Philippa Kaur

All animal care and experimental protocols complied with local and federal laws and guidelines and were approved by the appropriate governing body in Berlin, Germany, the Landesamt fur Gesundheit und Soziales (LaGeSo G-0224/20).Experimental breeding and designThe all-female Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa) is a naturally clonal, live-bearing fish species that gives birth to broods of genetically identical offspring. Like all unisexual vertebrates, Amazon mollies are the result of inter-specific hybridization44,45. As such, this ‘frozen hybrid’ has a heterozygous genome from its ancestral P. mexicana mother and P. latipinna father alleviating concerns about reduced genetic variation and the resulting inbreeding depression often associated with artificially selected isogenic animals. Additionally, despite their clonal nature, the Amazon’s genome shows no evidence of increased mutation accumulation, genomic decay or transposable element activity suggesting the genomes of these animals are evolving in similar ways as sexual species46. They reproduce through gynogenesis where the meiotic process is disrupted so that the eggs contain a full maternal genome. The egg must be fused with a sperm from one of their ancestral species to stimulate embryogenesis, but this paternal DNA is not incorporated into the egg. This provides the opportunity to control when reproduction occurs by controlling the females’ access to male sperm donors.We placed adult females, as potential mothers of experimental fish, in individual (5-gallon) breeding tanks with two Atlantic molly (P. mexicana) males for one week to act as sperm donors. Amazon mollies give birth to broods of generally ~8-30 individuals. A brood is born at once (i.e. all individuals are born within minutes of each other) and birth generally happens early in the day close to dawn. These parental fish were lab-bred and themselves sisters, so of the same age and lineage, and were kept at similar social densities and under standardized environmental conditions throughout their lives to further minimize potential variation in maternal experience. Each breeding tank contained an artificial plant as refuge and was checked frequently each day for the presence of offspring, especially during the morning hours when births are most likely. Newborn mollies were always found in the morning and then singly netted by trained animal caretakers, into individual experimental tanks where their behavior was automatically recorded for the next 70 days (see below). Moving the fish from the maternal tank to the experimental tanks was done in a standardized manner (i.e. individual fish were netted and placed into small dishes of water and then placed in the tracking tanks to limit exposure to the air) by the same caretakers to minimize variation in experience among individual fish. Altogether, eight mothers provided offspring that completed the entire 10-week experiment (Supplementary Table 1).Experimental tanks (27 x 27 cm), made of white Perspex, consisted of four equally sized compartments, and were evenly lit from below using 6500K-LEDs. Environmental conditions were highly standardized across tanks: all tanks were on the same 11:13 (L:D) light schedule, water depth was maintained at 10 cm depth, temperature was maintained at 25 ± 1 °C by a room air conditioning system, and fish received a standardized amount of powdered flake fish food (TetraMin™) twice daily. Opaque blinds surrounded the tanks to further limit outside disturbances. All experimental tanks were connected to the same filtration system where water could mix in the sump tank, allowing chemical cues to be shared across all experimental fish. Previous work has shown exposure to just chemical cues of conspecifics is sufficient in preventing the developmental of pathological behavior that could be associated with development in complete isolation14. We initially placed a total of 40 newborn individuals into the tracking tanks. At the end of the 10-week experiment, we were able to achieve complete tracking data on 26 individuals; camera malfunctions prevented data collection on four individuals, two individuals jumped into neighboring tanks causing the loss of data of all four individuals as we could not verify their identity; four newborn individuals escaped through holes in the water outlet of the tanks; and four individuals died as newborns. All results in the manuscript are on these 26 animals, though including data from all 40 (e.g. patterns of individual variation on the first day post birth) did not change the results or their interpretation (see Supplementary Table 2).Behavioral trackingWe developed a custom recording system using Raspberry Pi computers, which are an upcoming low-cost, highly adaptable solution for many applications in the biological sciences25. Specifically, we created a local network of Raspberry Pi 3B + ’s, each connected to a Raspberry Pi camera positioned exactly above an experimental tank, commanded by a lab computer, and connected to the server on the institute network (Supplementary Fig. 1). We programmed the Raspberry Pi’s using pirecorder26 to take timestamped photos every 3 s across the daily light period, each day, for 10 weeks, and store them automatically in dedicated, automatically named folders on the server. Image settings and resolution were thereby optimized to minimize file size while assuring image quality. After the experimental period, we created videos of all the recorded images of each fish of each day. These videos were subsequently tracked with the Biotracker software27, using background subtraction, providing the x, y coordinates of each fish in each frame. We then processed the data, including scaling and converting the coordinates to mm, and, for each frame, computed fish’s swimming speed (cm/s) and distance from the tank walls (cm). We then summarized these variables both on an hourly and daily basis to compute fish’s median swimming speed, inter-quartile range of swimming speeds, activity (proportion of time spent moving >0.5 cm/s), and median border distance. To quantify fish’s body size over time, we randomly selected five photos per week of each compartment, making sure the fish was away from the compartment walls and did not show strong body curvature, and then used ImageJ software to measure total body length (mm) from the tip of the snout to the end of the body. By averaging the measurements of the five images, we acquired one body size measurement per week.Error checkingWe collected up to 924,000 photos on each individual throughout the experimental period resulting in a total of over 24 million data points collected on our experimental animals (N = 26 individuals). To ensure that our tracking software accurately captured the behavior of our fish, we checked for potential tracking errors in two ways. First, we estimated overall error rates. To do this, we selected at random a starting frame from within a day; then we manually checked each of the subsequent 200 frames and identified whether an error was made (fish was not properly located by BioTracker) or not (fish was properly located) by visual inspection of the videos. We estimated the error rate as the number of errors divided by the total number of checked frames. The overall median error rate over the entire observation period was estimated to be 7%. Error rates increased earlier in the observation period when the fish were smaller (Supplementary Note I). As such, as a second step, we manually went through and corrected all frames for the very first day of tracking (i.e. day 1 post-birth) for all fish (~13,200 frames per individual) as this is a critical time period for one of our research questions. This ensured that the resulting behavioral data were completely accurate for this day. This manual correction allowed us the additional opportunity to compare how well our automatically tracked (i.e. not manually corrected) data performed compared to the manually corrected data. We found that the automatically tracked data re-created near identical estimates of among- and within-individual variance components and most importantly the among-individual correlation between the automatically tracked and manually corrected data was over 0.98 for our behavioral variables (Supplementary Note I). This strongly suggests that any errors introduced by our automated tracking software have minimal influence of our behavioral variables at best and do not affect our interpretation of the results.Statistical analysesWe used linear mixed, or hierarchical, models to partition the behavioral variation across different times periods into its among- and within-individual components. Throughout we focused our analysis on the 26 individuals for which we had complete data for the entire 10-week observation period to ensure comparable variation over time and across models.Our first question of interest was to test when individual differences in behavior first appeared over the course of the experiment. We started by investigating behavior on the first day post birth (Fig. 1A, Supplementary Table 2) and then planned to proceed in a day-by-day fashion until significant repeatability in behavior was apparent (Supplementary Table 3). We used hourly median swimming speed (11 observations for each of 26 individuals) as our response variable and included ‘hour’ and ‘total length (TL)’ as fixed effects and ‘individual’ was included as our random effect of interest. Including TL as a covariate allowed us to test whether behavior was related to an offspring’s body size on its first day of life. We set the first hour of the day as 0 and mean-centered TL as this would allow the among- (and within-) individual variance components to be estimated at these values (i.e. the earliest possible moment from when we could record behavior in the fish). We estimated the adjusted