able to correctly estimate the dynamics of origination and extinction rates, including sudden rate changes and mass extinction, even if the preservation levels are low (down to 1–3 fossil occurrences per species on average), the taxon sampling is partial (up to 80% missing) or if the datasets have a high proportion of singletons (exceeding 30% of the taxa in some cases). The strongest bias in birth–death rate estimates is caused by incomplete data (i.e. missing lineages) altering the distribution of taxa; a pervasive effect often mentioned for phylogeny-based models104,105,106. However, in the case of PyRate, the simulations confirm the absence of consistent biases due to an incomplete fossil record36. Finally, the recently implemented RJMCMC model was shown to be very accurate for estimating origination and extinction rates (i.e. more accurate than the BDCS model, the boundary-crossing and three-time methods) and is able to recover sudden extinction events regardless of the biases in the fossil dataset37.The severity of extinctions and survivorsFor each event—the Roadian–Wordian, the LPME, and the Ladinian–Carnian—we quantified the percentage of extinctions and survivors at the genus level. We used the Te and Ts from our RJMCMC analysis and computed the mean for the Te (Tem) and for the Ts (Tsm) of each genus. We then filtered our dataset to keep only the genera with a Tsm older than the upper boundary of the focal event, i.e., we only kept the genera that appeared before the end of the event. Then, we discarded the genera that have disappeared before the lower boundary of the focal event, i.e. Tem older that the lower boundary of the event. The remaining genera, which corresponds to all the genera (total) present during the crisis (Ttgen), can be classified into two categories, ‘survivor genera’ (Sgen), i.e. those that survived the crisis, and those that died: ‘extinct genera’ (Egen). The survivors have a Tem younger than the upper boundary of the focal event, while the ‘extinct genera’ died out during the event and have a Tem between the lower and upper boundaries of the event of interest. To obtain the percentage of survivors, we used the following formula: (Sgen/Ttgen) × 100. Similarly, the percentage of extinction is calculated as: (Egen/Ttgen) × 100.Age-dependent extinction modelWe assessed the effect of taxon age on the extinction probability by fitting the age-dependent extinction (ADE; -ADE 1 option) model50. This model estimates the probability for a lineage to become extinct as a function of its age, also named longevity, which is the elapsed time since its origination. It is recommended to run the ADE model over time windows with roughly constant origination and extinction rates, as convergence is difficult—but not impossible—to reach in extinction or diversification contexts50. We ran PyRate for 50 million MCMC generations with a sampling every 50,000 generations, with a time-variable Poisson process of preservation (-qShift option), while accounting for varying preservation rates across taxa using the Gamma model (-mG option). We replicated the analyses on ten randomised datasets and combined the posterior estimates across all replicates. We estimated the shape (Φ) and scale (Ψ) parameters of the Weibull distribution, and the taxon longevity in a million years. According to ref. 50, there is no evidence of age-dependent extinction rates if Φ = 1. However, the extinction rate is higher for young species and decreases with species age if Φ  1. Although ADE models are prone to high error rates when origination and extinction rates increase or decrease through time, simulations with PyRate have shown that fossil-based inferences are robust50. We investigated the effect of ADE during three different periods (-filter option) as follows: (1) between 264.28 Ma and 255 Ma (pre-decline), (2) between 254.5 Ma and 251.5 Ma (decline) and (3) between 234 Ma and 212 Ma (post-crisis). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Selection of abiotic and biotic variablesTo test correlations of insect diversification with environmental changes, we examined the link between a series of environmental variables and origination/extinction rates over a period encompassing the GEE, the LPME and the CPE but also for each extinction event. We focused on the role of nine variables, also called proxies, which have been demonstrated or assumed to be linked to extinctions and changes in insect diversity26,67.The variations in the atmospheric CO2 and O2 concentrations are thought to be correlated with the diversification of several insect lineages, including the charismatic giant Meganeuridae65,66,67. Because the increase of O2 concentration has likely driven the diversification of some insects, its diminution may have resulted in the extinction or decline of some lineages. Therefore, we investigated the potential correlation of the variations of this variable with insect dynamics using data from ref. 55. We extracted the data, with 1-million-year time intervals, spanning the Permo–Triassic.Similarly, the modification of CO2 concentration, notably its increase, is known to promote speciation in some modern insect groups107. Therefore, a similar effect may have occurred during the Permian and Triassic but remains to be tested. We based our analyses on the dataset of ref. 108. We used their cleaned dataset and extracted all verified values for the Permo–Triassic interval. Because the initial data (i.e. independent estimates) were made in various locations for the same age, different values of the CO2 concentration are provided. We incorporated all these values in our analysis, allowing