Philippa Kaur

Differences in environmental factorsEnvironmental factors showed value differences between forest types, while the significance of differences differed among variables, which were both found with corrected values and original measurements (Fig. 1).Figure 1The differences in environmental factors between naturally regenerating forests (NF) and planted forests (PF) in China. The environmental factors include three annual climatic factors (a–c), three seasonal temperature factors (d–f), three seasonal precipitation factors (g–i), three biotic factors (j–l), and two soil factors (m,n). Three annual climatic factors include mean annual air temperature (MAT, a), mean annual precipitation (MAP, b), and aridity index (AI, c) defined as the ratio of MAP to annual potential evapotranspiration. Three seasonal temperature factors include the temperature of the warmest month (Tw, d), the temperature of the coldest month (Tc, e), temperature annual range (TR, f). Three seasonal precipitation factors include precipitation of the wettest month (Pw, g), precipitation of the driest month (Pd, h), and precipitation seasonality (Ps, i) defined as the standard deviation of monthly precipitation during the measuring year. Three biological factors include the mean annual leaf area index (LAI, j), the maximum leaf area index (MLAI, k), and stand age (SA, l). Two soil factors include soil organic carbon content (SOC, m) and soil total nitrogen content (STN, n). The differences are tested for each variable with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), where * and ** indicate significant differences between forest types at significance levels of α = 0.05 and α = 0.01, respectively. The corrected values are mean values during 2003–2019 after correcting the original measurements with the interannual trend (See methods), which are listed in each panel, while original measurements are mean values during the measuring period of each ecosystem, which are not shown in each panel.Full size imageFor annual climatic factors, the significant difference between NF and PF only appeared in MAT (Fig. 1a). The mean MAT of NF was 10.50 ± 7.81 °C, which was significantly lower than that of PF (15.65 ± 6.23 °C) (p  0.05) (Fig. 2c). Even considering the significant effects of MAT on ER, ANCOVA results obtained by fixing MAT as a covariant also suggested that ER values did not significantly differ between forest types (F = 0.01, p  > 0.05). Fixing other variables as a covariant also drew a similar result.Therefore, NF showed a lower NEP resulting from the lower GPP than PF, while their differences were not statistically significant (Fig. 2).Differences in NEP latitudinal patternsCarbon fluxes showed divergent latitudinal patterns between NF and PF, while their latitudinal patterns varied among carbon fluxes, which were both found with corrected values and original measurements (Fig. 3).Figure 3The latitudinal patterns of carbon fluxes over Chinese naturally regenerating forests (NF) and planted forests (PF). The carbon fluxes include net ecosystem productivity (NEP, a,b), gross primary productivity (GPP, c,d), and ecosystem respiration (ER, e,f). Each panel is drawn with the corrected values (blue points) and original measurements (grey points), respectively. The blue and black lines represent the regression lines calculated from the corrected values and original measurements, respectively, with their regression statistics listed in blue and black letters. Only the regression slope (Sl) and R2 of each regression are listed. The grey lines represent the regressions between carbon fluxes added by random errors and latitude. Only significant (p  0.05).The ER of NF showed a significant decreasing latitudinal pattern (Fig. 3e), while that of PF exhibited no significant latitudinal pattern (Fig. 3f). The increasing latitude caused the ER of NF to significantly decrease. Each unit increase in latitude led to a 28.71 gC m−2 year−1 decrease in ER, with an R2 of 0.31. However, the increasing latitude contributed little to the ER spatial variation of PF (p  > 0.05).In addition, the latitudinal patterns of carbon fluxes and their differences between forest types were also obtained with the original measurements (Fig. 3, grey points). The latitudinal patterns of random error adding carbon fluxes were comparable to those of our corrected carbon fluxes (Fig. 3), which confirmed that the latitudinal patterns of carbon fluxes and their differences between forest types would not be affected by the uncertainties in generating the corrected carbon fluxes.Therefore, among NFs, the similar decreasing latitudinal patterns of GPP and ER meant that NEP showed no significant latitudinal pattern, while the significant decreasing latitudinal pattern of GPP and no significant latitudinal pattern of ER caused NEP to show a decreasing latitudinal pattern among PFs.Differences in the environmental effects on NEP spatial variationsEnvironmental factors, including the annual climatic factors, seasonal temperature factors, seasonal precipitation factors, biological factors, and soil factors, exerted divergent effects on the spatial variations of NEP and its components, which also differed between forest types (Table 1). No factor was found to affect that the spatial variation of NEP among NFs, while most annual and seasonal climatic factors were found to affect that among PFs. The spatial variations of GPP and ER among NFs were both affected by most annual and seasonal climatic factors and LAI, while those among PFs were primarily shaped by most annual and seasonal climatic factors. Though LAI showed no significant effect on GPP and ER spatial variations among PFs, SA exerted a significant negative effect. In addition, the spatial variations of soil variables contributed little to the spatial variations of carbon fluxes. Therefore, among NFs, most annual and seasonal climatic factors and LAI were found to affect GPP and ER spatial variations, while no factor was found to significantly influent the NEP spatial variation. However, among PFs, most annual and seasonal climatic factors were found to affect the spatial variations of NEP and its components, while LAI showed no significant effect. Using the original measurements also generated the similar correlation coefficients (Supplementary Table S1).Table 1 Correlation coefficients between carbon fluxes and environmental factors in naturally regenerating forests (NF) and planted forests (PF).Full size tableGiven the high correlations among annual climatic factors and seasonal climatic factors (Supplementary Table S2), the partial correlation analysis was applied to determine which factors should be employed to reveal the mechanisms underlying the spatial variations of NEP. Partial correlation analysis showed that MAT and MAP exerted the most important roles in spatial variations of NEP and its components (Table 2). After controlling MAT (or MAP), other factors seldom showed significant correlation with carbon fluxes, especially fixing MAT (Table 2). In addition, MAT and MAP exerted similar effects on the spatial variations of NEP and its components (Table 1). Using the original measurements also generated the similar partial correlation coefficients (Supplementary Table S3). Therefore, we only presented the effects of MAT on carbon flux spatial variations and their differences between forest types in detail.Table 2 Partial correlation coefficients between carbon fluxes and environmental factors in naturally regenerating forests (NF) and planted forests (PF) with fixing mean annual air temperature (MAT) or mean annual precipitation (MAP).Full size tableThe increasing MAT increased carbon fluxes, while the increasing rates differed between forest types (Fig. 4). The increasing MAT contributed little to the NEP spatial variation of NF but raised the NEP of PF (Fig. 4a,b). Each unit increase in MAT caused the NEP of PF to increase at a rate of 27.77 gC m−2 year−1, with an R2 of 0.31 (Fig. 4b). The increasing MAT significantly raised GPP in NF and PF (Fig. 4c,d). For NF, each unit increase in MAT increased GPP at a rate of 43.76 gC m−2 year−1, with an R2 of 0.49 (Fig. 4c), while each unit increase in MAT increased the GPP of PF at a rate of 69.18 gC m−2 year−1, with an R2 of 0.57 (Fig. 4d). The GPP increasing rates did not significantly differ between NF and PF (F = 1.52, p  > 0.05). The increasing MAT also raised ER in both NF and PF (Fig. 4e,f), whose increasing rates were 38.97 gC m−2 year−1 (Fig. 4e) and 36.79 gC m−2 year−1 (Fig. 4f), respectively, while their differences were not statistically significant (F = 0.01, p  > 0.05). In addition, using the original measurements also generated the similar spatial variations and their differences between forest types (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the random error adding carbon fluxes responded similarly to those of our correcting carbon fluxes (Fig. 4), indicating that the effects of MAT on carbon fluxes would not be affected by the uncertainties in our correcting carbon fluxes. Therefore, the similar responses of GPP and ER to MAT made MAT contribute little to NEP spatial variations among NFs, while GPP and ER showed divergent response rates to MAT, which made NEP increase with MAT among PFs.Figure 4The effects of mean annual air temperature (MAT) on the spatial variations of carbon fluxes over Chinese naturally regenerating forests (NF) and planted forests (PF). The carbon fluxes include net ecosystem productivity (NEP, a,b), gross primary productivity (GPP, c,d), and ecosystem respiration (ER, e,f). Each panel is drawn with the corrected values (blue points) and original measurements (grey points), respectively. The blue and black lines represent the regression lines calculated from the corrected values and original measurements, respectively, with their regression statistics listed in blue and black letters. Only the regression slope (Sl) and R2 of each regression are listed. The grey lines represent the regressions between carbon fluxes added by random errors and latitude. Only significant (p  More

Thornton, I. Island Colonization: The Origin and Development of Island Communities (Cambridge University Press, 2007).Book 

Google Scholar 
Weigelt, P., Jetz, W. & Kreft, H. Bioclimatic and physical characterization of the world’s islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 15307–15312 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P., Adsersen, H. & Loope, L. Introduction. In Islands: Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Function (eds Vitousek, P. et al.) 1–6 (Berlin, 1995).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Whittaker, R. J. & Fernández-Palacios, J. M. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M., Brown, J. & Sax, D. Island biogeography theory. In The Theory of Island Biogeography Revisited (eds Losos, J. & Ricklefs, R.) 13–51 (Princeton University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Colom, P., Carreras, D. & Stefanescu, C. Long-term monitoring of Menorcan butterfly populations reveals widespread insular biogeographical patterns and negative trends. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 1837–1851 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Preston, F. W. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity, part II. Ecology 43, 410–432 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge University Press, 1995).Book 