repeatability of median swimming speed as the variance attributable to individual identity over the total variance not explained by the fixed effects. We additionally estimated both marginal and conditional R-squared values which estimate the variance explained by the fixed effects only and the variance explained by the fixed and random effects combined, respectively. As our individual experimental fish came from different mothers, we first explored a number of different variance structures including random intercepts and slopes for both individual ID and maternal ID. This allowed us to test whether maternal identity explained variation in individual behavior. However, the most supported model included random intercepts and slopes for individual ID and not for mother ID, indicating that our methods to reduce variation among mothers were successful (Table 1). We used median swimming speed as our behavioral variable of interest throughout the main manuscript, as this behavior was tightly correlated with most of our other behavioral variables (Supplementary Fig. 2); though results using the other behavioral variables yielded the same interpretation (i.e. that significant individuality in (any) behavior was present on the very first day post-birth; Supplementary Table 2).Our second research question was to investigate how individual behavioral variance changed over the course of the entire observation period (70 days). Again, we first explored several different variance structures to test the importance of maternal identity and/or individual identity on behavioral variation. We found support for the inclusion of random slopes at the individual level, but not maternal level (Table 1). This indicates that levels of among- (and within-) individual variation may differ throughout the observation period. To investigate patterns of change in the variance components, we ran a series of models where we centered the observation covariate on different days. Individual intercepts are estimated when all covariates are set to zero, so this allowed us to ‘slice’ the data to estimate the among- and within-individual variance at different time points over the ten weeks. We ran 11 models as we chose to center the data every 7 days (first model was centered on observation 1; 11th model was centered on observation 70). The predicted individual intercepts (best linear unbiased predictors) and estimated variance components from each model are plotted in Fig. 3.We also closely investigated any potential influence of body size and/or growth rate differences on behavioral expression and individual behavioral variation in this entire 10-week data set. First, we estimated the repeatability of both weekly total length and weekly growth rates to determine if individuals consistently differed in these traits. Then, we ran a series of models with median weekly swimming speed as the response variable and included either weekly total length, weekly growth rate, and/or overall growth rate (estimated over the entire 10 weeks), as our fixed effects of interest. Each model also included the random effects of individual intercepts and slopes. Finally, because body size varies both among individuals (some individuals are on average larger than others) and within individuals (as they grow), we also performed within-individual centering of total length. In this fifth model, we included each individual’s average total length and their weekly deviation from their average length as the two fixed effects of interest. Individual identity and slopes were included as random effects. For all models, we estimated the variance explained by the fixed effects (marginal R2) and the fixed and random effects together (conditional R2). These results are reported in Table 2.For our third and final research question, we tested whether early-life behavior predicted later-life behavior. To test this, we estimated the among-individual correlation (including ‘individual ID’ as our random effect) in behavior using multivariate mixed models where the daily median swimming speeds in each week were the response variables (7 observations per week per individual; 10 weeks total; Fig. 4A). Then to investigate how the strength of these correlations may change over development, we used a linear model to test whether the correlation strength was predicted by the interaction between the first week included in the correlation and distance to the next week in the correlation (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 weeks away in time; Fig. 4B).All models were performed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation with the MCMCglmm package38 in R v3.6.139. We set our models to run 510,000 iterations with a 10,000 burn-in and thinning every 200 iterations. To ensure proper model mixing and convergence, we initially ran 5 independent chains and inspected posterior trace plots of parameter estimates (Supplementary Note II). In a preliminary analysis we tested three different prior settings (Supplementary Note II); results did not change with prior settings so we chose parameter-expanded priors for all models reported here as these are generally considered to be more robust. An R Markdown file with all the results presented here is included in Supplementary Note II.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

After massive parallel sequencing of the nucleic acids obtained from fur seal scats, a wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate viral hosts assignations with low nucleotidic and amino-acidic identities were obtained, most of them corresponding to animal species not described before in Antarctica. These results make us reconsider the use of closed RefSeq databases for viral discovery, especially because the studied area was a remote geographical area where a high number of new viral species is expected to occur22.After repeating the analysis of the contigs obtained using BLASTn, a high number of miss-assignments was observed, corresponding almost entirely to contigs newly assigned as unclassified Eukaryotic Circular Rep-Encoding Single-Stranded DNA (CRESS-DNA) viral sequences. CRESS viruses have been detected ubiquitously in many different animals without any recognised role in the development of any disease23,24,25,26.These results are in accordance with the recent reporting of CRESS sequences also being ubiquitous in a wide variety of environments and at high proportions, including Antarctica, where they have been described to represent more than 50% of sequences obtained from glacier waters27.Viral-host distributionVirome studies in other Arctocephalus species from subantarctic and South American regions revealed a 5% of viral sequences with predominance of bacteriophages followed by viruses from the Parvoviridae family28. The methodology here applied provided an increase of 12–25% viral reads when probe-based Target Enrichment Sequencing (TES) was applied, that in comparison with Untargeted Viral Metagenomics (UVM) approaches conducted in these type of samples28 could be considered an optimal result.Most of the viral species detected in feces corresponded to unknown viruses, 83.59% from the total of sequences, followed by viruses that infect invertebrates, 8.75%, bacteriophages, 4.46%, and vertebrate viruses, 3.11% (Fig. 1).Figure 1Host distribution of viral assignations sequenced from fecal (A) and serum (B) samples collected from male A. gazella.Full size imageAs expected, when applying both targeted and untargeted sequencing methodologies, TES approach resulted in a recovery of many vertebrate viral assignations (Table 1) whereas untargeted sequencing enabled a better detection of viruses known to infect invertebrates (Table 2). To describe the complete A. gazella fecal virome, sequences obtained by both sequencing methodologies were considered all together, representing a total of 2.62 million reads.Table 1 Vertebrate viral assignations obtained from fecal samples sequencing from male A. gazella. Ranges of Genome coverage, nucleotide identity and aminoacidic identity are expressed in percentages.Full size tableTable 2 Invertebrate viral assignations obtained from fecal samples sequencing from male A. gazella. Colours represent the presence of each assignation in the processed pools. Ranges of Coverage, NT ID and AA ID are represented in percentages.Full size table
A. gazella virusesFur seal picorna-like virusFur seal picorna-like virus was firstly described in a fecal sample obtained from A. gazella in King George Island in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica by Krumbholz and co-workers16.In this study, we report a total of 19 contigs resulting after assembling 2671 reads obtained from 4/4 fecal pools analysed being the most prevalent virus described in this study. One of the contigs covered 96.91% of the fur seal picorna-like virus genome and presented a nucleotide homology of 99.38% with the reference strain described in 2017. The other contigs coverage ranged from 19.75 to 21.22% with a 45.92 to 90.5% nucleotide identity with reference strain NC_035110. Four contigs matching the ORF2 polyprotein are represented in Fig. 2 where differences among them and with the reference strain are showed.Figure 2Nucleotide alignment of ORF2 sequences from the A. gazella picorna-like contigs compared to the ORF2 from RefSeq NC_0351110. In consensus strain, position 1 represents position 6523 from RefSeqs genome.Full size imagePicornaviruses are known to cause a wide variety of diseases in vertebrate hosts, especially mammals29, but the role of Fur seal picorna-like virus in pathogenesis development is still unknown30. Many picornaviruses are transmitted horizontally via fecal–oral or airborne routes29. The fact that these sequences were detected in all the fecal pools obtained from animals with no evidence of disease may that suggest the virus may have a stable endemic relationship