Philippa Kaur

Sites overview and characteristicsThis study focused on three regions located in subantarctic, arctic, and subarctic latitudes. The respective latitudinal and longitudinal ranges covered in this study were: 54.95 to 52.08 °S, and 72.03 to 67.34 °W in Patagonia; 67.44 to 67.54 °N, and 86.59 to 86.71 °E in Siberia; 63.21 to 68.63 °N, and −150.79 to −145.98 °W in Alaska (Figs. 1 and 2). The exact coordinates for each sample were included in the submitted dataset. The field campaigns were conducted in 2016, during the summer for each respective region: January-February in Chilean Patagonia, June-July in Alaska and July-August in Siberia.Fig. 1Location of the three areas included in this study (panel a). The permafrost state and the number of sites and samples per region is indicated for each area. General views of 5 sites are provided as examples (b–f). Panel B provides a large view of the ecosystem surrounding the wetland ALP2 (Alaska, exact location indicated by the white circle). Lake PCL1 (panel c) is representative of the lakes on Navarino island (Chilean Patagonia). The glacial lake SIL2 is shown in panel d. At site SIP5, the hollow at first plan is surrounded by palsa (hummock, second plan), characterized by dark organic matter and lichen vegetation (panel e). The PPP3 peatland shown in panel f is dominated by Sphagnum magellanicum, like most peatlands in the area.Full size imageFig. 2Maps of sampling sites in Patagonia, Alaska and Siberia, indicating the ecosystem type (lake, wetland, soil). The tables show the complete- (in white) and the partial- (in grey) characterization sites. The exact coordinates of each sample are provided in the data record (See data records section).Full size imageFor every site included in the present study, a set of nine qualitative environmental and/or ecological site-scale descriptors was selected and adapted from ENVO Environment Ontology40, which included for example permafrost state, biome, environmental feature and vegetation type (Table 1, Fig. 3). Permafrost state was obtained from the NSIDC permafrost map41. The biome, large-scale descriptor based on climate and vegetation criteria, was derived from Olson et al.42. Temperate forest, boreal forest, and tundra biomes were included. The environmental features that were representative for the three regions were considered: lakes, wetlands, broadleaf/coniferous/mixed forest soils, grassland, tundra, and palsa. All the metadata was included in the submitted dataset. Table 2 summarizes the main types of sampled ecosystems and their main characteristics in the three regions, while Supplementary Table S1 provides the details of each sampling site.Table 1 Overview of the dataset contained in Mimarks sheet.Full size tableFig. 3Description of the qualitative environmental/ecological descriptors used to describe every sample, derived from ENVO Environment Ontology40.Full size imageTable 2 Main types of sampled ecosystems in the three studied regions.Full size tableIn Alaska, the studied area ranged from the Alaska Range and Fairbanks area (interior, continental climate, 63–65°N, discontinuous permafrost) up to Toolik Field Station (North Slope, arctic climate, 66–69°N, continuous permafrost; Fig. 2). The physiochemistry and CH4 emissions of lakes ALL1 (Killarney lake), ALL2 (Otto lake), ALL3 (Nutella lake), and ALL4 (Goldstream lake) were previously characterized35. A number of heterogeneous soil and wetland samples were collected around the studied Alaskan lakes and/or from monitored sites, as detailed in Supplementary Table S1. In the Alaska Range and Fairbanks area, soils were mostly covered by mixed or taiga forests, alpine tundra, and bogs or fens wetlands. In the norther Brooks Ranges mountain system, the landscape was piedmont hills with a predominant soil of porous organic peat underlain by silt and glacial till, all in a permafrost state, characterized mainly by Sphagnum and Eriophorum vegetation, as well as dwarf shrubs.In Siberia, the studied area was located in the discontinuous permafrost region surrounding Igarka, on the eastern bank of the Yenisei River (Fig. 2). This region was mainly covered by forest, dominated by larch (Larix Siberica), birch (Betula Pendula), and Siberian pine (Pinus Siberica), and palsa landscapes (frozen peat mounts), the latter being dominated by moss, lichens, Labrador tea and dwarf birch. In degraded areas, thermokarst bogs were dominated by Sphagnum spp. and Eriophorum spp. Land cover was an indicator of permafrost status, since forested areas reflected a deep permafrost table ( >2 m) associated with Pleistocene permafrost, while palsa-dominated landscapes were indicative of the presence of near-surface ( More

Cohort demographicsA total of 206 female participants were enrolled in the study and passed our quality control standards. All participants were required to be between the ages of 18–26 years old (22.5 ± 2.1) and to be born and at the time living in one of four geographically distinct regions of the world: Barbados; Santiago, Chile; Pretoria, S. Africa; and Bangkok, Thailand. The regions do, however, differ by an order of magnitude in their geographic spread as the intra-distance separating the residence neighborhood of participants ranged from 34 (Barbados) to 681 km (Pretoria, S. Africa) (Fig. S2). The Chilean and the South African datasets are further divided into two contiguous sub-regions, or neighborhoods, to allow for a micro-geographic analysis. The study population is largely dominated by individuals with self-identified Thai heritage (33%), followed by Black African (16%), Afro-Caribbean (14%) and white (14%) descent, although 19% of the Chilean population did not report ethnicity.Study participants, despite the divergent geographies, mostly have similar dietary and lifestyle habits (Table S1). Over half the study population (62%) have a normal BMI, with the mean BMI in this range (22.6 ± 5.5). The diets of the different cohorts are also similar as of the total cohort, 78% consume a starch heavy diet (≥ 4 days a week) of rice, bread and pasta, followed by 66% who frequently consume (≥ 4 days a week) vegetables and fruit and 49% who frequently consume dairy products. The study population is split by level of tobacco exposure, with 51% of the population having never smoked, and 43% being exposed to second-hand smoke through living with a smoker. Over half (56%) of the study population own one or more pets.Stool microbiomeThe OTUs identified using the UPARSE pipeline17 were used to compute the alpha diversity of the microbial communities using the Chao1 (species richness) and Shannon (species evenness) indices. The mean Shannon indices reveal that the microbiota diversity is only significant between Thailand-Chile with FDR  More

Rippka, R. et al. J. Gen. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-111-1-1 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. ISME J. 14, 1065–1073 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yelton, A. P. et al. ISME J. 10, 2946–2957 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ward, B. A. & Follows, M. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2958–2963 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Z. et al. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01250-5 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9824–9829 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zubkov, M. et al. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 1299–1304 (2003).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vila-Costa, M. et al. Science 314, 652–654 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8597–8602 (2013).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Baena, G. et al. PLoS ONE 3, e3416 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coe, A. et al. Limnol. Oceanogr. 71, 1375–1388 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz-Marín, M. C. et al. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.462702 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Sacristán, D., Peñarroya, B., Recatalá, L. Increasing the Knowledge on the Management of Cu-Contaminated Agricultural Soils by Cropping Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.). Land Degrad. Dev. 26, 587–595 (2015).FAO. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. Manual for Local Level Assessment of Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management. Part 1: Planning and Methodological Approach, Analysis and Reporting. https://www.fao.org/3/i6362e/i6362e.pdf (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011).Vlachodimos, K., Papatheodorou, E. M., Diamantopoulos, J. & Monokrousos, N. Assessment of Robinia pseudoacacia cultivations as a restoration strategy for reclaimed mine spoil heaps. Environ Monit. Assess. 185, 6921–6932 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Misano, G. & Di Pietro, R. Habitat 9250 “Quercus trojana woods” in Italy. Fitosociologia 44, 235–238 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Biondi, E. et al. A contribution towards the knowledge of semideciduous and evergreen woods of Apulia (south-eastern Italy). Fitosociologia 41(1), 3–28 (2004).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Brunetti, G. et al. Remediation of a heavy metals contaminated soil using mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized Helichrysum italicum (Roth) Don. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 91–104 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poblador, S. et al. The influence of the invasive alien nitrogen-fixing Robinia pseudoacacia L. on soil nitrogen availability in a mixed Mediterranean riparian forest. Eur. J. For. Res. 138, 1083–1093 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vítková, M., Müllerová, J., Sádlo, J., Pergl, J. & Pyšek, P. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) beloved and despised: A story of an invasive tree in Central Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 384, 287–302 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. in Methods for Assessing Soil Quality (eds. Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J.). 25–37 (Soil Science Society of America, 1996).Gil-Sotres, F., Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leirós, M. C. & Seoane, S. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 877–887 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andriani, G. F. & Walsh, N. An example of the effects of anthropogenic changes on natural environment in the Apulian karst (southern Italy). Environ. Geol. 58, 313–325 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bisantino, T., Pizzo, V., Polemio, M. & Gentile, F. Analysis of the flooding event of October 22–23, 2005 in a small basin in the province of Bari (Southern Italy). J. Agric. Eng. 531, 197–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy 12th edn. (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Tartarino, P. Inventario dei Boschi Spontanei e dei Rimboschimenti delle Provincie BAT e Bari e Stima del Loro Volume Legnoso e della sua Frazione Prelevabile nel Prossimo Ventennio. (Rapporto Tecnico Scientifico, 2011).Ismail, A. et al. Chemical composition and biological activities of Tunisian Cupressus arizonica Greene essential oils. Chem. Biodivers. 11, 150–160 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Navarro, A. et al. Feasibility of SRC Species for growing in Mediterranean conditions. Bioenerg. Res. 9, 208–223 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrino, E. V., Brunetti, G. & Farrag, K. Plant communities in multi-metal contaminated soils: A case study in the National Park of Alta Murgia (Apulia Region-Southern Italy). Int. J. Phytoremediat. 16, 871–888 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
VV AA Perizia Studi per il Riequilibrio Socio-Economico dell’area Interessata dall’invaso sul Torrente Locone. Consorzio Di Bonifica Apulo Lucano (1986).Lavarra, P. et al. Il Sistema Carta della Natura della Regione Puglia. (ISPRA, Serie Rapporti 204, 2014).Sparks, D. L. et al. Method of Soil Analysis: Part 3 (American Society of Agronomy Inc, 1996).Book 

Google Scholar 
Brink, R. H. Jr., Dubach, P. & Lynch, D. L. Measurement of carbohydrates in soil hydrolyzates with anthrone. Soil Sci. 89, 157–166 (1960).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275 (1951).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
García, C., Hernandez, T. & Costa, F. Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index of microbial activity in degraded soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 28, 123–134 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. & Jenkinson, D. S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 703–707 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gregorich, E. G., Wen, G., Voroney, R. P. & Kachanoski, R. G. Calibration of a rapid direct chloroform extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 22, 1009–1011 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nannipieri, P., Ceccanti, B., Cervelli, S. & Matarese, E. Extraction of phosphatase, urease, protease, organic carbon and nitrogen from soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 1011–1016 (1980).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tabatabai, M.A. (1994) Soil enzymes. in Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties (eds. Weaver, R.W. et al.). 775–833 (Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 1996)Traversa, A., Said-Pullicino, D., D’Orazio, V., Gigliotti, G., & Senesi, N. Properties of humic acids in Mediterranean forest soils (Southern Italy): Influence of different plant covering. Eur. J. For. Res. 130, 1045–1054 (2011)De Marco, A. et al. Decomposition of black locust and black pine leaf litter in two coeval forest stands on Mount Vesuvius and dynamics of organic components assessed through proximate analysis and NMR spectroscopy. Soil Biol. Biochem. 51, 1–15 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wei, G. et al. Invasive Robinia pseudoacacia in China is nodulated by Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium species that share similar nodulation genes with native American symbionts. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 68, 320–328 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schulze, E. D., Gebauer, G., Ziegler, H. & Lange, O. L. Estimates of nitrogen fixation by trees on an aridity gradient in Namibia. Oecologia 88, 451–455 (1991).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zahran, H. H. Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63, 968–989 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Veste, M. & Kriebitzsch, W. U. Influence of drought stress on photosynthesis, transpiration, and growth of juvenile black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.). Forstarchiv 84, 35–42 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Nicolescu, V. N. et al. Ecology, growth and management of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), a non-native species integrated into European forests. J. For. Res. 31, 1081–1101 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soil (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Margalef, O. et al. Global patterns of phosphatase activity in natural soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 1337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01418-8 (2017).Prescott, C. E. & Grayston, S. J. Tree species influence on microbial communities in litter and soil: Current knowledge and research needs. For. Ecol. Manag. 309, 19–27 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberger, W. T. & Dick, W. A. Relationships between enzyme, activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47, 945–951 (1983).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberger, W.T., Tabatabai, M.A. Amidase activity in soils III. Stability and distribution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 333–338 (1981).Nannipieri, P., Trasar-Cepeda, C. & Dick, R. P. Soil enzyme activity: A brief history and biochemistry as a basis for appropriate interpretations and meta-analysis. Biol. Fertil. Soils 54, 11–19 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pascual, J. A., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., Moreno, J. L. & Ros, M. Soil microbial activity as a biomarker of degradation and remediation processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1877–1883 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