Google Scholar 
Drakare, S., Lennon, J. J. & Hillebrand, H. The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol. Lett. 9(2), 215–227 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Field, R. et al. Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: A meta-analysis. J. Biogeogr. 36, 132–147 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brehm, G., Süssenbach, D. & Fiedler, K. Unique elevational diversity patterns of geometrid moths in an Andean montane rainforest. Ecography 26, 456–466 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brehm, G., Colwell, R. K. & Kluge, J. The role of environment and mid-domain effect on moth species richness along a tropical elevational gradient. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 205–219 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. & Kitching, I. J. Drivers of moth species richness on tropical altitudinal gradients: A cross-regional comparison. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 361–371 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashton, L. A. et al. Altitudinal patterns of moth diversity in tropical and subtropical A ustralian rainforests. Aust. Ecol. 41, 197–208 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maunsell, S. C. et al. Elevational turnover in the composition of leaf miners and their interactions with host plants in Australian subtropical rainforest. Aust. Ecol. 41, 238–247 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCain, C. M. Global analysis of reptile elevational diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 541–553 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Yu, X. D., Lü, L., Luo, T. H. & Zhou, H. Z. Elevational gradient in species richness pattern of epigaeic beetles and underlying mechanisms at east slope of Balang Mountain in Southwestern China. PLoS ONE 8, e69177 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. et al. Elevational species richness gradients in a hyperdiverse insect taxon: A global meta-study on geometrid moths. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 412–424 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Szewczyk, T. & McCain, C. M. A systematic review of global drivers of ant elevational diversity. PLoS ONE 11, e0155404 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rahbek, C. The elevational gradient of species richness: A uniform pattern?. Ecography 18, 200–205 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. Oceanic islands as model systems for ecological studies. J. Biogeogr. 29, 573–582 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kidane, Y. O., Steinbauer, M. J. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Dead end for endemic plant species? A biodiversity hotspot under pressure. Global Ecol. Conserv. 19, e00670 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, W. M. III. et al. Ground-dwelling arthropod communities of a sky island mountain range in Southeastern Arizona, USA: Obtaining a baseline for assessing the effects of climate change. PLoS ONE 10, e0135210 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kong, W. S. Biogeography of Korean plants 335 (Geobook, 2007) (in Korean).
Google Scholar 
Kitching, R. L. et al. Moth assemblages as indicators of environmental quality in remnants of upland Australian rain forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 37, 284–297 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Froidevaux, J. S., Broyles, M. & Jones, G. Moth responses to sympathetic hedgerow management in temperate farmland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 270, 55–64 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fox, R. The decline of moths in Great Britain: A review of possible causes. Insect Conserv. Div. 6, 5–19 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keret, N. M., Mutanen, M. J., Orell, M. I., Itämies, J. H. & Välimäki, P. M. Climate change-driven elevational changes among boreal nocturnal moths. Oecologia 192, 1085–1098 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wenzel, M., Schmitt, T., Weitzel, M. & Seitz, A. The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: A conservation problem. Biol. Conserv. 128, 542–552 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zenker, M. M. et al. Diversity and composition of Arctiinae moth assemblages along elevational and spatial dimensions in Brazilian Atlantic Forest. J. Insect Conserv. 19, 129–140 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brehm, G. & Fiedler, K. Faunal composition of geometrid moths changes with altitude in an Andean montane rain forest. J. Biogeogr. 30, 431–440 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCain, C. M. & Grytnes, J. A. Elevational gradients in species richness. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (Wiley, Chichester, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Heinrich, B. The Hot-Blooded Insects: Strategies and Mechanisms of Thermoregulation 601 (Harvard University Press, 1993).Book 

Google Scholar 
Heinrich, B. Thermoregulation in Endothermic Insects: Body temperature is closely attuned to activity and energy supplies. Science 185, 747–756 (1974).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
May, M. L. Insect thermoregulation. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 24, 313–349 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heidrich, L. et al. Noctuid and geometrid moth assemblages show divergent elevational gradients in body size and color lightness. Ecography 44, 1169–1179 (2021).Article 
MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Holloway, J. D. Macrolepidoptera diversity in the Indo-Australian tropics, geographic, biotopic and taxonomic variations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 30, 325–341 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Axmacher, J. C. et al. Diversity of geometrid moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) along an Afrotropical elevational rainforest transect. Divers. Distrib. 10, 293–302 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heinrich, B. & Mommsen, T. P. Flight of winter moths near 0°C. Science 228, 177–179 (1985).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rydell, J. & Lancaster, W. C. Flight and thermoregulation in moths were shaped by predation from bats. Oikos 88, 13–18 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skou, P. The geometroid moths of North Europe. Entomonograph, Vol. 6. Brill, Leiden. (1986).Zahiri, R. et al. Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera, noctuoidea). Syst. Entomol. 37, 102–124 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fiedler, K., Brehm, G., Hilt, N., Sussenbach, D. & Hauser, C. L. Variation of diversity patterns across moth families along a tropical altitudinal gradient. Ecol. Stud. 198, 167–179 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Longino, J. T. & Colwell, R. K. Density compensation, species composition, and richness of ants on a neotropical elevational gradient. Ecosphere 2, 1–20 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. & Chey, V. K. Explaining the elevational diversity pattern of geometrid moths from Borneo: A test of five hypotheses. J. Biogeogr. 35, 1452–1464 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nogués-Bravo, D., Araújo, M. B., Romdal, T. & Rahbek, C. Scale effects and human impact on the elevational species richness gradients. Nature 453, 216–219 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kwon, T. S. Ants foraging on grasses in South Korea: High diversity in Jeju Island and negative correlation with aphids. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 10, 465–471 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, E. K. et al. A disjunctive marginal edge of evergreen broad-leaved oak (Quercus gilva) in East Asia: The high genetic distinctiveness and unusual diversity of Jeju island populations and insight into a massive, independent postglacial colonization. Genes 11, 1114 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chi, Y., Shi, H., Wang, Y., Guo, Z. & Wang, E. Evaluation on island ecological vulnerability and its spatial heterogeneity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 125, 216–241 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vehviläinen, H., Koricheva, J. & Ruohomäki, K. Tree species diversity influences herbivore abundance and damage: Meta-analysis of long-term forest experiments. Oecologia 152, 287–298 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Root, R. B. Organization of plant–arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: The fauna of collards (I. Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 43, 95–124 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Otway, S. J., Hector, A. & Lawton, J. H. Resource dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a grassland biodiversity experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 234–240 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, B. A. et al. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84, 3105–3117 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qian, H. Environment–richness relationships for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians at global and regional scales. Ecol. Res. 25, 629–637 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Major, J. A climatic index to vascular plant activity. Ecology 44, 485–498 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Latham, R. E. & Ricklefs, R. E. Global patterns of tree species richness in moist forests: Energy-diversity theory does not account for variation in species richness. Oikos 67, 325–333 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Francis, A. P. & Currie, D. J. A globally consistent richness-climate relationship for angiosperms. Am. Nat. 161, 523–536 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Storch, D. et al. Energy, range dynamics and global species richness patterns: Reconciling mid-domain effects and environmental determinants of avian diversity. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1308–1320 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Intachat, J., Holloway, J. D. & Staines, H. Effects of weather and phenology on the abundance and diversity of geometroid moths in a natural Malaysian tropical rain forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 17, 411–429 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, S. W. Effects of weather factors on the abundance and diversity of moths in a temperate deciduous mixed forest of Korea. Zool. Sci. 25, 53–58 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kreft, H. & Jetz, W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 5925–5930 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lennon, J. J., Koleff, P., Greenwood, J. J. D. & Gaston, K. J. The geographical structure of British bird distributions: Diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 966–979 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, S. W. A high mountain moth assemblage quickly recovers after fire. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 111, 304–311 (2018).