within that seal population.Torque teno pinniped virusLambdatorquevirus is a genus within the Anelloviridae family. The genus comprises 8 species named Torque teno pinniped virus 2 to 9 isolated from different pinniped species: A. gazella (Torque teno pinniped virus 6 and 7)17, Phoca vitulina (Torque teno pinniped virus 2, 3, 4)31, Zalophus californianus (Torque teno pinniped virus 5)32 and Leptonychotes weddellii (Torque teno pinniped 8 and 9)33.One contig with a nuleotide similarity of 95.12% against Torque teno pinniped virus 7 was obtained from one of the fecal pools. This virus had been described in these animals inhabiting Livingston Island in 2016, using rolling circle amplification and subsequent Sanger sequencing from buccal swabs17. However, sequences obtained in this study belong to partial ORF2 which is not the optimal genome region for typing purposes or phylogenetic analysis.These members of the Anelloviridae represent the more abundant viruses found in human, animals and environmental samples although their etiological role in any disease has not been clearly identified being considered a persistent virus ubiquitous to several different tissues34,35No Torque teno virus sequences were detected in serum samples which agree with what was observed for Zalophus californianus anellovirus prevalently detected in different tissues, like lung and liver, but not in blood samples. Interestingly, other known anelloviruses are typically found in blood or plasma samples32.MamastrovirusTwo of the fecal pools analyzed presented Mamastrovirus sequences. The presence of these viruses in humans and other mammals is widely known, as well as their involvement in gastroenteritis development36. The four contigs obtained (comprising 1008 sequences) showed homologies against reference genomes, ranging from 45.70% to 59.37% when compared at nucleotide level and 36.69% to 46.69% when compared at aminoacidic level. Phylogenetic analysis of partial OFR2 regions of these contigs indicate its closer similarity with sequences from California Sea Lion astroviruses, a virus that was determined as to be the most prevalent in fecal samples from these animals (Z. californianus)37. This finding suggests that these sequences may belong to a yet unknown virus like Z. californianus astrovirus and may indicate that such virus is prevalent in the sampled area (detected in 2/4 fecal pools studied) and the second more abundant virus (1008 reads) in the studied fecal samples (Fig. 3).Figure 3Phylogenetic consensus tree based on partial ORF2 sequences from the Mamastrovirus contigs sequenced from A. gazella scats (in bold). Bootstrap resampling with 1000 replicates.Full size imageAdeno associated virus 2Two of the studied fecal pools presented 138 sequences, forming 3 contigs with nucleotide identities ranging from 46.91 to 48.04% (Table 1), that matched adeno associated viruses previously described in Z. californianus, humans and other mammals with and unknow etiologic role (Fig. 4). The detected sequences probably correspond to fur seal adeno associated viruses never described before. The detection of these viruses is quite common in other mammals suggesting they could cause persistent infections in their hosts, but no etiological role has been attributed to them38.Figure 4Phylogenetic consensus tree of the Adeno-associated virus contigs sequenced from A. gazella scats (in bold). Bootstrap resampling with 1000 replicates.Full size imageNorovirusA norovirus contig was obtained in one of the four pools analyzed. Noroviruses are the most relevant non-bacterial gastroenteritis etiological agents in humans39, with its presence widely described in other mammals40. The contig detected in the fecal samples, represented the 4.43% of the viral genome, was in the VP1 region and comprised 56 reads with an identity  > 99% to California sea lion norovirus described by Teng and collaborators in 201841 (Fig. 5). Results obtained suggest these sequences belong to a putative new norovirus specie.Figure 5Phylogenetic consensus tree of the Norovirus contig sequenced from A. gazella scats (in bold). Bootstrap resampling with 1000 replicates.Full size imageViruses in serum samplesAll the viral sequences obtained from serum samples (970 reads) matched to CRESS-DNA viral sequences from unknown hosts.The fact that no other viruses were identified in serum samples suggests the animals tested were not under active viremia at the time of sample collection or it was not detectable by the applied methodology.Diet related virusesSeveral virus sequences similar to viruses known to have invertebrate animals as hosts were detected in fecal pools, mainly by UVM although some also by TES. These viruses are probably present in fur seal feces because of dietary habits although, since scats were collected from the ground nearby the animals, environmental cross-contamination should not be ruled out.Sequences with high coverage or similarities to any described virus are showed in Table 2.The high prevalence of virus sequences from crustaceans in the feces analyzed is hardly surprising because A. gazella inhabiting the Antarctic peninsula and the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean feed mostly on Antarctic krill Euphasia superba during the summer months42,43,44,45,46,47,48. Sequences from cephalopod viruses were also detected, although were much scarcer than those from crustaceans. This also agrees with current knowledge about the diet of A. gazella in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, where octopuses and squids are regularly consumed, although in low numbers44,45,46. It is worth noting than not cephalopod beak was recovered from the scats analyzed here48. Among all invertebrate viruses identified, some sequences present low identities with genomes from available databases, probably because Antarctica wildlife has been scarcely explored, forcing bioinformatic analysis to match them with the most similar viruses from these databases.No fish viruses were found in this study. Hard skeletal remains of fishes are often recovered from the scats of A. gazella from the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean42,43,44,45,46,47 and occurred indeed in the samples analysed here48, but stable isotope analysis of blood and whiskers revealed a negligible contribution of fish to the assimilate diet of juvenile and subadult male A. gazella49, which likely explain the absence of fish viruses in the samples analized here. Additionaly, no data on the virome present in the fish species regularly consumed by A. gazella has been published to our knowledge, with information limited to the bacteriome32, so even in case fish viruses were sequenced, it might not be correctly assigned to a fish host. Nevertheless, the methodology applied in this study had been successfully applied to the identification of the virome of Atlantic fishes50. Furthermore, Li and coworkers.37 and Wille and coworkers.22 also observed viral sequences probably corresponding to fish when analyzing the fecal virome of the California sea lions and Antarctic penguins.On the other hand, sequences highly similar to Coelho and Khabarov viral polymerases (greater than 98% of aminoacid identity), previously described in chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus) by Wille and coworkers22, were found in this study. The consumption of penguins by A. gazella during the summer months has been reported widely51,52,53,54,55, penguins feathers were reported from the scats analyzed in this study48 and stable isotope analysis of blood and whiskers revealed penguins as the second most relevant prey from juvenile and subadult male A. gazella in the population studied here49. This evidence is consistent with the presence of virus from chinstrap penguins in the samples analysed here. All in all, the study of fecal virome constitutes a very promising tool to explore the consumers’ diet. More

The Santa Barbara Coastal Long Term Ecological Research program has monitored benthic communities in five kelp forests seasonally since 2008 using fixed transect diver surveys, and moored sensors at each reef have recorded bottom temperatures every 15 min. Blob-associated positive bottom temperature anomalies began in winter 2014 and persisted through autumn 2016 (Fig. 1a)18. Peak temperature anomalies occurred during the summer and autumn of 2014 and 2015 (Fig. 1a), and the average temperature anomaly in autumn 2015 was +3.1 °C, equivalent to an average daily temperature of 19.6 °C. In 2014 and 2015, 91 and 69% of autumn days, respectively, were classified as heatwave days as defined by Hobday et al.20. Seasonal chlorophyll-a concentration, a proxy for phytoplankton abundance, was obtained from satellite imagery at each of the five reefs over the 14-year period. The average chlorophyll-a concentration was anomalously low throughout the warming period, and exceptionally low during the springs of 2014 and 2015 (Fig. 1a), when upwelling-driven nutrient enrichment typically supports dense phytoplankton blooms.Fig. 1: Average seasonal bottom temperature anomaly, chlorophyll-a concentration anomaly, and percent cover and species richness of sessile invertebrates across five sites.The Blob, an anomalous warming period from spring of 2014 to winter of 2016, is highlighted in gray, coincident with (a) positive temperature anomalies (°C; solid line), negative chlorophyll-a anomalies (mg/m3; dashed line), and declines in (b) invertebrate cover (solid line) and species richness (number of unique species/taxa/80 contact points; dashed line). Seasons are denoted by Sp (Spring), Su (Summer), A (Autumn) and W (Winter).Full size imageMean sessile invertebrate cover averaged across all sites declined 71% during the Blob, reaching a 14-year minimum of 7% in autumn of 2015 (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 1). Species richness declined 69% during