García-Gil, J. C., Plaza, C., Solker-Rovira, P. & Polo, A. Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1907–1913 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Insam, H. & Domsch, K. H. Relationship between soil organic carbon and microbial biomass on chronosequences of reclamation sites. Microb. Ecol. 15, 177–188 (1988).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Acosta-Martinez, V. & Tabatabai, M. Enzyme activities in a limed agricultural soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 31, 85–91 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uselman, S. M., Qualls, R. G. & Thomas, R. B. A test of a potential short cut in the nitrogen cycle: the role of exudation of symbiotically fixed nitrogen from the roots of a N-fixing tree and the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Plant Soil 210, 21–32 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Marco, A., Esposito, F., Berg, B., Zarrelli, A. & Virzo De Santo, A. Litter inhibitory effects on soil microbial biomass activity, and catabolic diversity in two paired stands of Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Pinus nigra Arn. Forest 9, 766. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9120766 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haghverdi, K. & Kooch, Y. Effects of diversity of tree species on nutrient cycling and soil-related processes. CATENA 178, 335–344 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, H. T. Microbial eco-physiological indicators to assess soil quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98, 285–293 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkinson, D.S., Ladd, J.N. Microbial biomass in soil: Measurement and turnover. in Soil Biochemistry (eds. Paul, E.A., Ladd, J.N.). 415–471 (Marcel Dekker Inc., 1981) More

Our results show that GoM BFT larval survey samples can provide the crucial mark events for eventual CKMR estimates of adult abundance. The adult parents marked by larval samples can be directly recaptured in the fishery many years later as POPs, and indirectly through their progeny in future samples of larvae, as evidenced by the two cross-cohort HSPs (XHSPs) recovered in this study, which imply that a parent survived and spawned in the GoM in consecutive years. As more cohorts are sampled in future, the growing number of XHSPs could be used to estimate average adult survival rates, in addition to helping with the estimation of adult abundance31, as is now done for southern blue tuna40.There is a modest level of sibship within our 2016 samples, and a high level (involving over half the samples) in 2017, but it turns out not to be high enough to cause serious problems for POP-based CKMR. High sibship per se does not lead to bias in CKMR by virtue of the statistical construction of the estimate, but it does increase variance, which can be summarized through a reduction in effective sample size. In a POP-based CKMR model, our effective sample size would be about 75% of nominal for the two years combined, or 66% of nominal for the targeted sampling of 2017. Since it is actually the product of adult and juvenile sample sizes which drives precision in CKMR14, one way to think about the 75% is that we will need about 33% more adult samples to achieve a given precision on abundance estimates than if we had somehow been able to collect the same number of “independent” juvenile samples (i.e. without oversampling siblings). That increase is appreciable but entirely achievable; for WBFT, it is logistically much easier to collect more feeding-ground adult samples than to collect more larvae, and at present there is no known practical way to collect large numbers of older, more dispersed, and thus more independent, juvenile western origin bluefin tuna (WBFT).This study was motivated by the concern that sibship might be a serious impediment to use of WBFT larvae for CKMR. High levels of sibship have been found in larval collections for other taxa despite a pelagic larval phase, suggesting that abiotic factors can impede random mixing of larvae after a spawning event41. Our larval samples were only a few days old (4–11) and thus had little time to disperse since fertilization; our concern beforehand was that each tow might sample the offspring of a very small number of adults (one spawning group in one night), and in 2017 that repeatedly towing the same water mass might simply be resampling the same “family”. In practice, though, the cumulative effect was limited. Samples were not dominated by progeny from just a few adults; the maximum DPG size (i.e., number of offspring from any one adult) was 5, which is under 2% of the larval sample size. There are several possible reasons for this finding. First, plankton sample tows are typically standardized to a ten-minute duration, covering on average about 0.3 nautical miles. Based on continuous plankton cameras42, each tow is likely to tow through multiple patches of zooplankton, and therefore potentially multiple patches of BFT larvae. Second, spawning aggregations of BFT may contain many adults. For example, on the spawning grounds near the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean, purse seine fisheries target spawning fish and individual net sets routinely capture upwards of 500 mature individuals43. These numbers suggest that BFT spawner aggregations can be quite large, although the number of individuals that contribute gametes to a single spawning event may be lower. The results of this study pose intriguing scenarios for understanding BFT larval ecology and spawning behavior, which could be explored with larger sample sizes paired with data on oceanographic conditions, direct observation of spawning aggregations, and modeling to compare observed and predicted dispersal. The results of this study are based on just two years of sampling, and numerous practical and theoretical challenges remain to fully understand BFT reproduction in the GoM.Our sibship impact calculations assume use of an unmodified adult-size-based CKMR POP model, where each juvenile is compared to each adult taking into account the latter’s size (e.g.,14). That will give unbiased estimates, which we regard as essential in a CKMR model. However, for WBFT the estimates are not fully statistically efficient, in that some adults receive more statistical weight than others because they are marked more often (by having a large DPG), and thus variance might not be the lowest achievable. Modifying the model to fix that would be simple in a “cartoon” CKMR setting where all adults are identical (e.g., Fig. 1 of14), simply by first condensing each DPG to a single representative, then only using those representatives (rather than all the larvae) in POP comparisons. Each marked parent then receives the same weight, giving maximum efficiency. For the cartoon, this condensed-DPG model still gives an unbiased estimate of abundance, because each DPG has one parent of given sex, and the chance of any sampled cartoon adult of that sex being that parent is 1/N. The DPG-condensed effective sample size is simply half the number of distinct parents, which would be a little larger than the effective sample sizes for the unmodified model shown in Table 3; e.g., in 2017, 504/2 = 252 versus 209. However, no such straightforward improvement is available for an adult-size-based CKMR model such as is needed for WABFT. Using condensed DPGs directly would bias the juvenile sampling against larger more-fecund adults, whose DPGs will tend on average to be larger and thus to experience disproportionate condensation. Those adults would be marked less often by the DPG-condensed juveniles than the model assumes, violating the basic requirements for unbiased CKMR in14. A more sophisticated model might be able to combine unbiasedness with higher efficiency but, since the unmodified adult-size-based POP model that we expect to use is unbiased and only mildly inefficient (at worst 209/252 = 83% efficient, in 2017) there seems no particular need for extra complications at present. However, that may not hold true if we eventually move to a POP + XHSP model, where the impact on unmodified CKMR variance is worse (though there is still no bias, for the same reason as with POPs). Intuitively, the biggest impact that a DPG of size 