Google Scholar 
van Swaay, C., Warren, M. & Loïs, G. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 10, 189–209 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Frenne, P. et al. Microclimate moderates plant responses to macroclimate warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 18561–18565 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, K. F., Warren, M. S., Fox, R., Parsons, M. S. & Woiwod, I. P. Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol. Conserv. 132, 279–291 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, E. R. Minimum time required to detect population trends: The need for long-term monitoring programs. Bioscience 69, 40–46 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forister, M. L., Pelton, E. M. & Black, S. H. Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e80 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Didham, R. K. et al. Interpreting insect declines: Seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv. Div. 13, 103–114 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, J. W., Boo, K. O., Choi, J. T. & Byun, Y. H. Climate Change of 100 Years on the Korean Peninsula (National Institute of Meteorological Science, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Kim, S. S., Beljaev, E. A. & Oh, S. H. Illustrated Catalogue of Geometridae in Korea (Lepidoptera: Geometrinae, Ennominae) (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology & Center for Insect Systematics, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Kononenko, V.S., Ahn, S.B. & Ronkay, L. Illustrated catalogue of Noctuidae in Korea (Lepidoptera). Insects of Korea 3. KRIBB & CIS, Junghaengsa (1998).Shin, Y.H. Coloured illustrations of the moths of Korea. Academybook (2001).Kim, S.S., Choi, S.W., Sohn, J.C., Kim, T. & Lee, B.W. The Geometrid moths of Korea (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Junghaengsa (2016).Kim, C. G. & Kim, N. W. Altitudinal pattern of evapotranspiration and water need for upland crops in Jeju Island. J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc. 48, 915–923 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement (Princeton University Press, 1988).Book 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4, 9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. R 4.0.3. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing Vienna. Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org. (2020).Pohlert, T. Non-parametric trend tests and change-point detection. R-package version 0.0.1. (2020).Hipel, K. W. & McLeod, A. I. Time Series Modelling of Water Resources and Environmental Systems (Elsevier, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Chao, A., Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K. & Shen, T. J. Abundance-based similarity indices and their estimation when there are unseen species in samples. Biometrics 62, 361–371 (2006).Article 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Colwell, R. K. Estiamtes, Version 91: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples (University of Connecticut, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Baselga, A. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 134–143 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baselga, A. The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 1223–1232 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

As humans warm the planet, biodiversity is plummeting. These two global crises are connected in multiple ways. But the details of the intricate feedback loops between biodiversity decline and climate change are astonishingly under-studied.It is well known that climate extremes such as droughts and heatwaves can have devastating impacts on ecosystems and, in turn, that degraded ecosystems have a reduced capacity to protect humanity against the social and physical impacts of such events. Yet only a few such relationships have been probed in detail. Even less well known is whether biodiversity-depleted ecosystems will also have a negative effect on climate, provoking or exacerbating weather extremes.For us, a group of researchers living and working mainly in Central Europe, the wake-up call was the sequence of heatwaves of 2018, 2019 and 2022. It felt unreal to watch a floodplain forest suffer drought stress in Leipzig, Germany. Across Germany, more than 380,000 hectares of trees have now been damaged (see go.nature.com/3etrrnp; in German), and the forestry sector is struggling with how to plan restoration activities over the coming decades1. What could have protected these ecosystems against such extremes? And how will the resultant damage further impact our climate?
Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now
In June 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) published their first joint report2, acknowledging the need for more collaborative work between these two domains. And some good policy moves are afoot: the new EU Forest Strategy for 2030, released in July 2021, and other high-level policy initiatives by the European Commission, formally recognize the multifunctional value of forests, including their role in regulating atmospheric processes and climate. But much more remains to be done.To thoroughly quantify the risk that lies ahead, ecologists, climate scientists, remote-sensing experts, modellers and data scientists need to work together. The upcoming meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, Canada, in December is a good opportunity to catalyse such collaboration.Buffers and responsesWhen lamenting the decline in biodiversity, most people think first about the tragedy of species driven to extinction. There are more subtle changes under way, too.For instance, a study across Germany showed that over the past century, most plant species have declined in cover, with only a few increasing in abundance3. Also affected is species functionality4 — genetic diversity, and the diversity of form and structure that can make communities more or less efficient at taking up nutrients, resisting heat or surviving pathogen attacks.When entire ecosystems are transformed, their functionality is often degraded. They are left with less capacity to absorb pollution, store carbon dioxide, soak up water, regulate temperature and support vital functions for other organisms, including humans5. Conversely, higher levels of functional biodiversity increase the odds of an ecosystem coping with unexpected events, including climate extremes. This is known as the insurance effect6.The effect is well documented in field experiments and modelling studies. And there is mounting evidence of it in ecosystem responses to natural events. A global synthesis of various drought conditions showed, for instance, that forests were more resilient when trees with a greater diversity of strategies for using and transporting water lived together7.

Dead trees near Iserlohn, Germany, in April 2020 (left) and after felling in June 2021 (right).Credit: Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty

However, biodiversity cannot protect all ecosystems against all kinds of impacts. In a study this year across plots in the United States and Canada, for example, mortality was shown to be higher in diverse forest ecosystems8. The proposed explanation for this unexpected result was that greater biodiversity could also foster more competition for resources. When extreme events induce stress, resources can become scarce in areas with high biomass and competition can suddenly drive mortality, overwhelming the benefits of cohabitation. Whether or not higher biodiversity protects an ecosystem from an extreme is highly site-specific.Some plants respond to drought by reducing photosynthesis and transpiration immediately; others can maintain business as usual for much longer, stabilizing the response of the ecosystem as a whole. So the exact response of ecosystems to extremes depends on interactions between the type of event, plant strategies, vegetation composition and structure.Which plant strategies will prevail is hard to predict and highly dependent on the duration and severity of the climatic extreme, and on previous extremes9. Researchers cannot fully explain why some forests, tree species or individual plants survive in certain regions hit by extreme climate conditions, whereas entire stands disappear elsewhere10. One study of beech trees in Germany showed that survival chances had a genomic basis11, yet it is not clear whether the genetic variability present in forests will be sufficient to cope with future conditions.And it can take years for ecosystem impacts to play out. The effects of the two consecutive hot drought years, 2018 and 2019, were an eye-opener for many of us. In Leipzig, tree growth declined, pathogens proliferated and ash and maple trees died. The double blow, interrupted by a mild winter, on top of the long-term loss of soil moisture, led to trees dying at 4–20 times the usual rate throughout Germany, depending on the species (see go.nature.com/3etrrnp; in German). The devastation peaked in 2020.Ecosystem changes can also affect atmospheric conditions and climate. Notably, land-use change can alter the brightness (albedo) of the planet’s surface and its capacity for heat exchange. But there are more-complex mechanisms of influence.Vegetation can be a source or sink for atmospheric substances. A study published in 2020 showed that vegetation under stress is less capable of removing ozone than are unstressed plants, leading to higher levels of air pollution12. Pollen and other biogenic particles emitted from certain plants can induce the freezing of supercooled cloud droplets, allowing ice in clouds to form at much warmer temperatures13, with consequences for rainfall14. Changes to species composition and stress can alter the dynamics of these particle emissions. Plant stress also modifies the emission of biogenic volatile organic gases, which can form secondary particles. Wildfires — enhanced by drought and monocultures — affect clouds, weather and climate through the emission of greenhouse gases and smoke particles. Satellite data show that afforestation can boost the formation of low-level, cooling cloud cover15 by enhancing the supply of water to the atmosphere.Research prioritiesAn important question is whether there is a feedback loop: will more intense, and more frequent, extremes accelerate the degradation and homogenization of ecosystems, which then, in turn, promote further climate extremes? So far, we don’t know.One reason for this lack of knowledge is that research has so far been selective: most studies have focused on the impacts of droughts and heatwaves on ecosystems. Relatively little is known about the impacts of other kinds of extremes, such as a ‘false spring’ caused by an early-season bout of warm weather, a late spring frost, heavy rainfall events, ozone maxima, or exposure to high levels of solar radiation during dry, cloudless weather.Researchers have no overview, much less a global catalogue, of how each dimension of biodiversity interacts with the full breadth of climate extremes in different combinations and at multiple scales. In an ideal world, scientists would know, for example, how the variation in canopy density, vegetation age, and species diversity protects against storm damage; and whether and how the diversity of canopy structures controls atmospheric processes such as cloud formation in the wake of extremes. Researchers need to link spatiotemporal patterns of biodiversity with the responses of ecosystem processes to climate extremes.
Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use OECMs
Creating such a catalogue is a huge challenge, particularly given the more frequent occurrence of extremes with little or no precedent16. Scientists will also need to account for the increasing likelihood of pile-ups of climate stressors. The ways in which ecosystems respond to compound events17 could be quite different. Researchers will have to study which facets of biodiversity (genetic, physiological, structural) are required to stabilize ecosystems and their functions against these onslaughts.There is at least one piece of good news: tools for data collection and analysis are improving fast, with huge advances over the past decade in satellite-based observations for both climate and biodiversity monitoring. The European Copernicus Earth-observation programme, for example — which includes the Sentinel 1 and 2 satellite fleet, and other recently launched missions that cover the most important wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum — offer metre-scale resolution observations of the biochemical status of plants and canopy structure. Atmospheric states are recorded in unprecedented detail, vertically and in time.Scientists must now make these data interoperable and integrate them with in situ observations. The latter is challenging. On the ground, a new generation of data are being collected by researchers and by citizen scientists18. For example, unique insights into plant responses to stress are coming from time-lapse photography of leaf orientation; accelerometer measures of movement patterns of stems have been shown to provide proxies for the drought stress of trees19.High-quality models are needed to turn these data into predictions. The development of functional ‘digital twins’ of the climate system is now in reach. These models replicate hydrometeorological processes at the metre scale, and are fast enough to allow for rapid scenario development and testing20. The analogous models for ecosystems are still in a more conceptual phase. Artificial-intelligence methods will be key here, to study links between climate extremes and biodiversity.Researchers can no longer afford to track global transformations of the Earth system in disciplinary silos. Instead, ecologists and climate scientists need to establish a joint agenda, so that humanity is properly forewarned: of the risks of removing biodiversity buffers against climate extremes, and of the risk of thereby amplifying these extremes. More

MacPherson, E. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat use and aggregation in juvenile sparid fishes. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 220, 127–150 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freitas, C., Olsen, E. M., Knutsen, H., Albretsen, J. & Moland, E. Temperature-associated habitat selection in a cold-water marine fish. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 628–637 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Michelot, C. et al. Seasonal variation in coastal marine habitat use by the European shag: Insights from fine scale habitat selection modeling and diet. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 141, 224–236 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davoren, G. K., Montevecchi, W. A. & Anderson, J. T. Distributional patterns of a marine bird and its prey: Habitat selection based on prey and conspecific behaviour. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 256, 229–242 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chiarello, A. G. et al. A translocation experiment for the conservation of maned sloths, Bradypus torquatus (Xenarthra, Bradypodidae). Biol. Conserv. 118, 421–430 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fukuda, Y. et al. Environmental resistance and habitat quality influence dispersal of the saltwater crocodile. Mol. Ecol. 31, 1076–1092 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, S. J., Dunton, K. J., King, T. L., Frisk, M. G. & Chapman, D. D. Genetic diversity and effective size of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhinchus oxyrhinchus river spawning populations estimated from the microsatellite genotypes of marine-captured juveniles. Conserv. Genet. 15, 1173–1181 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brüniche-Olsen, A. et al. Genetic data reveal mixed-stock aggregations of gray whales in the North Pacific Ocean. Biol. Lett. 14, 1–4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carroll, E. L. et al. Genetic diversity and connectivity of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) found in the Brazil and Chile-Peru wintering grounds and the South Georgia (Islas Georgias Del Sur) feeding ground. J. Hered. 111, 263–276 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bowen, A. B. W. et al. Origin of hawksbill turtles in a Caribbean feeding area as indicated by genetic markers. Ecol. Appl. 6, 566–572 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paxton, K. L., Yau, M., Moore, F. R. & Irwin, D. E. Differential migratory timing of western populations of Wilson’s Warbler (Cardellina pusilla) revealed by mitochondrial DNA and stable isotopes. Auk 130, 689–698 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, E. C., Waples, R. S. & Kalinowski, S. T. An improved method for predicting the accuracy of genetic stock identification. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1475–1486 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Debevec, E. M. SPAM (version 3.2): Statistics program for analyzing mixtures. J. Hered. 91, 509–511 (2000).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bolker, B. M., Okuyama, T., Bjorndal, K. A. & Bolten, A. B. Incorporating multiple mixed stocks in mixed stock analysis: ‘Many-to-many’ analyses. Mol. Ecol. 16, 685–695 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Neaves, P. I., Wallace, C. G., Candy, J. R. & Beacham, T. D. CBayes: Computer Program for Mixed Stock Analysis of Allelic Data. Free Program Distributed by the Authors Over the Internet. at (2005).Pella, J. & Masuda, M. Bayesian methods for analysis of stock mixtures from genetic characters. Fish. Bull. 99, 151–167 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Bolker, B., Okuyama, T., Bjorndal, K. A. & Bolten, A. B. Sea turtle stock estimation using genetic markers: Accounting for sampling error of rare genotypes. Ecol. Appl. 13, 763–775 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Okuyama, T. & Bolker, B. M. Combining genetic and ecological data to estimate sea turtle origins. Ecol. Appl. 15, 315–325 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nishizawa, H. et al. Composition of green turtle feeding aggregations along the Japanese archipelago: Implications for changes in composition with current flow. Mar. Biol. 160, 2671–2685 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naro-Maciel, E. et al. Predicting connectivity of green turtles at Palmyra Atoll, central Pacific: A focus on mtDNA and dispersal modelling. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20130888 (2014).Proietti, M. C. et al. Green turtle Chelonia mydas mixed stocks in the western South Atlantic, as revealed by mtDNA haplotypes and drifter trajectories. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 447, 195–209 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Zee, J. P. et al. Population recovery changes population composition at a major southern Caribbean juvenile developmental habitat for the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Shamblin, B. M. et al. Mexican origins for the Texas green turtle foraging aggregation: A cautionary tale of incomplete baselines and poor marker resolution. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 488, 111–120 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seminoff, J. A. et al. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Under the Endangered Species Act. (NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC, 2015).Chaloupka, M. et al. Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine megaherbivore. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 297–304 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bjorndal, K. A. & Bolten, A. B. Annual variation in source contributions to a mixed stock: Implications for quantifying connectivity. Mol. Ecol. 17, 2185–2193 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Roland, J., Keyghobadi, N. & Fownes, S. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: Effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81, 1642–1653 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanschoenwinkel, B., De Vries, C., Seaman, M. & Brendonck, L. The role of metacommunity processes in shaping invertebrate rock pool communities along a dispersal gradient. Oikos 116, 1255–1266 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shamblin, B. M. et al. Mitogenomic sequences better resolve stock structure of southern Greater Caribbean green turtle rookeries. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2330–2340 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Witherington, B., Hirama, S. & Hardy, R. Young sea turtles of the pelagic Sargassum-dominated drift community: Habitat use, population density, and threats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 463, 1–22 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Putman, N. F. & Mansfield, K. L. Direct evidence of swimming demonstrates active dispersal in the sea turtle ‘lost years’. Curr. Biol. 25, 1221–1227 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mansfield, K. L., Wyneken, J. & Luo, J. First Atlantic satellite tracks of ‘lost years’ green turtles support the importance of the Sargasso Sea as a sea turtle nursery. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20210057 (2021).Putman, N. F. et al. Predicted distributions and abundances of the sea turtle ‘lost years’ in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Ecography (Cop.) 43, 506–517 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Putman, N. F. & Naro-Maciel, E. Finding the ‘lost years’ in green turtles: Insights from ocean circulation models and genetic analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20131468 (2013).Naro-Maciel, E., Hart, K. M., Cruciata, R. & Putman, N. F. DNA and dispersal models highlight constrained connectivity in a migratory marine megavertebrate. Ecography (Cop.) 40, 586–597 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehrhart, L. M., Redfoot, W. E. & Bagley, D. A. Marine turtles of the central region of the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida. Florida Sci. 70, 415–434 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Redfoot, W. & Ehrhart, L. Trends in size class distribution, recaptures, and abundance of juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) utilizing a rock riprap lined embayment at Port Canaveral, Florida, USA, as developmental habitat. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 12, 252–261 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehrhart, L., Redfoot, W., Bagley, D. & Mansfield, K. Long-term trends in loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and reproductive success at an important western Atlantic rookery. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 13, 173–181 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolten, A. B. Techniques for measuring sea turtles. in Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. (eds. Eckert, K. L., Bjorndal, K. A., Abreu-Grobois, F. A. & Donnelly, M.). 1–5 (1999).Bagley, D. A. Characterizing Juvenile Green Turtles, (Chelonia mydas), from Three East Central Florida Developmental Habitats. (University of Central Florida, 2003).Rohland, N. & Reich, D. Cost-effective, high-throughput DNA sequencing libraries for multiplexed target capture. Genome Res. 22, 939–946 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Faircloth, B. & Glenn, T. Preparation of an AMPure XP Substitute. AKA Serapure https://doi.org/10.6079/J9MW2F26 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abreu-Grobois, F. A. et al. New mtDNA Dloop primers which work for a variety of marine turtle species may increase the resolution of mixed stock analyses. in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology. 179 (International Sea Turtle Society, 2006).Kearse, M. et al. Geneious basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. PopART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, S. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Vol. 4. Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. (University of Chicago Press, 1978).Hays, G. C. Ocean currents and marine life. Curr. Biol. 27, R470–R473 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Engstrom, T. N., Meylan, P. A. & Meylan, A. B. Origin of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in a tropical developmental habitat in Caribbean Panamá. Anim. Conserv. 5, 125–133 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, F. W. C. F. W. R. I. Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS). (2021).Cuevas Flores, E. A., Guzmán Hernández, V., Guerra Santos, J. J. & Rivas Hernández, G. A. El uso del Conocimiento de las Tortugas Marinas Como Herramienta para la Restauración de sus Poblaciones y Hábitats Asociados. (Universidad Autónoma del Carmen, 2019).Pineda, O. G. & Rocha, A. R. B. Las Tortugas Marinas en México: Logros y Perspectivas para su Conservación. (CONANP, 2016).Varela, R. G., Quílez, G. Z. & Harrison, E. Report on the 2014 Green Turtle Program at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. (2015).Azanza Ricardo, J. et al. Nesting ecology of Chelonia mydas (Testudines: Cheloniidae) on the Guanahacabibes Peninsula. Cuba. Rev. Biol. Trop. 61, 1935–1945 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nalovic, M. A. et al. Sea Turtles in the North Atlantic & Wider Caribbean Region. (2020).Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1541 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruschke, J. K. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405888-0.09999-2 (Academic Press, 2015).Ruiz-Urquiola, A. et al. Population genetic structure of greater Caribbean green turtles (Chelonia mydas) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences, with an emphasis on rookeries from southwestern Cuba. Rev. Investig. Mar. 31, 33–52 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Long, C. A. et al. Incongruent long-term trends of a marine consumer and primary producers in a habitat affected by nutrient pollution. Ecosphere 12, e03553 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, K. F., Stahelin, G. D., Chabot, R. M. & Mansfield, K. L. Long-term trends in marine turtle size at maturity at an important Atlantic rookery. Ecosphere 12, 7 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bjorndal, K. A., Bolten, A. B. & Chaloupka, M. Y. Evaluating trends in abundance of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in the Greater Caribbean. Ecol. Appl. 15, 304–314 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naro-Maciel, E. et al. The interplay of homing and dispersal in green turtles: A focus on the southwestern atlantic. J. Hered. 103, 792–805 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Monzón-Argüello, C. et al. Evidence from genetic and Lagrangian drifter data for transatlantic transport of small juvenile green turtles. J. Biogeogr. 37, 1752–1766 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luke, K., Horrocks, J. A., LeRoux, R. A. & Dutton, P. H. Origins of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) feeding aggregations around Barbados, West Indies. Mar. Biol. 144, 799–805 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bass, A. L., Epperly, S. P. & Braun-McNeill, J. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) foraging and nesting aggregations in the Caribbean and Atlantic: Impact of currents and behavior on dispersal. J. Hered. 97, 346–354 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lahanas, P. N. et al. Genetic composition of a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) feeding ground population: Evidence for multiple origins. Mar. Biol. 130, 345–352 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foley, A. M. et al. Characteristics of a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) assemblage in northwestern Florida determined during a hypothermic stunning event. Gulf Mex. Sci. 25, 131–143 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Bass, A. L., Lagueux, C. J. & Bowen, B. W. Origin of green turtles, Chelonia mydas, at ‘Sleeping Rocks’ off the Northeast coast of Nicaragua. Copeia 1998, 1064 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bass, A. L. & Witzell, W. N. Demographic composition of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the East Central Florida Coast: Evidence from mtDNA markers. Herpetologica 56, 357–367 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Bjorndal, K. A., Parsons, J., Mustin, W. & Bolten, A. B. Threshold to maturity in a long-lived reptile: Interactions of age, size, and growth. Mar. Biol. 160, 607–616 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrault, J. R. et al. Maternal health status correlates with nest success of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from Florida. PLoS ONE 7, e31841 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Montero, N. et al. Warmer and wetter conditions will reduce offspring production of hawksbill turtles in Brazil under climate change. PLoS ONE 13, 1–16 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shamblin, B. M. et al. Geographic patterns of genetic variation in a broadly distributed marine vertebrate: New insights into loggerhead turtle stock structure from expanded mitochondrial DNA sequences. PLoS ONE 9, 85956 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, J. D., Shaver, D. J. & Karel, W. J. Genetic Diversity and Natal Origins of Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Western Gulf of Mexico. J. Herpetol. 47, 251–257 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Time using the rock as refugeTemperature had an effect in the refuge usage of both species when analysed together (lme.zig: F3,192 = 7.97, p = 0.0001; Fig. 1A). However, species behaved differently (lme.zig: F1,192 = 14.79, p = 0.0004; Fig. 1A). As hypothesised, there was an interaction between temperature and species (lme.zig: F3,192 = 11.90, p  0.14, Fig. 1B).Size had an effect in the time exploring the rock (lme: F1,192 = 6.91, p = 0.012, Fig. 3) when species were analysed together, but there was no interaction with temperatures (lme: F3,192 = 0.42, p = 0.74, Fig. 3). We found that the interaction between species and size was close to be significant (lme: F1,192 = 3.62, p = 0.064, Fig. 3), implying that possibly smaller fish spent more time exploring the rock than bigger fish. However, when analysed separately, we did not find an effect of size in the exploring behaviour neither for twoline skiffias (lme: F1,96 = 2.99, p = 0.099, Fig. 3) nor for guppies (lme: F1,96 = 0.33, p = 0.569, Fig. 3).Figure 3Proportion of the total time observed (600 s) fish of different sizes spent exploring the rock. Lines represent the areas where the density of data is higher.Full size imageTime spent swimmingTemperature had an effect in the time spent swimming for both species when analysed together (lme: F3,192 = 23.48, p  More

Variation in environmental parameters across space and time in Bohai BayThe environmental parameters of samples collected near the Tianjin coastal area from different stations and seasons exhibited high temporal and spatial heterogeneity. The seawater temperature was 28.09 ± 0.53 °C in Aug, 17.48 ± 2.36 °C in May, and 19.55 ± 1.26 °C in Oct (Table 1). The seasonal variation in seawater temperature corresponded to the meteorological characteristics in Bohai Bay, with warm seawater in summer and relatively cool seawater in spring. The salinity was 29.69 ± 2.71‰ in Aug, 33.19 ± 0.33‰ in May, and 30.15 ± 1.63‰ in Oct. Seasonal variations in salinity may be mainly related to freshwater loading. According to the precipitation observed data of Bohai Bay in previous years, the rainfall amount and days in summer are the most19, which may lead to the increase in runoff and the relatively low salinity in summer. Chlorophyll a (Chl a) was highest in May, with lower levels in Aug and Oct. The dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) was significantly higher in May and Aug than in Oct. The higher level of DIN in May and Aug may be related to terrestrial input and supply for the demand of phytoplankton growth. In October, the temperature and DIN content were both not suitable for phytoplankton growth, and Chl_a showed the lowest value. Spatially, the DIN distribution across the three seasons was rather similar, with high values observed in nearshore waters and low values in offshore waters (Dataset S1 & Fig. S1), which suggested that terrestrial input was an important source of DIN. The pH, soluble reactive phosphate (SRP) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) showed relatively higher values in October than in August and May, which may be caused by the dead phytoplankton release and terrestrial loadings through coasts and rivers. The dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity and depth did not show significant variation among sampling times (Table 1), while the conductivity and depth had relatively higher values at offshore stations (Dataset S1) since the more remote the sampling water was, the greater the depth was in Bohai Bay and the closer it was to the open sea with higher salinity and conductivity. The ordination plot showed distinct partitioning of samples from nearshore and offshore sites along principal component axis 1 (PC1) (Fig. 1). The ordination plot could explain 73.49% of the total variation in the geo-physical–chemical parameters and revealed a linear positive correlation between different parameters (Fig. 1). AN, DIN, nitrate and Chl_a were most crucial in the partitioning of samples from May and the other 2 months; salinity, longitude, depth and conductivity were crucial for the partitioning of samples from offshore and nearshore stations; pH, COD, SRP, nitrite and temperature were crucial for the partitioning of samples from nearshore stations in August and October and samples from offshore stations. Overall, the principal component analysis (PCA) plot clearly showed both the temporal and spatial variation of the measured environmental parameters, indicating that complex biogeochemical processes and hydrodynamic