the same period (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 1). The responses of invertebrates to warming were not consistent across time even though the duration and intensity of warming was similar in 2014 and 2015, suggesting that extended periods of elevated seawater temperature were not solely responsible for the most severe loss of invertebrates. For ectotherms, increases in ambient seawater temperature should be met with increases in metabolic rate and food requirements to sustain metabolism21. Because of their sedentary lifestyle, sessile invertebrates cannot actively forage for food or seek spatial refuge from thermal extremes, and limitations in their planktonic food supply can result in metabolic stress over extended periods22,23. Anomalously low chlorophyll-a concentrations during the Blob (Fig. 1a), particularly in the spring of 2015, indicated that food limitation was a likely driver of invertebrate decline. Results from piecewise structural equation modeling (Fig. 2) that incorporated biological interactions with space competitors (understory macroalgae), predators (sea urchins), and foundation species (giant kelp) showed that the severity of warming had both a direct and indirect effect on the sessile invertebrate community. The proportion of heatwave days was a direct negative predictor of sessile invertebrate cover (−0.11) and species richness (−0.21). The proportion of heatwave days was an even stronger negative predictor of chlorophyll-a concentration (−0.26), yielding negative indirect effects on invertebrate cover (−0.07) and species richness (−0.05) due to the positive influence of chlorophyll-a concentration on sessile invertebrate cover (+0.26) and richness (+0.20).Fig. 2: Piecewise structural equation modeling (SEM) for sessile invertebrate cover and species richness.Arrows indicate directionality of effects on (a) invertebrate cover and (b) species richness. Red arrows show negative relationships; black arrows show positive relationships. R2 values are conditional R2. Arrow widths are proportional to effect sizes as measured by standardized regression coefficients (shown next to arrows). ***p  More

Estes, J. et al. Megafaunal impacts on structure and function of ocean ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 83–116 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G., Heithaus, M. & Lotze, H. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1055–1071 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heithaus, M. R. et al. Seagrasses in the age of sea turtle conservation and shark overfishing. Front. Mar. Sci. 1, 1–6 (2014).
Google Scholar 
McCauley, D. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pereira, H. et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330, 1496–1501 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S. & Harvey, E. S. Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Mar. Policy 54, 86–97 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–574 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gilman, E. et al. Shark interactions in pelagic longline fisheries. Mar. Policy 32, 1–18 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Worm, B. et al. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Policy 40, 194–204 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Bowlby, H. & Gibson, A. Implications of life history uncertainty when evaluating status in the Northwest Atlantic population of white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Ecol. Evol. 10, 4990–5000 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. et al. Overfishing drives over one third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Curr. Biol. 31, 4773-4787.e8 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heino, M., Pauli, B. & Dieckmann, U. Fisheries-induced evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 461–480 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Mitchell, J., McLean, D., Collins, S. & Langlois, T. Shark depredation in commercial and recreational fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish 28, 715–748 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Jaiteh, V. F., Loneragan, N. & Warren, C. The end of shark finning? Impacts of declining catches and fin demand on coastal community livelihoods. Mar. Policy 82, 224–233 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Seidu, I. et al. Fishing for survival: Importance of shark fisheries for the livelihoods of coastal communities in Western Ghana. Fish. Res. 246, 106157 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Gilman, E., Weijerman, M. & Suuronen, P. Ecological data from observer programs underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1481–1495 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Melnychuk, M. et al. Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00668-1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Musyl, M. & Gilman, E. Meta-analysis of post-release fishing mortality in apex predatory pelagic sharks and white marlin. Fish Fish. 20, 466–500 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Clarke, S. A status snapshot of key shark species in the western and central pacific and potential management options. in WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Kolonia, Federated States of Micronesia (2011).Dapp, D., Walker, T., Huveneers, C. & Reina, R. Respiratory mode and gear type are important determinants of elasmobranch immediate and post-release mortality. Fish Fish. 17, 507–524 (2016).
Google Scholar 
ICES. Report of the working group on elasmobranch fishes. in ICES CM 2018/ACOM:16. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen (2018).Dicks, L. et al. A transparent process for “evidence-informed” policy making. Conserv. Lett. 7, 119–125 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Nichols, J., Kendall, W. & Boomer, G. Accumulating evidence in ecology: Once is not enough. Ecol. Evol. 9, 13991–14004 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. Meta-analysis of variation: Ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 143–152 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Pfaller, J., Chaloupka, M., Bolten, A. & Bjorndal, K. Phylogeny, biogeography and methodology: A meta-analytic perspective on heterogeneity in adult marine turtle survival rates. Sci. Rep. 8, 5852. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24262-w (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Godin, A., Carlson, J. & Burgener, V. The effect of circle hooks on shark catchability and at-vessel mortality rates in longlines fisheries. Bull. Mar. Sci. 88, 469–483 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Reinhardt, J. et al. Catch rate and at-vessel mortality of circle hooks versus J-hooks in pelagic longline fisheries: A global meta-analysis. Fish Fish. 19, 413–430 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Rosa, D., Santos, C. & Coelho, R. Assessing the effects of hook, bait and leader type as potential mitigation measures to reduce bycatch and mortality rates of shortfin mako: A meta-analysis with comparisons for target, bycatch and vulnerable fauna interactions. in ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientifics Papers 76, 247–278 (2020).Santos, C., Rosa, D. & Coelho, R. Hook, bait and leader type effects on surface pelagic longline retention and mortality rates: A meta-analysis with comparisons for target, bycatch and vulnerable fauna interactions. in IOTC-2019-WPEB15-39. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Mahe, Seychelles (2019).Santos, C., Rosa, D. & Coelho, R. Progress on a meta-analysis for comparing hook, bait and leader effects on target, bycatch and vulnerable fauna interactions. in Collective Volume of Scientifics Papers ICCAT 77, 182–217 (2020).Condamine, F., Romieu, J. & Guinot, G. Climate cooling and clade competition likely drove the decline of lamniform sharks. PNAS 116, 20584–20590 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B. & Bürkner, P. Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved Rhat for assessing convergence of MCMC (with Discussion). Bayesian Anal. 16, 667–718 (2021).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Cinar, O., Nakagawa, S. & Viechtbauer, W. Phylogenetic multilevel meta-analysis: A simulation study on the importance of modelling the phylogeny. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 383–395 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Lajeunesse, M. Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method. Am. Nat. 174, 369–381 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S. et al. Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 15, 627–636 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burns, J. & Strauss, S. More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5302–5307 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cachera, M. & Le Loc’h, F. Assessing the relationships between phylogenetic and functional singularities in sharks (Chondrichthyes). Ecol. Evol. 7, 6292–6303 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Münkemüller, T., Boucher, F. C., Thuiller, W. & Lavergne, S. Phylogenetic niche conservatism—Common pitfalls and ways forward. Funct. Ecol. 29, 627–639 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bazzi, M., Campione, N., Kear, B., Pimiento, C. & Ahlberg, P. Feeding ecology has shaped the evolution of modern sharks. Curr. Biol. 31, 5138–5148 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sepulveda, C., Wegner, N., Bernal, D. & Graham, J. The red muscle morphology of the thresher sharks (family Alopiidae). J. Exp. Biol. 208, 4255–4261 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wosnick, N. et al. Multispecies thermal dynamics of air-exposed ectothermic sharks and its implications for fisheries conservation. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 513, 1–9 (2019).