5 can have in a POP model is to suddenly raise the number of POPs by 5 if its parent happens to be sampled; within a useful total of, say, 75 POPs, the influence is not that large. But if two DPGs both of size 5 in different cohorts happen to share a parent, then the total of XHSPs suddenly jumps by 25— likely a substantial proportion of total XHSPs. Supplementary Material B also includes effective sample size formulae for a simplified XHSP-only model, which demonstrate the increased impact of within-cohort sibship; for our WBFT samples, it turns out that the XHSP-effective size is slightly lower for the targeted 2017 samples (110) than for the 2016 samples (130), unlike the POP-only effective size. Dropping from a maximum theoretical effective sample size of 252 (half the number of DPGs) down to 110 would be rather inefficient and would increase the number of years of sampling required to yield a useful XHSP dataset. This motivates developing a modified POP + XHSP model that retains unbiasedness without sacrificing too much efficiency. In principle, that can be done by condensing each DPG but then conditioning its comparison probabilities on the DPG’s original size, in accordance with the framework in14. This is a topic for subsequent research, and the results will inform future sampling strategy decisions for WBFT.One potential difficulty for western BFT CKMR might occur if a substantial proportion of animals reaching maturity are the offspring of “Western” (in genetic terms) adults who persistently spawn in the western North Atlantic but outside the GoM. However, as long as the adults marked by GoM larvae are well mixed at the time of sampling with any western adults that do spawn outside of the GoM, the total POP-based population estimate of genetically-western BFT from CKMR will remain unbiased. Given evidence from tagging of widespread adult movements within the western North Atlantic2, good mixing in the sampled feeding grounds seems likely; so, even if successful non-GoM western BFT spawning really is commonplace, there should not be a problem with relying on GoM larvae for at least the POP component of CKMR14.Studies of fish early life history have long been considered to have great potential to provide novel insight into the unique population dynamics of fishes44,45,46. Sampling efforts aimed at estimating fish recruitment dynamics have spawned a diversity of larval survey programs. Examples of these long-term programs include the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) surveys in the North Atlantic and adjacent areas, Southeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) in the GoM, Ecosystem Monitoring (EcoMon) in the Northeast U.S., and numerous others, many of which provide indices of larval abundance widely used in fisheries and ecosystem assessments. Yet, as a result of the inherent patchiness of larvae42, sampling variability, and highly variable density dependent mortality45, fisheries scientists have often struggled to determine how larval surveys relate to the adult fish populations. Inclusion of estimates of sibship among larvae collected in surveys could refine estimates of adult spawning stock biomass estimated from these surveys.The results of this study also represent products of decades of work and coordination in obtaining high-quality DNA from larval specimens. Key steps to successful genotyping of larvae include ensuring that larvae are preserved, sorted, and handled in 95% non-denatured ethanol. In addition, strict instrument cleaning protocols must be followed, and stomachs should be removed or avoided (this study used larval tails and, when possible, eyes to avoid cross contamination of prey contents, including possible congeners and other BFT individuals). Exposure to hot lamps during the sorting and dissection processes should also be minimized to ensure that DNA quality is sufficiently high for genotyping-by-sequencing. Although the tissues available for genetic analysis were limited by the needs of other experiments that required BFT tissues, otoliths, gut contents, and other information from the same larvae, we were able to successfully genotype most larvae greater than 6 mm SL and identify thousands of informative SNPs. The lower size limit of larvae could likely be decreased if whole specimens were available for genotyping, although the use of younger larvae could increase the incidence of sibship.In summary, while we observed both FSPs and HSPs in larval collections, with elevated sibship overall and with siblings being more prevalent within tows and in nearby tows, the level of sibship was sufficiently low that collections of GoM BFT larvae can still provide the critical genetic mark of parental genotypes required for CKMR. Our results demonstrate a crucial proof of concept and are the first step towards an operational CKMR modelling estimate of spawning stock abundance for western BFT. More

Zhou, Y. et al. Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution. Nature 592, 756–762 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bino, G. et al. The platypus: evolutionary history, biology, and an uncertain future. J. Mammal. 100, 308–327 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Veyrunes, F. et al. Bird-like sex chromosomes of platypus imply recent origin of mammal sex chromosomes. Genome Res. 18, 965–973 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anich, P. S. et al. Biofluorescence in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Mammalia 85, 179–181 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavoine, S., Ollier, S. & Dufour, A. B. Is the originality of a species measurable? Ecol. Lett. 8, 579–586 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C. & Baillie, J. E. M. Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2, e296 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A. In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e. T40488A21964009 (IUCN, 2016).Victoria Government Gazette. Authority of Victorian Government Printer (2021).Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. T. A silent demise: Historical insights into population changes of the iconic platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00720 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grant, T. R. & Fanning, D. Platypus (CSIRO PUBLISHING, 2007).Bino, G., Kingsford, R. T. & Wintle, B. A. A stitch in time–Synergistic impacts to platypus metapopulation extinction risk. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108399 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. A National Assessment of the Conservation Status of the Platypus (University of New South Wales, 2021).Bino, G., Hawke, T. & Kingsford, R. T. Synergistic effects of a severe drought and fire on platypuses. Sci. Total Environ. 777, 146137 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Klamt, M., Thompson, R. & Davis, J. Early response of the platypus to climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3011–3018 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grill, G. et al. An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 015001 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winemiller, K. O. et al. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351, 128–129 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dugan, P. J. et al. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio 39, 344–348 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Timpe, K. & Kaplan, D. The changing hydrology of a dammed Amazon. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700611 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grant, T. R. & Temple-Smith, P. D. Conservation of the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus: threats and challenges. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 6, 5–18 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawke, T., Bino, G. & Kingsford, R. T. Damming insights: variable impacts and implications of river regulation on platypus populations. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31, 504–519 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bethge, P., Munks, S., Otley, H. & Nicol, S. Diving behaviour, dive cycles and aerobic dive limit in the platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A: Mol. Integr. Physiol. 