conditions lead to the variation among sites and seasons.Table 1 The independent-samples t test of environmental variables and α-diversity among different months.Full size tableFigure 1Biplot of the principal component analysis (PCA) for environmental parameters in the seawater samples of the Bohai Bay coastal area across different seasons and sites. The two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explained 73.49% of the total variation in the environmental data and showed clear partitioning of offshore samples (in blue font) from other nearshore samples along PC1 and partitioning of May samples from August and October along PC2. The variables transparency and latitude were strongly correlated with PC1, and the variables ammonia nitrogen (AN), COD, pH, soluble reactive phosphate (SRP), and nitrite were strongly correlated with PC2. Chlorophyll a (Chl_a), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), nitrate and DO were mainly positively correlated with samples from May, while salinity, longitude, depth and conductivity were mainly positively correlated with offshore samples. Blue arrows represent environmental parameters, and circles in color represent sampling points.Full size imageProkaryotic α/β-diversity variationMeasures of α-diversity showed significant differences in shannon, evenness, faith_pd and OTU richness between samples from May/Aug and Oct (Fig. 2, Table 1). Principal coordinates analysis (PCoAs) based on weighted UniFrac (WUF) distance and unweighted UniFrac (UUF) distance showed that the PCC from different sampling months separated across the first and second principal coordinates (Fig. 3A-B). Both the analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA/ADONIS) results indicated that the prokaryotic communities varied significantly across different sampling months when using a WUF distance metric (ANOSIM, r = 0.709, P = 0.001; ADONIS, R2 = 40.0%, P = 0.001) and UUF distance metric (ANOSIM, r = 0.934, P = 0.001; ADONIS, R2 = 38.7%, P = 0.001). At the same time, the prokaryotic α– and β-diversity both showed high within-month variability in Aug (Figs. 2, 3C–D), which indicated that the community varied greatly among different sites in Aug.Figure 2Alpha diversity of shannon, eveness, faith_pd (phylogenetic diversity) and OTU richness value of the prokaryotic community of all the samples from different stations at different sampling times.Full size imageFigure 3Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on unweighted (A) and weighted (B) UniFrac distances for prokaryotic communities in the surface waters; box plots showing the unweighted (C) and weighted (D) UniFrac distances among each station at different sampling times.Full size imageCorrelation between prokaryotic α/β-diversity and physical, chemical and geographic factorsThe α-diversity measurements exhibited significant positive correlations with temperature, pH, SRP, AN and un_ionN (Dataset S2). The correlation between α-diversity indexes and geo factors (longitude and latitude) was not strong or significant both in samples across the three sampling times or from each sampling time (Dataset S2).The environmental variation significantly correlated with β-diversity among the three seasons (r_weighted = 0.4558, r_unweighted = 0.4631, P = 0.001, Table 2), with pH, AN, temperature, un_ionN, COD, nitrite, SRP, salinity, DO and DIN as the main individual determinants. However, it did not show significant correlations with β-diversity at any sampling time except in Oct (Table S1).Table 2 Spearman’s rank correlation between environmental/spatial variability (Euclidean distance) and prokaryotic β-diversity (weighted/unweighted UniFrac distance) among all samples from different season.Full size tableThe geographic distance was not correlated with prokaryotic β-diversity (variation in community composition; r  0.05; Table 2) among the three sampling times. However, samples from Aug and Oct exhibited a significant correlation between β-diversity and geographic distance (Table S1).Factors driving the PCC variationPERMANOVA using the UUF/WUF distance indicated that temperature variation explained the largest part of community variation among the investigated factors (34.90%/19.83%, P = 0.001, Dataset S3), with AN (31.84%/13.56%, P = 0.001) and salinity (12.91%/6.21%, P = 0.001) as the second and third most significant sources of variation.The variance partitioning analysis (VPA) conducted on both UUF/WUF distances showed that almost 100% percent of the variation in PCC among all three sampling times was explained by the detected environmental factors. In May, no environmental or spatial factors could be selected as significantly explain the PCC variation; in Aug, the joint effects of environmental and spatial factors could explain 49.5% of the variation; in Oct, based on WUF distance, the spatial factors could purely explain 10.5%, environmental factors could purely explain 38.8%, their joint effects could explain 28.2%, and based on UUF distance, the joint effects of environmental factors and trend could explain 13.7% of the PCC variation. These results indicated dramatic shifts in the spatial or environmental factor effects on the PCC variation at different sampling times in Bohai Bay (Table 3).Table 3 Variance partitioning analysis of prokaryotic community in Bohai Bay according to seawater environmental factors and geospatial factors. The spatial factors including linear trend and PCNM variables. Forward selection procedures were used to select the best subset of environmental, trend, and PCNM variables explaining community variation, respectively. The community variation was calculated on the weighted and unweighted UniFrac distance matrix, respectively. Monte Carlo permutation test was performed on each set without the effect of the other by permuting samples freely (999 permutations).Full size tableDistinct seasonal features at the phylum and OTU levelsThere were notable differences in the proportions of various phyla among different seasons (sampling month). In May, there was a greater proportion of Alphaproteobacteria (41.41%), Planctomycetes (6.42%), Actinobacteria (3.86%), Firmicutes (1.48%), Acidobacteria (0.45%), TM7 (0.16%), Tenericutes (0.16%), OD1 (0.13%), and WPS-2 (0.09%) than in Aug and Oct, whereas Gammaproteobacteria (44.23%), GN02 (0.08%) and SAR406 (0.04%) were depleted in May and Aug but enriched in Oct. In Aug, Bacteroidetes (13.98%), Deltaproteobacteria (6.93%), Verrucomicrobia (4.5%), Chloroflexi (0.36%), Lentisphaerae (0.97%), TM6 (0.25%), Nitrospirae (0.08%), Chlamydiae (0.07%), Chlorobi (0.07%), Spirochaetes (0.04%) and OP8 (0.03%) were significantly enriched than in the other two sampling times (Duncan test; Table S2).At the OTU level, OTUs with relative abundance  > 0.01% (1040 OTUs) were used to perform the difference analysis, and 175 OTUs in May, 281 OTUs in Aug, and 210 OTUs in Oct were identified as seasonal specific OTUs (ssOTUs). The cooccurrence network showed that the ssOTUs were clustered separately (Fig. 4A). Furthermore, the separation of the three modules contained most of the ssOTUs specific to different seasons (Fig. 4A-B). All the ssOTUs of different seasons comprised a taxonomically broad set of prokaryotes at the phylum (phylum Proteobacteria is grouped at the class level) level (Fig. 4C) belonging to various phyla with different proportions. Betaproteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Gemmatimonadetes, Epsilonproteobacteria, PAUC34f., and Euryarchaeota did not show significant differences among the three sampling times at the phylum level, but features belonging to these phyla showed differences at the OTU level (Fig. 4C, Dataset S4). In addition, the phylum ssOTUs belonging to, such as Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Deltaproteobacteria, were not only enriched at one sampling time (Dataset S4) but also enriched at the other two sampling times (Fig. 4C, Dataset S4). These results revealed that different seasons do not strictly select specific microbial lineages at the phylum level, but a finer level analysis could more strictly reflect the seasonal variation.Figure 4Co-occurrence patterns of seasonal sensitive OTUs (A). Co-occurrence network visualizing significant correlations (ρ  > 0.7, P  0.01%. Different colors represent ssOTUs in May (green), Aug (red) and Oct (blue). Cumulative relative abundance (as counts per million, CPM; y-axis in × 1000) of all the sensitive modules in the networks (B). The phylum attribution of ssOTUs in each season (C). The y-axis is the percentage of the number of OTUs that belong to a particular phylum that accounts for the total number of all the OTUs.Full size imageRegression analysis between the relative abundance of modules to which the ssOTUs belonged and the environmental factors was also conducted, and module 1 abundance, to which the Aug-ssOTUs belonged, showed a significant positive correlation with temperature (R2 = 0.77, P = 6.609e−62), AN (R2 = 0.43, P = 7.416e−25), and un_ionN (R2 = 0.75, P = 1.366e−58) and a negative correlation with SRP (R2 = 0.81, P = 6.762e-17). This may be caused by the functional role of the microbes in Aug. In the Aug-ssOTUs, Deltaproteobacteria showed a higher ratio than in the other 2 months (Fig. 4c), and in the following functional analysis, Deltaproteobacteria contributed to the genes related to nitrogen fixation, which may help to explain why there was a positive correlation of Aug-ssOTUs to AN and un_ionN. The module 2 abundance to which the May-ssOTUs belonged showed a significant negative correlation with pH (R2 = 0.65, P = 4.026e−44), temperature (R2 = 0.19, P = 2.325e−10), un_ionN (R2 = 0.025, P = 0.01779), and SRP (R2 = 0.12, P = 4.104e−07) and a positive correlation with AN (R2 = 0.26, P = 5.174e−14). In the May-ssOTUs, the ratio of Alphaproteobacteria was the highest, and Alphaproteobacteria were reported to be pH-sensitive groups in marine environments20, which prefer neutral pH environments21. In this study, the pH in May was 8.04 ± 0.07, in Aug was 8.39 ± 0.09, in Oct was 8.38 ± 0.07, and the pH in May was the closest to neutral, and the ratio decreased with increasing pH in Oct and Aug. The abundance of module 3, to which the Oct-ssOTUs belonged, showed a significant positive correlation with SRP (R2 = 0.81, P = 0.16e-10) and pH (R2 = 0.054, P = 0.00075) and a negative correlation with temperature (R2 = 0.44, P = 2.276e−25), AN (R2 = 0.75, P = 4.51e−58), and un_ionN (R2 = 0.6, P = 3.995e-39) (Fig. S2). Phosphate has been identified to limit primary productivity22, which is of great importance in the structure of dominant bacterial taxa in marine environments23. In the Oct-ssOTUs, the ratio of Gammaproteobacteria was the highest, as reported. Gammaproteobacteria was significantly explained by SRP during the seasonal variation in the Western English Channel, with Rho equal to 0.7523, which suggested the sensitivity of it to SRP, and in that study, it also showed a negative correlation between temperature and Gammaproteobacteria and a positive correlation between SRP and Gammaproteobacteria. Although the correlation was not significant, the variation trend was consistent, which indicates that the phenomenon observed in this study was not unexpected. In addition, most ammonia-oxidizing bacteria belong to the Betaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes are chemolithoautotrophs that oxidize ammonia to nitrite24. Gammaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria both had higher ratios in Oct-ssOTUs, and the functional prediction results also showed that pmoA/amoA and pmoB/amoB, which encode ammonia monooxygenase, were mainly contributed by OTUs from Gammaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria (Dataset S10). The utilization of ammonia may explain the negative correlation between the Oct-ssOTUs and AN.Community assembly processes across different sampling months and sitesBased on the analysis of phylogenetic turnover, unweighted βNTI mostly ranged from -2 to 2 across different sites at a single sampling time in May, Aug and Oct, revealing that PCC variations across different sampling sites at a single time were mostly affected by stochastic processes. The unweighted βNTI was greater than 2 across May–Aug, May–Oct and Aug-Oct (Fig. 5A), which revealed that the variations in PCC across different sampling times were mostly affected by deterministic processes. The RCbray values across any two sampling times were equal to 1, and in each sampling time, the RCbray values ranged from − 1 to 1 (Fig. 5B). Combining the βNTI and RCbray values, the community assembly processes were quantified at each sampling time and at any two sampling times. As shown in Fig. 5C, turning over of the community during different sampling times was mainly governed by selection; among the different sites in May and Oct, it was mainly governed by “undominated” processes; community turn over in Aug was mainly governed by the influence of “Dispersal Limitation”. These results indicated that the shifts in the assembly of prokaryotic communities during different sampling times were caused by strong “heterogeneous selection” (βNTI  > 2), and the community variation at each sampling time was mainly caused by stochastic processes.Figure 5Patterns of distribution of unweighted βNTI (A) and RCbray (B) values across different sampling times. Quantification of the features that impose community assembly processes in and among different sampling times. (C) Pie charts give the percent of turnover in community composition governed primarily by Selection acting alone (white fill), Dispersal Limitation (green line fill), Homogenizing Dispersal (blue line fill) and undominated process (cyan fill).Full size imagePrediction of the metabolic potential at different sampling timesThe NSTI scores of each sample ranged from 0.033 to 0.096, with a mean of 0.058 (Dataset S5). Microbial functions were detected in all the samples from the three sampling times, and it was found that the relative abundances of 242 pathways were significantly changed between samples from May and samples from Aug (Dataset S6). The relative abundances of 321 pathways were significantly changed between samples from May and Oct (Dataset S7), and the relative abundances of 370 pathways were significantly changed between samples from Aug and Oct (Dataset S8).Genes related to energy metabolism were given more attention. For nitrogen metabolism genes relevant with nitrogen fixation (nifD, nifK) were detected only enriched in Aug, while genes relevant with nitrate reduction and denitrification (narG, narZ, nxrA, narH, narY, nxrB, narI, narV, nirD, nasA, nasB) were detected enriched in May, genes related with ammonia oxidation were both detected enriched in Oct and Aug. For sulfur metabolism, genes relevant with thiosulfate oxidation (soxA, soxB, soxC, soxX, soxY and soxZ) were only enriched in Aug, while genes relevant with sulfate and sulfite reduction (cysNC, aprA, aprB, cysJ, cysI, cysK, dsrA) were detected enriched in May and Oct (Fig. 6).Figure 6The LEfSe analysis indicated significantly differential abundances of PICRUSt predicted genes relevant to energy metabolism in different months of samples.Full size imageProkaryotic taxa contributed to the significantly varied functional genes related to nitrogen and sulfur metabolism at different sampling times. At the species level, the taxa contributing to nifK and nifD mainly belonged to Deltaproteobacteria and Firmicutes, and the taxa contributing to the sox-series genes mainly belonged to Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria (Fig. S3). The denitrification-related functional genes that were enriched in May were mainly contributed by members from Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria. The taxa contributing to dsrA, aprA and aprB were mainly from Deltaproteobacteria, including members of Desulfarculaceae, Desulfobacteraceae, Desulfobulbaceae, Desulfovibrionaceae and Syntrophobacteraceae (Fig. S4). More

Austin, K. G. et al. Land Use Policy 69, 41–48 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Busch, J. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 014035 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fleiss, S. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01941-6 (2022).Qaim, M. et al. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12, 321–344 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haupt, F. et al. Progress on Corporate Commitments and their Implementation (Tropical Forest Alliance, 2018).Brooks, T. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0099 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buisson, E. et al. Biol. Rev. 94, 590–609 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
López-Ricaurte, L. et al. Biol. Conserv. 213, 225–233 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Furumo, P. R. & Aide, T. M. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 024008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production Version 3.1 (RTRS, 2017). More

Study sites and coloniesAll the experiments were carried out during the apple and pear blooming seasons of 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2014 in different locations of the province of Rio Negro, Argentina, while some laboratory experiments performed in the city of Buenos Aires. We used individual foragers of Apis mellifera L. and their colonies containing a mated queen, brood, and food reserves in ten-frame Langstroth hives. All beehives used had similar sizes and the same management history from the beekeeper. The honey bees studied belonged to commercial Langstroth-type hives rented to pollinate these plots. Each hive had a fertilized queen, 3 or 4 capped brood frames, reserves and approximately 15,000 individuals56.Testing generalization of memories from pear mimic odours to pear and apple natural floral scentsThe absolute conditioning assays were performed in the laboratories of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires (34° 32′ S, 58° 26′ W), Buenos Aires, Argentina. We used honey bee foragers collected at the entrance of the hives settle in the experimental field of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences. The apple (‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Red Delicious’ varieties) and pear (‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’ varieties) bud samples that we used as conditioned stimuli (CS) during the conditioning were collected at the end of the blossom of 2011 in Ingeniero Huergo (39° 03′ 27.5″ S; 67° 13′ 53.5″ W), province of Río Negro, Argentina, and taken to the laboratory in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, to be used within the following 2 days.We first developed the three different synthetic mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) that could be generalized to the fragrance of the pear flower by foraging bees. The pear synthetic mixtures were formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of pear blossoms57. Then, we chose the synthetic mixture most perceptually similar to the pear flower fragrance and measured its generalisation response to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. The chemical compounds used to prepare the different synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. The compounds used for the three pear mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) were composed by alpha-pinene, 2-ethyl-hexanol, (R)-(+)-limonene, and (±)-linalool. For details of the PM and mixture proportions see Patent PCT/IB2018/05555058.To test generalization, we took advantages of the fact that honey bees reflexively extend their proboscises when sugar solution is applied to their antennae59. The proboscis extension reflex (PER) can be used to condition bees to an odour if a neutral olfactory stimulus (CS) is paired with a sucrose reward as unconditioned stimulus, US60. Conditioned honey bees extend their proboscises towards the odour alone, a response that indicates that this stimulus has been learned and predicts the oncoming food reward. Conditioned bees can generalize such a learned response to a novel odour if it is perceived like the conditioned one (CS). Then we performed three absolute PER conditionings where we paired each of the three PMs with a sucrose-water solution (30%) reward along three learning trials (exp. 4.2a). Afterwards, pear floral scent was presented as novel odour to test generalization. Based on the generalization level to the pear odour, we chose the synthetic mixture that showed the highest generalisation towards pear flower fragrance, and we used it in all the experiments that follow. In an additional 3-trial PER conditioning with the chosen mixture, we quantified generalisation towards both the pear and apple fragrances as novel stimuli (exp. 4.2b).The experimental bees were all foragers, captured from colonies that had no access to any pear and/or apple tree, hence completely naïve for the CSs. Immediately after capture, bees were anaesthetized at 4 °C and harnessed in metal tubes so that they could only move their mouthparts and antennae60. They were fed 30% weight/weight unscented sucrose solution for about three seconds and kept in a dark incubator (30 °C, 55% relative humidity) for about two hours. Only those bees that showed the unconditioned response (the reflexive extension of the proboscis after applying a 30% w/w sucrose solution to the antennae) and did not respond to the mechanical air flow stimulus were used. Trials lasted 46 s and presented three steps: 20 s of clean air, 6 s of odour presentation (CS) and the last 20 s of clean air. During rewarded trials (CS), the reward (US, a drop of 30% w/w sucrose solution) was delivered upon the last 3 s of CS presentation. The synthetic mixtures (PM) were delivered in a constant air flow (15 ml/s) that passed through a 1 ml syringe containing 4 µl of the synthetic mixture on a small strip of filter paper. On the other hand, pear and apple floral volatiles were swept from a 100 g of fresh pear buds (var. ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’) or apple buds (var. ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) inside a kitasato by means of an air flow (54 ml/s).Testing discrimination between mimics and natural floral scentsThe differential conditioning assays were performed in a field laboratory in Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina. Conditioning trials with AM as CS were carried out in September 2007 and 2008, prior to the beginning of flowering of the fruit trees. Conditioning trials with PM as CS were carried out in September 2011 in the same area (Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina). Apple and pear bud samples used as CS were collected in plots that start blooming located around Ingeniero Huergo, but distant (more than 1 km) from the plot where we collected the bees. The bud samples presented the following varieties: M. domesticus sp., ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’, and ‘Red Delicious’; P. communis sp., ‘Packham’ and ‘D’Anjou’.With the aim to develop a synthetic mixture that presents difficult to discriminate with the fragrance of the apple flower by foraging bees, an apple synthetic mixture (AM) was formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of apple blossoms61. The chemical compounds used to prepare the apple synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. Apple mimic (AM) was composed by benzaldehyde, limonene and citral. For details of the AM proportions see Patent AR2011010244162. Jasmine mimic (JM) was a commercial extract obtained from Firmenich S.A.I.C. y F, Argentina.If the synthetic mixture chosen were perceptually similar to the apple flower fragrance, experimental bees should have difficult to discriminate to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. Thus, we performed differential PER conditioning between synthetic mixtures (AM and Jasmine mimic, JM) or between synthetic mixtures (AM or JM) and the apple natural fragrance. We followed a differential PER conditioning34 to assess to what extent the bees were able to discriminate the synthetic mimics from their natural flower scents. PER differential conditioning consisted of four pairs of trials, four rewarded trials (CS+) and four non-rewarded trials (CS−) that were presented in a pseudo-randomized manner. Conditionings were performed using the synthetic mixtures PM and AM and the natural floral scents, pear and apple, either as CS+ and CS−. We followed the same procedure that in 3.3 to capture the bees and to present the stimuli during trials.Feeding protocolWe used the offering of scented sucrose solution in the hive as a standardized procedure to establish long-term olfactory memory in honey bees23,24,24,26,63. Scented sucrose solution was obtained by diluting 50 µl of PM or AM per litre of sucrose solution (50% weight/weight, henceforth: w/w). For the ‘apple’ series, colonies were fed 1500 ml of sugar solution offered in an internal plastic feeder for 2 days, about 3 days before the apple trees began to bloom. For the ‘pear’ series, hives were fed 500 ml of sugar solution that we spread over the top of the central frames. Both feeding procedures have been found to be functional for establishing olfactory in-hive memories26. Depending on the pear varieties, the scented sucrose solution was offered when the pear trees were 10–40% in bloom.Colony activityThe effects of the AM-treatment on colony nest entrance activity were studied in 18 colonies located in an agricultural setting of apple and pear trees in Ingeniero Huergo, on an 8-ha plot, half of which was planted with apple trees (varieties: ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) and the other 4 ha with pear trees (varieties: ‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’). The effect of the PM-treatment on colony activity was studied in 14 colonies located in three adjoining pear plots (total surface: 8 ha) in Otto Krause (39° 06′ 22″ S 66° 59′ 46″ O, Supplementary Fig. S5), province of Río Negro, Argentina. The varieties of these plots corresponded to ‘Packham’ and ‘Williams’. Pollen collection (exp. 4.5.2) was also studied in colonies located in these plots.We focused on the nest entrance activity since once the first successful foragers return to the hive and display dances and/or unload the food collected, it promotes the activation or reactivation of inactive foragers and, in a minor proportion, those hive mates ready to initiate foraging tasks39,65,66,67,67. Then, we choose number of incoming bees as an indicator of colony foraging activity, since most of these bees are expected to return from foraging sites33. Thus, we compared the activity level at the nest entrance between 7 SS + PM-treated colonies and 7 SS-treated colonies. We also compared the nest entrance activity level between 5 colonies treated with SS + AM and 5 colonies fed with SS. This activity value was estimated by the number of incoming foragers at the entrance of the hive for one minute, every morning at the same time (10:30 a.m.) during the entire experiment (9 consecutive days). A first measurement was done one day before feeding the colonies (used as covariate) and 7 measurements afterwards.We measured the amount of pollen loads collected by two colonies: one fed with SS + PM and one fed with SS. Pollen loads were collected using conventional pollen traps (frontal-entrance trap), consisting of a wooden structure with a removable metal mesh inside. Pollen samples were collected for 3 days, two hours per day during the late morning, 3, 7 and 8 days after the offering of SS + PM or SS. Pollen pellets identified based on pollen colour as coming from the pear flower or from other species were separated and counted. In addition, we estimated the weight of pear pollen loads during a 5 days period, from 6 to 10 days after the offering of scented or unscented sucrose solution. To reduce measurement error, pollen loads were weighed in groups of 10.Crop yieldPear crop yield was studied in pear plots in General Roca (39° 02′ 00″ S; 67° 35′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S4, Supplementary Table S3), province of Río Negro, Argentina. In an area of 15.2 ha (4 plots of 3.8 ha each), 45 beehives were equidistantly located in groups. We measured the number of fruits per tree set of 30 trees in the surrounding areas of the PM-treated colonies (2 groups of 8 hives) and control colonies (2 groups of 8 hives). A third group category contained 13 untreated colonies. The varieties of the pear trees were ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’.Apple crop yield estimated by means of number of fruits per plant was studied in General Roca (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S1), province of Río Negro, Argentina. We measured fruit set in the two plots that covered a surface of 3.8 ha and contained a total of 74 colonies distributed in groups (the control plot, 39 SS-treated-colonies treated with SS; and the treated plot, 35 SS + AM-treated-colonies treated with SS + AM). The varieties of the apple trees were ‘Red Delicious’ (clone 1), ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Granny Smith’.A second studied on apple fruit yield by means of kg of fruits per hectare was performed in Coronel Belisle (39° 11′ 00″ S 65° 59′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S3, Supplementary Table S2), province of Río Negro, Argentina. Four apple plots with ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Hi Early’ and ‘Red Delicious’, clone 1 varieties of 15.4 ha each were randomly assigned to different treatments (treated plot 1, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; treated plot 2, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; control plot 1, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS; control plot 2, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS).During the fruit harvest, the fruit yield was estimated in the surroundings (150 m around) of two groups of 8 colonies each. We fed one group SS + PM and the other unscented sucrose solution (SS). Yield was estimated as the number of fruits per trees in 30 randomly selected trees within each area, alternating the counts between the North and South faces of the plots. Following the same procedure, we also estimated the number of fruits per trees in the surroundings of two groups of 14 colonies each that pollinated apple crops. Again, we fed one group SS + AM and the other SS. Additionally, a total of 218 colonies in General Roca and 180 colonies in Coronel Belisle have been separated in the two experimental groups, in which yield had been provided by the producer and expressed in kg of fruits per ha. It is worth remarking that in some plots the distance between treated and control beehive groups was around 300 m, suggesting that might have been overlapping flying areas between treated and control hives. Additionally, the apple fields studied in the surrounding of Coronel Belisle, presented many trees without flowers. It was considered that the absence of flowers in numerous trees would bias the counts performed in those fields. Then, to quantify this situation, which might be associated with the masting phenomenon68, samples with the proportions of trees without flowers for every 20 trees in each plot was done. Trees that had between 80 and 100% of their surface devoid of flowers were considered “without flowers” trees, and “trees with available flowers” those that had more than 20% of their surface covered with flowers. An average of 30% of the trees within these plots were devoid of flowers. Thus, a correction factor was considered to evaluate the yield data provided by the grower per plot analysed (Supplementary Table S4).StatisticsAll statistical analyses were performed with R Core Team 201969. For Experiment 4.2 and 4.3, we analysed PER proportion by means of a binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “glmer” function of the ‘lme4’ package70.For experiment 4.2a we considered the pear mimics (three-level factor corresponding to PM, PMI and PMII) and the event (two-level factor corresponding to 3rd trial and test) as fixed factors and each “bee” as a random factor.For experiment 4.2b we considered the tested odours (three-level factor corresponding to Apple, Pear and PM) as fixed factors.For experiment 4.3 we considered the tested odours (two-level factor corresponding to CS+ and CS−) as fixed factors. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.7.071 with a significance level of 0.05.For experiment 4.5.1 we analysed “rate of incoming bees” using a generalized linear mixed model. As Poisson model for incoming bees was overdispersed72, we used a negative binomial distribution using the ‘glmmTMB’ package (function ‘glmmTMB’73. We considered “treatment” [two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM (or SS + PM) and SS], “days” (7-level factor corresponding to the date after treatment), the rate of incoming bees before the offering of food (to control for pre-existing colony differences) as covariate (a quantitative fixed effects variable), and “colony” as a random factor.For experiment 4.6, we analysed fruits per trees by means of a negative binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “log” function of the ‘ml’ package70. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.8.071 with a significance level of 0.05. For experiment 4.6b we analysed “yield” (as weight of fruits per unit area) using a general linear mixed model. We checked homoscedasticity and normality assumptions (Levene and Shapiro–Wilk tests, respectively). We considered “treatment” (two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM and SS) and “apple varieties” (3-level factor corresponding to Hi Early, Granny Smith and Chañar 28) as fixed factors and “location” (2-level factor corresponding to General Roca and Coronel Belisle) as random factors. More