Google Scholar 
French, R. et al. High survivorship after catch-and-release fishing suggests physiological resilience in the endothermic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus). Conserv. Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cov044 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Davis, M. Key principles for understanding fish bycatch discard mortality. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, 1834–1843 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Massey, Y., Sabarros, P., Rabearisoa, N. & Bach, P. Drivers of at-haulback mortality of sharks caught during pelagic longline fishing experiments. in IOTC-2019-WPEB15-14_Rev1. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Mahe, Seychelles (2019).Musyl, M., Moyes, C., Brill, R. & Fragoso, N. Factors influencing mortality estimates in post-release survival studies: Comment on Campana et al. (2009). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 396, 157–159 (2009).Pimiento, C., Cantalapiedra, J., Shimada, K., Field, D. & Smaers, J. Evolutionary pathways towards gigantism in sharks and rays. Evolution 73, 588–599 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Musyl, M. & Gilman, E. Post-release fishing mortality of blue (Prionace glauca) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformes) from a Palauan-based commercial longline fishery. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 28, 567–658 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Childs, D., Sheldon, B. & Rees, M. The evolution of labile traits in sex- and age-structured populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 329–342 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Comte, L., Murienne, J. & Grenouillet, G. Species traits and phylogenetic conservatism of climate-induced range shifts in stream fishes. Nat. Commun. 5, 5053 (2014).ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3. www.iucnredlist.org. ISSN 2307-8235 (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 2022).García, V., Lucifora, L. & Ransom, M. The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 83–89 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cortes, E. Perspectives on the intrinsic rate of population growth. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1136–1145 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ellis, J. et al. A review of capture and post-release mortality of elasmobranchs. J. Fish Biol. 90, 653–722 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gallagher, A., Orbesen, E., Hammerschlag, N. & Serafy, J. Vulnerability of oceanic sharks as pelagic longline bycatch. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 50–59 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Afonso, A., Santiago, R., Hazin, H. & Hazin, F. Shark bycatch and mortality and hook bite-offs in pelagic longlines: Interactions between hook types and leader materials. Fish. Res. 131–133, 9–14 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M. & Musyl, M. Effects of pelagic longline hook size on species- and size-selectivity and survival. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 28, 417–433 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Epperly, S., Watson, J., Foster, D. & Shah, A. Anatomical hooking location and condition of animals captured with pelagic longlines: The grand banks experiments 2002–2003. Bull. Mar. Sci. 88, 513–527 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Amorim, S., Santos, M., Coelho, R. & Fernandez-Carvalho, J. Effects of 17/0 circle hooks and bait on fish catches in a southern Atlantic swordfish longline fishery. Aquat. Conserv. 25, 518–533 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Coelho, R., Fernandez-Carvalho, J., Lino, P. & Santos, M. An overview of the hooking mortality of elasmobranchs caught in a swordfish pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquat. Living Resour. 25, 311–319 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Gilman, E. et al. A decision support tool for integrated fisheries bycatch management. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09693-5 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pascoe, S. et al. Use of incentive-based management systems to limit bycatch and discarding. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, 123–161 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Somers, K., Pfeiffer, L., Miller, S. & Morrison, W. Using incentives to reduce bycatch and discarding: Results under the west coast catch share program. Coast. Manag. 46, 1–17 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Abbott, J. & Wilen, J. Regulation of fisheries bycatch with common-pool output quotas. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 57, 195–204 (2009).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Gilman, E. et al. Increasing the functionalities and accuracy of fisheries electronic monitoring systems. Aquat. Conserv. 29, 901–926 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Watling, J. Fishing observers ‘intimidated and bribed by EU crews’. Quota checks allegedly being compromised aboard Northwest Atlantic fishery boats, as observers report surveillance and theft. The Guardian (2012, accessed 21 July 2022). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/18/fishing-inspectors-intimidated-bribed-crews.Clarke, S., Harley, S., Hoyle, S. & Rice, J. Population trends in Pacific oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conserv. Biol. 27, 197–209 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tolotti, M. T. et al. Banning is not enough: The complexities of oceanic shark management by tuna regional fisheries management organizations. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Merrifield, M., Malsol, N. & Cook, C. Standardized catch and survival rates, and effect of a ban on shark retention, Palau pelagic longline fishery. Aquat. Conserv. 26, 1031–1062 (2016).
Google Scholar 
CITES. Appendices I, II and III. Valid from 22 June 2021. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, United Nations Environment Program, Geneva (2021).Ward-Paige, C. A global overview of shark sanctuary regulations and their impact on shark fisheries. Mar. Policy 82, 87–97 (2017).
Google Scholar 
E.U. Regulation (E.U.) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L354, 22–61 (2013).FAO. International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2011).CCSBT. Resolution to Align CCSBT’s Ecologically Related Species Measures with those of other Tuna RFMOs (Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Deakin West, Australia, 2021).IATTC. Active Resolutions and Recommendations (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, 2022).ICCAT. Compendium. Management Recommendations and Resolutions Adopted by ICCAT for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and Tuna-like Species (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, 2021).IOTC. Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Mahe, 2021).WCPFC. Conservation and Management Measures and Resolutions of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Compiled 31 August 2021 (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Kolonia, Federated States of Micronesia, 2021).Faith, D. Threatened species and the potential loss of phylogenetic diversity: Conservation scenarios based on estimated extinction probabilities and phylogenetic risk analysis. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1461–1470 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dolce, J. & Wilga, C. Evolutionary and ecological relationships of gill slit morphology in extant sharks. Bull. Mus. Comp. 161, 79–109 (2013).