136, 799–809 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grant, T. & Llewellyn, L. C. The Biology and Management of the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) in NSW (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991).Grant, T. R. Captures, Capture Mortality, Age and Sex Ratios of Platypuses, Ornithorhynchus Anatinus, during Studies over 30 Years in the Upper Shoalhaven River in New South Wales (Linnean Society of New South Wales, 2004).Marchant, R. & Grant, T. The productivity of the macroinvertebrate prey of the platypus in the upper Shoalhaven River, New South Wales. Mar. Freshw. Res. 66, 1128–1137 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V. M. & Turlure, C. Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol. Rev. 88, 310–326 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R. et al. Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations (Oxford University Press, 2017).Frankham, R. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta‐analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 24, 2610–2618 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garant, D., Forde, S. E. & Hendry, A. P. The multifarious effects of dispersal and gene flow on contemporary adaptation. Funct. Ecol. 21, 434–443 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tigano, A. & Friesen, V. L. Genomics of local adaptation with gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 25, 2144–2164 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kolomyjec, S. H. The History and Relationships of Northern Platypus (Ornithorhynchus Anatinus) Populations: A Molecular Approach (James Cook University, 2010).Furlan, E. M. et al. Dispersal patterns and population structuring among platypuses, Ornithorhynchus anatinus, throughout south-eastern Australia. Conserv. Genet. 14, 837–853 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Balkenhol, N., Cushman, S., Storfer, A. & Waits, L. Landscape Genetics: Concepts, Methods, Applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).Ramachandran, S. et al. Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15942–15947 (2005).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Landguth, E. L. et al. Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol. Ecol. 19, 4179–4191 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, J. R., Willoughby, J. R., Swanson, B. J., Pangle, K. L. & Zanatta, D. T. Detection of barriers to dispersal is masked by long lifespans and large population sizes. Ecol. Evolution 7, 9613–9623 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: F-ST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 5–18 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. et al. High‐resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river‐flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 494–502 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lemopoulos, A. et al. Comparing RADseq and microsatellites for estimating genetic diversity and relatedness—implications for brown trout conservation. Ecol. Evolution 9, 2106–2120 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunde, J., Yıldırım, Y., Tibblin, P. & Forsman, A. Comparing the performance of microsatellites and RADseq in population genetic studies: Analysis of data for pike (Esox lucius) and a synthesis of previous studies. Front. Genet. 11, 218 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sherwin, W. B., Chao, A., Jost, L. & Smouse, P. E. Information theory broadens the spectrum of molecular ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 948–963 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Serena, M. & Williams, G. Movements and cumulative range size of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) inferred from mark–recapture studies. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 352–359 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawke, T. et al. Fine‐scale movements and interactions of platypuses, and the impact of an environmental flushing flow. Freshw. Biol. 66, 177–188 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawke, T. et al. Long-term movements and activity patterns of platypus on regulated rivers. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nislow, K. H., Hudy, M., Letcher, B. H. & Smith, E. P. Variation in local abundance and species richness of stream fishes in relation to dispersal barriers: implications for management and conservation. Freshw. Biol. 56, 2135–2144 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Søndergaard, M. & Jeppesen, E. Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and approaches to restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 1089–1094 (2007).Hoffmann, A. A., Miller, A. D. & Weeks, A. R. Genetic mixing for population management: From genetic rescue to provenancing. Evol. Appl. 14, 634–652 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mills, L. S. & Allendorf, F. W. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1509–1518 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. J. et al. Fish and hydropower on the US Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half‐way technologies. Conserv. Lett. 6, 280–286 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, A. T. et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish. Fish. 19, 340–362 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broadhurst, B., Ebner, B., Lintermans, M., Thiem, J. & Clear, R. Jailbreak: a fishway releases the endangered Macquarie perch from confinement below an anthropogenic barrier. Mar. Freshw. Res. 64, 900–908 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sainsbury, A. W. & Vaughan‐Higgins, R. J. Analyzing disease risks associated with translocations. Conserv. Biol. 26, 442–452 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kolomyjec, S. H., Grant, T. R., Johnson, C. N. & Blair, D. Regional population structuring and conservation units in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Aust. J. Zool. 61, 378–385 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drechsler, M. & Burgman, M. A. Combining population viability analysis with decision analysis. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 115–139 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolomyjec, S. H. et al. Population genetics of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus): a fine-scale look at adjacent river systems. Aust. J. Zool. 57, 225–234 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolomyjec, S. H., Grant, T. R. & Blair, D. Ten polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers for the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 1133–1135 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martin, H. C. et al. Insights into platypus population structure and history from whole-genome sequencing. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1238–1252 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bino, G., Kingsford, R. T., Grant, T., Taylor, M. D. & Vogelnest, L. Use of implanted acoustic tags to assess platypus movement behaviour across spatial and temporal scales. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–12 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kilian, A. et al. Diversity arrays technology: a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Methods Mol. Biol. 888, 67–89 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Georges, A. et al. Genomewide SNP markers breathe new life into phylogeography and species delimitation for the problematic short‐necked turtles (Chelidae: Emydura) of eastern Australia. Mol. Ecol. 27, 5195–5213 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Steane, D. A. et al. Population genetic analysis and phylogeny reconstruction in Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) using high-throughput, genome-wide genotyping. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59, 206–224 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sunnucks, P. & Hales, D. F. Numerous transposed sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I-II in aphids of the genus Sitobion (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 510–524 (1996).