PyRate to search for a correlation for each value of the CO2 concentration. We obtain a final correlation independent of the sampling location, in line with our large-scale analysis.The continental fragmentation, as approximated by plate tectonic change over time, has recently been proposed as a driver of Plecoptera dynamics26. Because the period studied encompasses a major geological event, the fragmentation of the supercontinent Pangea, we investigated the effect of continental fragmentation on insect diversification dynamics. We retrieved the index of continental fragmentation developed by ref. 69 using paleogeographic reconstructions for 1-million-year time intervals. This index approaches 1 when all plates are disjoined (complete plate fragmentation) and approaches 0 when the continental aggregation is maximal.Climate change (variations in warming and cooling periods) is a probable driver of diversification changes over the history of insects21,109. Temperature is likely directly linked with insect dynamics109 but also with their food sources, notably plants110. Because it was demonstrated that modification of temperature impacted floral assemblages110, we tested the correlation between temperature variations and the diversification dynamic of insects. Major trends in global climate change through time are typically estimated from relative proportions of different oxygen isotopes (δ18O) in samples of benthic foraminiferan shells111. We used the data from ref. 112, converted to absolute temperatures following the methodology described in Condamine et al.113 (see their section Global temperature variations through time). The resulting temperature data reflects planetary-scale climatic trends, with time intervals inferior to 1-million-year, which can be expected to have led to temporally coordinated diversification changes in several clades rather than local or seasonal fluctuations.The fluctuation in relative diversity of gymnosperms, non-Polypodiales ferns, Polypodiales ferns, spore-plants, and later the rise of angiosperms has likely driven the diversification of numerous insects57,60,61,114. Close interactions between insects and plants are well-recorded during the Permian and Triassic57,60,61. In fact, herbivorous insects are known to experience high selection pressure from bottom-up forces, resulting from interactions with their hosts or feeding plants30,72. Therefore, it appears crucial to investigate the effect of these modifications on the insects’ past dynamics. We used the data from ref. 38 for the different plant lineages (all with 1-million-year time intervals). All the datasets for these variables are available in the publications cited aside from each variable or in Supplementary Data 1.Multivariate birth–death modelWe used the multivariate birth–death (MBD) model to assess to what extent biotic and abiotic factors can explain temporal variation in origination and extinction rates55. The model is described in ref. 55, where origination and extinction rates can change through time in relation to environmental variables so that origination and extinction rates depend on the temporal variations of each factor. The strength and sign (positive or negative) of the correlations are jointly estimated for each variable. The sign of the correlation parameters indicates the sign of the resulting correlation. When their value is estimated around zero, no correlation is estimated. An MCMC algorithm combined with a horseshoe prior, controlling for over-parameterisation and for the potential effects of multiple testing, jointly estimates the baseline origination (λ0) and extinction (µ0) rates and all correlation parameters (Gλ and Gµ)55. The horseshoe prior is used to discriminate which correlation parameters should be treated as noise (shrunk around 0) and which represent a true signal (i.e. significantly different from 0). In the MBD model, a correlation parameter is estimated to quantify independently the role of each variable on the origination and the extinction.We ran the MBD model using 20 (for short intervals) or 50 million MCMC generations and sampling every 20,000 or 50,000 to approximate the posterior distribution of all parameters (λ0, µ0, nine Gλ, nine Gµ and the shrinkage weights of each correlation parameter, ωG). The MBD analyses used the Ts and the Te derived from our previous analyses under the RJMCMC model. The results of the MBD analyses were summarised by calculating the posterior mean and 95% CI of all correlation parameters and the mean of the respective shrinkage weights (across ten replicates), as well as the mean and 95% CI of the baseline origination and extinction rates. We carried out six analyses, over: (1) the Permo–Triassic (between 298.9 and 201.3 Ma); (2) the Roadian–Wordian (R/W) boundary (between 270 and 265 Ma), (3) the LPME (between 254.5 and 250 Ma), (4) the Ladinian–Carnian (L/C) boundary (between 240 to 234 Ma), (5) the Permian period (between 298.9 and 251.902 Ma) and (6) the Triassic period (between 251.902 and 201.3 Ma). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Multiple clade diversity-dependence modelTo assess the potential effect of diversity-dependence on the diversity dynamics of three or four insect guilds, we used the multiple clade diversity-dependence (MCDD) model in which origination and extinction rates are correlated with the diversity trajectory of other clades31. This model postulates that competitive interactions linked with an increase in diversity results in decreasing origination rates and/or increasing extinction rates. The MCDD model allows for testing diversity-dependence between genera of a given clade or between genera of distinct clades sharing a similar ecology.We estimated the past diversity dynamics for three (i.e. herbivores, predators, and a guild composed of generalists + detritivores/fungivores dubbed ‘others’) or four insect groups or guilds (i.e. herbivores, predators, generalists and detritivores/fungivores) by calculating the number of living species at every point in time based on the times of origination (Ts) and extinction (Te) estimated under the RJMCMC model (see above) (Supplementary Figs. 19–24). We defined our four insect groups with a cautious approach i.e. insect genera, families or orders for which nothing is known about the ecology or about the ecology of their close relatives were not considered for the analysis. For example, no diet was assigned to Diptera, Mecoptera or Glosselytrodea. The ecology of the Triassic Diptera and Permo–Triassic Mecoptera is difficult to establish because extant Diptera and Mecoptera have a wide diversity of ecology. Fossil Mecoptera are also putatively involved in numerous interactions with plants (species with elongated mouthparts), suggesting a placement in the herbivore group, while other species were likely predators. Therefore, we cannot decide to which group each species belongs. Similarly, nothing is known about the body and mouthparts of the Glosselytrodea, most of the time described based on isolated wings; we did not assign the order to any group. The definition and delineation of insect clades have also challenged the placement of several orders (e.g. ‘Grylloblattodea’) in one of our four groups. The order ‘Grylloblattodea’ is poorly delineated and mostly serves as a taxonomic ‘wastebasket’ to which it is impossible to assign a particular ecology. Finally, genera, species, or families not placed in a higher clade (e.g. Meshemipteron, Perielytridae) were not included in the analysis. Oppositely, the guilds ‘herbivores’ and ‘predators’ are well defined, and their ecology is evidenced by the morphology of their representatives and the principle of actualism. For example, the ecology of Meganeurites gracilipes (Meganeuridae) has been deeply studied, and its enlarged compound eyes, its sturdy mandibles with acute teeth, its tarsi and tibiae bearing strong spines, and the presence of a pronounced thoracic skewness are specialisations today found in dragonflies that capture their prey while in flight115. All Odonatoptera are well-known predator insects. The raptorial forelegs of the representatives of the order Titanoptera and their mouthparts with strong mandibles are linked with predatory habits81. The Palaeodictyopteroidea were herbivorous insects with long, beak-like, piercing mouthparts, and probably a sucking organ81,82. Most Hemiptera are confidently considered herbivorous insects by comparison with their extant representatives. For example, the Cicadomorpha or Sternorrhyncha are known to feed on plants and their fossil representatives likely possessed the same ecology because of similar morphologies116. Some hemipteran families (e.g. Nabidae) are predators and we cautiously distinguished herbivorous and carnivorous taxa among Hemiptera. The detail of the ecological assignations for the 1009 genera included in our analyses can be found in Supplementary Data 1 (Table MCCD).We calculated ten diversity trajectories from the ten replicated analyses under the RJMCMC model. The estimation of past species diversity might be biased by low preservation rates or taxonomic uncertainties. However, such trajectory curves are likely to provide a reasonably accurate representation of the past diversity changes in the studied clades, notably because the preservation during the Permian and Triassic period is relatively good for insects (i.e. no gaps).Our MCDD analyses comprise all the insect genera spanning from the lowermost Permian to the uppermost Triassic and were run and repeated on ten replicates (using the Te and Ts estimated under the RJMCMC model) with 50 million MCMC generations and a sampling frequency of 50,000. For each of the four insect groups, we computed the median and the 95% CI of the baseline origination and extinction rates (λi and µi), the within-group diversity-dependence parameters gλi and gµi, and the between-groups diversity dependence parameters gλij and gµij. The mean of the sampled diversity dependence parameters (e.g. gλij) was used as a measure of the intensity of the negative (if positive) or positive interactions (if negative) between each pair of groups. The interactions were considered significant when their median was different from 0 and the 95% CI did not overlap with 0. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.We cross-validated the result of the MCDD model using the MBD model. The MBD model can be used to run a multiple clade diversity-dependence analysis by providing the diversity trajectories of insect guilds as a continuous variable. These data are directly generated by PyRate using the lineages-through-time generated by the RJMCMC analyses (-ltt option). We ran the MBD model using 50 million MCMC generations and sampling every 50,000 to approximate the posterior distribution of all parameters (λ0, µ0, four Gλ, four Gµ and the shrinkage weights of each correlation parameter, ωG). We carried out three analyses, over the period encompassing the three extinction events (between 275 and 230 Ma): (1) for herbivores; (2) for predators; and (3) for ‘others’. For each analysis, the lineages-through-time data of the two other guilds are used as continuous variables to investigate a diversity dependence effect. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More