Google Scholar 
MacLeod, N. & Forey, P. Morphology, Shape and Phylogeny (CRC Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Haddaway, N., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G., Eds. Section 5. Conducting a Search. Key CEE Standards for Conduct and Reporting. In Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B., Petrokofsky, G., Eds. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2020).Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. (eds) Section 3. Planning a CEE Evidence Synthesis. In Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B., Petrokofsky, G. (eds) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2021).Page, M. et al. The PRISMA statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n.71 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tuyl, F., Gerlach, R. & Mengersen, K. Comparison of Bayes-Laplace, Jeffreys, and other priors: The case of zero events. Am. Stat. 62, 40–44 (2008).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Dorai-Raj, S. binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. R package version 1.1-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=binom (2014).van Lissa, C. Small sample meta-analyses: Exploring heterogeneity using MetaForest. Chapter 13. In Small Sample Size Solutions: A Guide for Applied Researchers and Practitioners (eds Van De Schoot, R. & Miočević, M.) 186–202 (Routledge, Oxford, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Wright, M. & Ziegler, A. ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. J. Stat. Softw. 77, 1–17 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Janitza, S., Celik, E. & Boulesteix, A. A computationally fast variable importance test for random forests for high-dimensional data. Adv. Data Anal. Classif. 12, 885–915 (2018).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mayer, M. missRanger: Fast imputation of missing values. R package version 2.1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=missRanger (2021).Konstantopoulos, S. Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysis. Research Synthesis. Methods 2, 61–76 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Amaral, C., Pereira, F., Silva, D., Amorim, A. & de Carvalho, E. The mitogenomic phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii (Chondrichthyes). Mitochondrial DNA A 29, 867–878 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Hara, Y. et al. Shark genomes provide insights into elasmobranch evolution and the origin of vertebrates. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1761–1771 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Naylor, G. et al. A DNA sequence-based approach to the identification of shark and ray species and its implications for global elasmobranch diversity and parasitology. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. 367, 1–262 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Stein, R. et al. Global priorities for conserving the evolutionary history of sharks, rays and chimaeras. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 288–298 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maddison, D., Swofford, D., Maddison, W. & Cannatella, D. Nexus: An extensible file format for systematic information. Syst. Biol. 46, 590–621 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yu, G. Using ggtree to visualize data on tree-like structures. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 69, e96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpbi.96 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hadfield, J. & Nakagawa, S. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: Phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol 23, 494–508 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lin, L. & Chu, H. Meta-analysis of proportions using generalized linear mixed models. Epidemiology 31, 713–717 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–32 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bürkner, P. brms: An R Package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 81, 1–28 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Günhan, B., Röver, C. & Friede, T. Random-effects meta-analysis of few studies involving rare events. Res. Synth. Methods 11, 74–90 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pappalardo, P. et al. Comparing traditional and Bayesian approaches to ecological meta-analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1286–1295 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Ott, M., Plummer, M. & Roos, M. How vague is vague? How informative is informative? Reference analysis for Bayesian meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 40, 4505–4521 (2021).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn. (Chapman and Hall, 2017).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kruschke, J. & Liddell, T. The Bayesian new statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 178–206 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kay, M. tidybayes: Tidy data and geoms for Bayesian models. R package version 2.1.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1308151 (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).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Searle, S., Speed, F. & Milliken, G. Population marginal means in the linear model: An alternative to least squares means. Am. Stat. 34, 216–221 (1980).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.2-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2020).Pagel, M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 877–884 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Münkemüller, T. et al. How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 743–756 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A. & Gabry, J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat. Comput. 27, 1413–1432 (2017).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Yao, Y., Vehtari, A., Simpson, D. & Gelman, A. Using stacking to average Bayesian predictive distributions (with Discussion). Bayesian Anal. 13, 917–1003 (2018).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M. & Gelman, A. Visualization in Bayesian workflow. J. R. Soc. Ser. A 182, 1–14 (2019).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Lazic, S., Mellor, J., Ashby, M. & Munafo, M. A Bayesian predictive approach for dealing with pseudoreplication. Sci. Rep. 10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59384-7 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Page, M., Sterne, J., Higgins, J. & Egger, M. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: A review. Res. Synth. Methods 12, 248–259 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peters, J., Sutton, A., Jones, D., Abrams, K. & Rushton, L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 991–996 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Gasparrini, A., Armstrong, B. & Kenward, M. Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations. Stat. Med. 31, 3821–3839 (2012).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

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

Google Scholar 
Rodell, M. et al. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557, 651–659 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Green, J. K. et al. Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake. Nature 565, 476–479 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reichstein, M. et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287–295 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goulden, M. L. & Bales, R. C. California forest die-off linked to multi-year deep soil drying in 2012–2015 drought. Nat. Geosci. 12, 632–637 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brodribb, T. J., Powers, J., Cochard, H. & Choat, B. Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought. Science 368, 261–266 (2020).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Short Gianotti, D. J., Rigden, A. J., Salvucci, G. D. & Entekhabi, D. Satellite and station observations demonstrate water availability’s effect on continental-scale evaporative and photosynthetic land surface dynamics. Water Resour. Res. 55, 540–554 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Bowling, D. R., Salvucci, G. & Tuttle, S. E. Plant functional traits and climate influence drought intensification and land–atmosphere feedbacks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14071–14076 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M. et al. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply. Nature 467, 951–954 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 1023–1027 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Kumar, M., Katul, G. G., Feng, X. & Konings, A. G. Plant hydraulics accentuates the effect of atmospheric moisture stress on transpiration. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 691–695 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, A., Rico-Medina, A. & Caño-Delgado, A. I. The physiology of plant responses to drought. Science 368, 266–269 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, S. et al. Warm spring reduced carbon cycle impact of the 2012 US summer drought. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5880–5885 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Teuling, A. J. et al. Evapotranspiration amplifies European summer drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2071–2075 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Mastrotheodoros, T. et al. More green and less blue water in the Alps during warmer summers. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 155–161 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Peterson, T. J., Saft, M., Peel, M. C. & John, A. Watersheds may not recover from drought. Science 372, 745–749 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helbig, M. et al. Increasing contribution of peatlands to boreal evapotranspiration in a warming climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 555–560 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Massmann, A., Gentine, P. & Lin, C. When does vapor pressure deficit drive or reduce evapotranspiration? J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 3305–3320 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Grossiord, C. et al. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol. 226, 1550–1566 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Orth, R. & Destouni, G. Drought reduces blue-water fluxes more strongly than green-water fluxes in Europe. Nat. Commun. 9, 3602 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Pendergrass, A. G. et al. Flash droughts present a new challenge for subseasonal-to-seasonal prediction. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 191–199 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Chu, H., Baldocchi, D. D., John, R., Wolf, S. & Reichstein, M. Fluxes all of the time? A primer on the temporal representativeness of FLUXNET. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 122, 289–307 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ukkola, A. M. et al. Land surface models systematically overestimate the intensity, duration and magnitude of seasonal-scale evaporative droughts. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 104012 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Trugman, A. T., Medvigy, D., Mankin, J. S. & Anderegg, W. R. L. Soil moisture stress as a major driver of carbon cycle uncertainty. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 6495–6503 (2018).