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, T. L., Jasper, M. E., Weeks, A. R. & Hoffmann, A. A. Unbiased population heterozygosity estimates from genome‐wide sequence data. Methods Ecol. Evolution 12, 1888–1898 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pew, J., Muir, P. H., Wang, J. & Frasier, T. R. related: an R package for analysing pairwise relatedness from codominant molecular markers. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 557–561 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F‐statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nei, M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (Columbia University Press, 1987).Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4015–4026 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pacifici, M. et al. Generation length for mammals. Nat. Conserv. 5, 89 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mijangos, J. L., Gruber, B., Berry, O., Pacioni, C. & Georges, A. dartR v2: an accessible genetic analysis platform for conservation, ecology, and agriculture. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 2150–2158 (2022).McVean, G. A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000686 (2009).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).Mijangos, J. et al. Datasets and R scripts for Fragmentation by major dams and implications for the future viability of platypus populations (2022).IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2008. Ornithorhynchus anatinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2022).Crossman, S. & Li, O. Surface Hydrology Lines (National) (2015).Crossman, S. & Li, O. Surface Hydrology Polygons (National) (2015).Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). States and Territories – 2021 – Shapefile [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/access-and-downloads/digital-boundary-files] [Shapefile], Digital boundary files (2022).Australian National Committee on Large Dams Incorporated (ANCOLD). Register of Large Dams Australia (2022). More

Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pillay, R. et al. Tropical forests are home to over half of the world’s vertebrate species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 10–15 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Turubanova, S., Potapov, P. V., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Ongoing primary forest loss in Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074028 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matricardi, E. A. T. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. M. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, A. et al. Global humid tropics forest structural condition and forest structural integrity maps. Sci. Data 6, 232 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, A. J. et al. A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1377–1384 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
COP 11 Decision X/2. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).New York Declaration on Forests (UN, 2014).Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 Resolution Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UN, 2015).Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President. Draft Decision -/CP.21 (UNFCCC, 2015).Hansen, A. J. et al. Toward monitoring forest ecosystem integrity within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12822 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scholes, R. et al. (eds) Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES, 2018).First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Williams, B. A. et al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth 3, 371–382 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2020–1 (IUCN, 2020).Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ives, A. R. & Garland, T. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst. Biol. 59, 9–26 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. M. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582–585 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fletcher, R. & Fortin, M.-J. Spatial Ecology and Conservation Modeling: Applications with R (Springer, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01989-1Briant, G., Gond, V. & Laurance, S. G. W. Habitat fragmentation and the desiccation of forest canopies: a case study from eastern Amazonia. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2763–2769 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pillay, R. et al. Using interview surveys and multispecies occupancy models to inform vertebrate conservation. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13832 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis (John Wiley and Sons, 2002).Smith, A. C., Koper, N., Francis, C. M. & Fahrig, L. Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 1271–1285 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 18, 10309–10313 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, I. M. & Corlett, R. T. The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 330–333 (1996).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tulloch, A. I. T., Barnes, M. D., Ringma, J., Fuller, R. A. & Watson, J. E. M. Understanding the importance of small patches of habitat for conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 418–429 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wintle, B. A. et al. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 909–914 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. The fate of tropical forest fragments. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax8574 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Prugh, L. R., Hodges, K. E., Sinclair, A. R. E. & Brashares, J. S. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20770–20775 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grantham, H. S. et al. Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat. Commun. 11, 5978 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beyer, H. L., Venter, O., Grantham, H. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12692 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehbrecht, M. et al. Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nat. Commun. 12, 519 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
França, F. et al. Do space-for-time assessments underestimate the impacts of logging on tropical biodiversity? An Amazonian case study using dung beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1098–1105 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Possingham, H. P. & Watson, J. E. M. Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nat. Commun. 9, 4621 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Betts, M. G. et al. Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 709–719 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R. & Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6506–6511 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Basset, Y. et al. Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 338, 1481–1484 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardillo, M. et al. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 309, 1239–1241 (2005).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122131 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411–413 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World Version 2018.1 (BirdLife International, accessed 16 August 2019).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