Google Scholar 
De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Do land surface models need to include differential plant species responses to drought? Examining model predictions across a mesic–xeric gradient in Europe. Biogeosciences 12, 7503–7518 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Dong, J., Lei, F. & Crow, W. T. Land transpiration–evaporation partitioning errors responsible for modeled summertime warm bias in the central United States. Nat. Commun. 13, 336 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, D. et al. Implementing plant hydraulics in the Community Land Model, version 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 485–513 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Novick, K. A. et al. Confronting the water potential information gap. Nat. Geosci. 15, 158–164 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Holtzman, N. M. & Konings, A. G. Global ecosystem-scale plant hydraulic traits retrieved using model–data fusion. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 2399–2417 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y.-S. et al. Optimal stomatal behaviour around the world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 459–464 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Otero-Casal, C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10572–10577 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Hydraulic diversity of forests regulates ecosystem resilience during drought. Nature 561, 538–541 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lehmann, P., Merlin, O., Gentine, P. & Or, D. Soil texture effects on surface resistance to bare-soil evaporation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 10398–10405 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Fatichi, S. et al. Soil structure is an important omission in Earth System Models. Nat. Commun. 11, 522 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
McCormick, E. L. et al. Widespread woody plant use of water stored in bedrock. Nature 597, 225–229 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baldocchi, D., Ma, S. & Verfaillie, J. On the inter- and intra-annual variability of ecosystem evapotranspiration and water use efficiency of an oak savanna and annual grassland subjected to booms and busts in rainfall. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 359–375 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Condon, L. E., Atchley, A. L. & Maxwell, R. M. Evapotranspiration depletes groundwater under warming over the contiguous United States. Nat. Commun. 11, 873 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, R. M. & Condon, L. E. Connections between groundwater flow and transpiration partitioning. Science 353, 377–380 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Humphrey, V. et al. Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560, 628–631 (2018).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, M. et al. Ecological restoration impact on total terrestrial water storage. Nat. Sustain. 4, 56–62 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Feng, X. et al. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 1019–1022 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Guan, K. et al. Photosynthetic seasonality of global tropical forests constrained by hydroclimate. Nat. Geosci. 8, 284–289 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, M., Geruo, A., Velicogna, I. & Kimball, J. S. A global gridded dataset of GRACE drought severity index for 2002–14: comparison with PDSI and SPEI and a case study of the Australia Millennium Drought. J. Hydrometeorol. 18, 2117–2129 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Watkins, M. M., Wiese, D. N., Yuan, D.-N., Boening, C. & Landerer, F. W. Improved methods for observing Earth’s time variable mass distribution with GRACE using spherical cap mascons. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 2648–2671 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wiese, D. N., Landerer, F. W. & Watkins, M. M. Quantifying and reducing leakage errors in the JPL RL05M GRACE mascon solution. Water Resour. Res. 52, 7490–7502 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Adler, R. F. et al. The Version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present). J. Hydrometeorol. 4, 1147–1167 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Sun, Q. et al. A review of global precipitation data sets: data sources, estimation, and intercomparisons. Rev. Geophys. 56, 79–107 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Gebremichael, M. et al. Error uncertainty analysis of GPCP monthly rainfall products: a data-based simulation study. J. Appl. Meteorol. 42, 1837–1848 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Rodell, M. et al. Basin scale estimates of evapotranspiration using GRACE and other observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L20504 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Major River Basins of the World (Global Runoff Data Centre, 2020).Pascolini-Campbell, M. A., Reager, J. T. & Fisher, J. B. GRACE-based mass conservation as a validation target for basin-scale evapotranspiration in the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026594 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Fekete, B. M., Vörösmarty, C. J. & Grabs, W. High-resolution fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated water balances. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 15-1–15-10 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y. & Park, T (ed. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC) (2021).Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sulla-Menashe, D. & Friedl, M. A. User Guide to Collection 6 MODIS Land Cover (MCD12Q1 and MCD12C1) Product (US Geological Survey, 2018).Zhao, M., Aa, G., Liu, Y. & Konings, A. Evapotranspiration frequently increases during droughts. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6842054 (2022). More

LaBarbera, M. The evolution and ecology of body size. In Patterns and Processes in the History of Life (eds Raup, D. M. & Jablonski, D.) 69–98 (Springer, 1986).
Google Scholar 
Peters, R. H. & Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1986).
Google Scholar 
Klingenberg, C. P. & Spence, J. On the role of body size for life-history evolution. Ecol. Entomol. 22(1), 55–68 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Blanckenhorn, W. U. The evolution of body size: What keeps organisms small?. Q. Rev. Biol. 75(4), 385–407 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sibly, R. M. & Brown, J. H. Effects of body size and lifestyle on evolution of mammal life histories. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(45), 17707–17712 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Scaling in biology: The consequences of size. J. Exp. Zool. 194(1), 287–307 (1975).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Calder, W. A. Size, Function, and Life History (Courier Corporation, 1996).
Google Scholar 
Gould, S. J. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41(4), 587–638 (1966).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293(5538), 2248–2251 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gearty, W. & Payne, J. L. Physiological constraints on body size distributions in Crocodyliformes. Evolution 74(2), 245–255 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maurer, B. A., Brown, J. H. & Rusler, R. D. The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46(4), 939–953 (1992).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hone, D. W. & Benton, M. J. The evolution of large size: How does Cope’s Rule work?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20(1), 4–6 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reeve, J. P. & Fairbairn, D. J. Predicting the evolution of sexual size dimorphism. J. Evol. Biol. 14(2), 244–254 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Blanckenhorn, W. U. Behavioral causes and consequences of sexual size dimorphism. Ethology 111(11), 977–1016 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Wu, H., Jiang, T., Huang, X. & Feng, J. Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in horseshoe bats: Testing Rensch’s rule and potential causes. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–13 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cox, R. M., Butler, M. A. & John-Alder, H. B. The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. In Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism (eds Fairbairn, D. J. et al.) 38–49 (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Stillwell, R. C., Blanckenhorn, W. U., Teder, T., Davidowitz, G. & Fox, C. W. Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: From physiology to evolution. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 227–245 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rensch, B. Die Abhängigkeit der relativen Sexualdifferenz von der Körpergrösse. Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 1, 58–69 (1950).
Google Scholar 
Rensch, B. Evolution Above the Species Level (Columbia University Press, 1960).
Google Scholar 
Shine, R. Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: A review of the evidence. Q. Rev. Biol. 64(4), 419–461 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Portik, D. M., Blackburn, D. C. & McGuire, J. A. Macroevolutionary patterns of sexual size dimorphism among African tree frogs (Family: Hyperoliidae). J. Hered. 111(4), 379–391 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, C. P., Adams, D. C., Iverson, J. B. & Valenzuela, N. Phylogenetic patterns of sexual size dimorphism in turtles and their implications for Rensch’s rule. Evol. Biol. 40(2), 194–208 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Amado, T. F., Martinez, P. A., Pincheira-Donoso, D. & Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á. Body size distributions of anurans are explained by diversification rates and the environment. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30(1), 154–164 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Starostová, Z., Kubička, L. & Kratochvíl, L. Macroevolutionary pattern of sexual size dimorphism in geckos corresponds to intraspecific temperature-induced variation. J. Evol. Biol. 23(4), 670–677 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herczeg, G., Gonda, A. & Merilä, J. Rensch’s rule inverted–female-driven gigantism in nine-spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius. J. Anim. Ecol. 79(3), 581–588 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liao, W. B. & Chen, W. Inverse Rensch’s rule in a frog with female-biased sexual size dimorphism. Naturwissenschaften 99(5), 427–431 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cooper, M. I. Sexual size dimorphism and the rejection of Rensch’s rule in Diplopoda (Arthropoda). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 6(1), 1582–1587 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Cheng, R. C. & Kuntner, M. Phylogeny suggests nondirectional and isometric evolution of sexual size dimorphism in argiopine spiders. Evolution 68(10), 2861–2872 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Webb, T. J. & Freckleton, R. P. Only half right: Species with female-biased sexual size dimorphism consistently break Rensch’s rule. PLoS ONE 2(9), e897 (2007).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Chown, S. L. & Evans, K. L. Ecogeographical rules: Elements of a synthesis. J. Biogeogr. 35(3), 483–500 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á. & Rodríguez, M. Á. Energy and interspecific body size patterns of amphibian faunas in Europe and North America: Anurans follow Bergmann’s rule, urodeles its converse. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16(5), 606–617 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Bastos, R. P. & Rodríguez, M. Á. Geographic body size gradients in tropical regions: Water deficit and anuran body size in the Brazilian Cerrado. Ecography 32(4), 581–590 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Gouveia, S. F. & Correia, I. Geographical clines of body size in terrestrial amphibians: Water conservation hypothesis revisited. J. Biogeogr. 43(10), 2075–2084 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Pincheira-Donoso, D., Meiri, S., Jara, M., Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á. & Hodgson, D. J. Global patterns of body size evolution are driven by precipitation in legless amphibians. Ecography 42(10), 1682–1690 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Nevo, E. Adaptive color polymorphism in cricket frogs. Evolution 27(3), 353–367 (1973).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ashton, K. G. Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule?. Can. J. Zool. 80(4), 708–716 (2002).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann, C. Ueber die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien. 1, 595–708 (1847).