González-del-Pliego, P. et al. Phylogenetic and trait-based prediction of extinction risk for data-deficient amphibians. Curr. Biol. 29, 1557–1563 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme Version 3.1 (IUCN, 2012).Böhm, M. et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 157, 372–385 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. Mapping tree height distributions in Sub-Saharan Africa using Landsat 7 and 8 data. Remote Sens. Environ. 185, 221–232 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52, 891–904 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Watson, J. E. M., Possingham, H. P. & Venter, O. Limitations and trade-offs in the use of species distribution maps for protected area planning. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 402–411 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2603–E2610 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G04021 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexton, J. O. et al. Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: Landsat-based rescaling of MODIS vegetation continuous fields with lidar-based estimates of error. Int. J. Digit. Earth 6, 427–448 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potapov, P. et al. Mapping global forest canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ. 253, 112165 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A. & Jetz, W. Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000494 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tonini, J. F. R., Beard, K. H., Ferreira, R. B., Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. Fully-sampled phylogenies of squamates reveal evolutionary patterns in threat status. Biol. Conserv. 204, 23–31 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 850–858 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ho, L. S. T. & Ané, C. A linear-time algorithm for Gaussian and non-Gaussian trait evolution models. Syst. Biol. 63, 397–408 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Verhoeven, K. J. F., Simonsen, K. L. & McIntyre, L. M. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108, 643–647 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Bivand, R. et al. spdep: Spatial dependence: weighting schemes, statistics and models. R package version 0.7-4 (2017).Bjornstad, O. N. ncf: Spatial covariance functions. R package version 1.2-1 (2018). More

Houlahan, J. E., McKinney, S. T., Anderson, T. M. & McGill, B. J. The priority of prediction in ecological understanding. Oikos 126, 1–7 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawton, J. H. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84, 177–192 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elliott-Graves, A. Generality and causal interdependence in ecology. Philos. Sci. 85, 1102–1114 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, J. W. The many roads to generality in ecology. Philos. Top. 9, 83–104 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J. et al. Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecol. Lett. 10, 995–1015 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17, 373–387 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurevitch, J., Fox, G. A., Wardle, G. M., Inderjit & Taub, D. Emergent insights from the synthesis of conceptual frameworks for biological invasions. Ecol. Lett. 14, 407–418 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 65–73 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. & Stewart, G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, S. C. et al. Trends in ecology and conservation over eight decades. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 274–282 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kneale, D., Thomas, J., O’Mara-Eves, A. & Wiggins, R. How can additional secondary data analysis of observational data enhance the generalisability of meta-analytic evidence for local public health decision making? Res. Synth. Methods 10, 44–56 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R. & Dalton, C. M. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 14, 306–331 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47, 1451–1458 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundberg, I., Johnson, R. & Stewart, B. M. What is your estimand? Defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86, 532–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawrance, R. et al. What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials? J. Patient-Rep. Outcomes 4, 68 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Findley, M. G., Kikuta, K. & Denly, M. External validity. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 24, 365–393 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E. External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations. Stat. Sci. 29, 579–595 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westreich, D., Edwards, J. K., Lesko, C. R., Cole, S. R. & Stuart, E. A. Target validity and the hierarchy of study designs. Am. J. Epidemiol. 188, 438–443 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, C. J. Meta-analyzing apples and oranges: how to make applesauce instead of fruit salad. Hum. Commun. Res. 46, 322–333 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohrer, J. M. & Arslan, R. C. Precise answers to vague questions: issues with interactions. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 4, 1–19 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Breslow, N. E. & Clayton, D. G. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88, 9–25 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102, 828–844 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Konno, K. et al. Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6373–6384 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 4–21 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rothman, K. J., Gallacher, J. E. J. & Hatch, E. E. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42, 1012–1014 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. et al. Implications of scale dependence for cross-study syntheses of biodiversity differences. Ecol. Lett. 24, 374–390 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. & Doncaster, C. P. Use of meta-analysis in forest biodiversity research: key challenges and considerations. For. Ecol. Manag. 400, 429–437 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2742–2754 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M. & Lagisz, M. Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biol. 15, 18 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Higgins, J. P. T. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schielzeth, H. & Nakagawa, S. Conditional repeatability and the variance explained by reaction norm variation in random slope models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 1214–1223 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. The orchard plot: cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Res. Synth. Methods 12, 4–12 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lorah, J. Effect size measures for multilevel models: definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assess. Educ. 6, 8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, M. I. et al. A general biodiversity–function relationship is mediated by trophic level. Oikos 126, 18–31 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ojha, M., Naidu, D. G. T. & Bagchi, S. Meta-analysis of induced anti-herbivore defence traits in plants from 647 manipulative experiments with natural and simulated herbivory. J. Ecol. 110, 799–816 (2022).Dodds, K. C. et al. Material type influences the abundance but not richness of colonising organisms on marine structures. J. Environ. Manag. 307, 114549 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Senior, A. M. et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta- analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97, 3293–3299 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glass, G. V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 5, 3–8 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glass, G. V. Meta‐analysis at 25: a personal history. Education in Two Worlds https://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2022/07/meta-analysis-at-25-personal-history.html (2000).Cooper, H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl. Soc. 1, 104–126 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Soranno, P. A. et al. Cross-scale interactions: quantifying multi-scaled cause-effect relationships in macrosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 65–73 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerstner, K. et al. Will your paper be used in a meta-analysis? Make the reach of your research broader and longer lasting. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 777–784 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y. & Lindsay, D. S. Constraints on Generality (CoG): a proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1123–1128 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yarkoni, T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001685 (2020).Lopez, P. M., Subramanian, S. V. & Schooling, C. M. Effect measure modification conceptualized using selection diagrams as mediation by mechanisms of varying population-level relevance. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 113, 123–128 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, D. T. in Advances in QuasiExperimental Design and Analysis (ed. Trochim, W.) 67–77 (Jossey-Bass, 1986).Spake, R. et al. Meta‐analysis of management effects on biodiversity in plantation and secondary forests of Japan. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e14 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Forest Ecosystem Diversity Basic Survey (in Japanese) (Forestry Agency of Japan, 2019); https://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/keikaku/tayouseichousa/index.htmlIto, S., Ishigamia, S., Mizoue, N. & Buckley, G. P. Maintaining plant species composition and diversity of understory vegetation under strip-clearcutting forestry in conifer plantations in Kyushu, southern Japan. For. Ecol. Manag. 231, 234–241 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Utsugi, E. et al. Hardwood recruitment into conifer plantations in Japan: effects of thinning and distance from neighboring hardwood forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 237, 15–28 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kominami, Y. et al. Classification of bird-dispersed plants by fruiting phenology, fruit size, and growth form in a primary lucidophyllous forest: an analysis, with implications for the conservation of fruit–bird interactions. Ornthological Sci. 2, 3–23 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsujino, R. & Matsui, K. Forest regeneration inhibition in a mixed broadleaf-conifer forest under sika deer pressure. J. For. Res. 27, 230–235 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R., Soga, M., Catford, J. A. & Eigenbrod, F. Applying the stress-gradient hypothesis to curb the spread of invasive bamboo. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1993–2003 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mize, T. D. Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6, 81–117 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E. C. & Dowd, B. Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Serv. Res. 47, 255–274 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spake, R. et al. Forest damage by deer depends on cross-scale interactions between climate, deer density and landscape structure. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1376–1390 (2020).McCabe, C. J., Kim, D. S. & King, K. M. Improving present practices in the visual display of interactions. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 147–165 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shackelford, G. E. et al. Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making. BMC Biol. 19, 33 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Innovation and forward‐thinking are needed to improve traditional synthesis methods: a response to Pescott and Stewart. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 1191–1197 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haddaway, N. R. et al. EviAtlas: a tool for visualising evidence synthesis databases. Environ. Evid. 8, 22 (2019).Delory, B. M., Li, M., Topp, C. N. & Lobet, G. archiDART v3.0: a new data analysis pipeline allowing the topological analysis of plant root systems. F1000Research 7, 22 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perkel, J. M. The future of scientific figures. Nature 554, 133–134 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, S. & Gleeson, M. P. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 26, 1315–1326 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sutton, C. et al. Identifying domains of applicability of machine learning models for materials science. Nat. Commun. 11, 4428 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, H. & Pebesma, E. Predicting into unknown space? Estimating the area of applicability of spatial prediction models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1620–1633 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E. Transportability of causal and statistical relations: a formal approach. In 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2011.169 (IEEE, 2011).Munthe-Kaas, H., Nøkleby, H. & Nguyen, L. Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability. Syst. Rev. 8, 22 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dekkers, O. M., von Elm, E., Algra, A., Romijn, J. A. & Vandenbroucke, J. P. How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39, 89–94 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schloemer, T. & Schröder-Bäck, P. Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. Implement. Sci. 13, 88 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Hermida, J. R., Calafat, A., Becoña, E., Tsertsvadze, A. & Foxcroft, D. R. Assessment of generalizability, applicability and predictability (GAP) for evaluating external validity in studies of universal family-based prevention of alcohol misuse in young people: systematic methodological review of randomized controlled trials. Addiction 107, 1570–1579 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Avellar, S. A. et al. External validity: the next step for systematic reviews? Eval. Rev. 41, 283–325 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bareinboim, E. & Pearl, J. A general algorithm for deciding transportability of experimental results. J. Causal Inference 1, 107–134 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Degtiar, I. & Rose, S. A review of generalizability and transportability. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.11904 (2021).Bareinboim, E. & Pearl, J. Meta-transportability of causal effects: a formal approach. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 31, 135–143 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Jamieson, D. Scientific uncertainty: how do we know when to communicate research findings to the public? Sci. Total Environ. 184, 103–107 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burchett, H. E. D., Mayhew, S. H., Lavis, J. N. & Dobrow, M. J. When can research from one setting be useful in another? Understanding perceptions of the applicability and transferability of research. Health Promot. Int. 28, 418–430 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forscher, P. et al. Build up big-team science. Nature 601, 505–507 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whalen, M. A. et al. Climate drives the geography of marine consumption by changing predator communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 28160–28166 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moshontz, H. et al. The Psychological Science Accelerator: advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marschner, I. C. A general framework for the analysis of adaptive experiments. Stat. Sci. 36, 465–492 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. Shrinkage in Mixed Effects Models https://m-clark.github.io/posts/2019-05-14-shrinkage-in-mixed-models/ (2019).Gurevitch, J. & Hedges, L. V. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80, 1142–1149 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mengersen, K., Gurevitch, J. & Schmid, C. H. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, U. et al.) 300–312 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. The COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database: an open online repository for plant demography. J. Ecol. 103, 202–218 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. COMADRE: a global data base of animal demography. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 371–384 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pastor, D. A. & Lazowski, R. A. On the multilevel nature of meta-analysis: a tutorial, comparison of software programs, and discussion of analytic choices. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53, 74–89 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More