Google Scholar 
Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á., Rodríguez, M. Á. & Hawkins, B. A. Broad-scale patterns of body size in squamate reptiles of Europe and North America. J. Biogeogr. 33(5), 781–793 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Trullas, S. C., van Wyk, J. H. & Spotila, J. R. Thermal melanism in ectotherms. J. Therm. Biol. 32(5), 235–245 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, M. Á., López-Sañudo, I. L. & Hawkins, B. A. The geographic distribution of mammal body size in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15(2), 173–181 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Bastos, R. P. & Rodriguez, M. A. Geographic body size gradients in tropical regions: Water deficit and anuran body size in the Brazilian Cerrado. Ecography 32(4), 581–590 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Womack, M. C. & Bell, R. C. Two-hundred million years of anuran body-size evolution in relation to geography, ecology and life history. J. Evol. Biol. 33(10), 1417–1432 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frost, D. R. Amphibian Species of the World: An online reference, version 6. http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php. Accessed 12 July 2021 (2021).
Acevedo, A. A., Armesto, O. & Palma, R. E. Two new species of Pristimantis (Anura: Craugastoridae) with notes on the distribution of the genus in northeastern Colombia. Zootaxa 4750(4), 499–523 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Heinicke, M. P., Duellman, W. E. & Hedges, S. B. Major Caribbean and Central American frog faunas originated by ancient oceanic dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(24), 10092–10097 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pinto-Sánchez, N. R. et al. The great American biotic interchange in frogs: Multiple and early colonization of Central America by the South American genus Pristimantis (Anura: Craugastoridae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 62(3), 954–972 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zumel, D., Buckley, D. & Ron, S. R. The Pristimantis trachyblepharis species group, a clade of miniaturized frogs: Description of four new species and insights into the evolution of body size in the genus. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. zlab044 (2021).Pincheira-Donoso, D. et al. The multiple origins of sexual size dimorphism in global amphibians. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30(2), 443–458 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Woolbright, L. L. Sexual selection and size dimorphism in anuran amphibia. Am. Nat. 121(1), 110–119 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Nali, R. C., Zamudio, K. R., Haddad, C. F. & Prado, C. P. Size-dependent selective mechanisms on males and females and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in frogs. Am. Nat. 184(6), 727–740 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hill, R. et al. Herpetological husbandry observations on the captive reproduction of gaige’s rain frog Pristimantis gaigeae (Dunn 1931). Herpetol. Rev. 41(4), 465 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Rojas-Rivera, A., Cortés-Bedoya, S., Gutiérrez-Cárdenas, P. D. A. & Castellanos, J. M. Pristimantis achatinus (Cachabi robber frog). Parental care and clutch size. Herpetol. Rev. 42, 588–589 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Granados-Pérez, Y. & Ramirez-Pinilla, M. P. Reproductive phenology of three species of Pristimantis in an Andean cloud forest. Revista Acad. Colomb. Ci. Exact. 44(173), 1083–1098 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Levy, D. L. & Heald, R. Biological scaling problems and solutions in amphibians. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 8(1), a019166 (2016).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, M. S. & Ignizio, D. A. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. US Geol. Survey Data Series. 691(10), 4–9 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Valenzuela-Sánchez, A., Cunningham, A. A. & Soto-Azat, C. Geographic body size variation in ectotherms: Effects of seasonality on an anuran from the southern temperate forest. Front. Zool. 12(1), 1–10 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Parsons, J. J. The northern Andean environment. Mt. Res. Dev. 2(3), 253–264 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Navas, C. A., Carvajalino-Fernández, J. M., Saboyá-Acosta, L. P., Rueda-Solano, L. A. & Carvajalino-Fernández, M. A. The body temperature of active amphibians along a tropical elevation gradient: Patterns of mean and variance and inference from environmental data. Funct. Ecol. 27(5), 1145–1154 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Swemmer, A. M., Knapp, A. K. & Snyman, H. A. Intra-seasonal precipitation patterns and above-ground productivity in three perennial grasslands. J. Ecol. 95(4), 780–788 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Losos, J. B. Lizards in an Evolutionary Tree: Ecology and Adaptive Radiation of Anoles (Univ. of California Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
Pincheira-Donoso, D. & Hunt, J. Fecundity selection theory: Concepts and evidence. Biol. Rev. 92(1), 341–356 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, C. & Hero, J. M. Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians: A review. J. Anim. Ecol. 72(2), 270–279 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Morrow, C. B., Ernest, S. M. & Kerkhoff, A. J. Macroevolution of dimensionless life-history metrics in tetrapods. Proc. Royal Soc. B. 288, 20210200 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Revell, L. J., Harmon, L. J. & Collar, D. C. Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. Syst. Biol. 57(4), 591–601 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kamilar, J. M. & Cooper, N. Phylogenetic signal in primate behaviour, ecology and life history. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 368(1618), 20120341 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, A. L. & Wiens, J. J. Estimating diversification rates for higher taxa: BAMM can give problematic estimates of rates and rate shifts. Evolution 72(1), 39–53 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. et al. Rates of speciation and morphological evolution are correlated across the largest vertebrate radiation. Nat. Commun. 4(1), 1–8 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Mendoza, A. M., Ospina, O. E., Cárdenas-Henao, H. & García-R, J. C. A likelihood inference of historical biogeography in the world’s most diverse terrestrial vertebrate genus: Diversification of direct-developing frogs (Craugastoridae: Pristimantis) across the Neotropics. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 85, 50–58 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baker, J., Meade, A., Pagel, M. & Venditti, C. Adaptive evolution toward larger size in mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(16), 5093–5098 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hariharan, I. K., Wake, D. B. & Wake, M. H. Indeterminate growth: Could it represent the ancestral condition?. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 8(2), a019174 (2016).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Amado, T. F., Bidau, C. J. & Olalla-Tárraga, M. Á. Geographic variation of body size in New World anurans: Energy and water in a balance. Ecography 42(3), 456–466 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Watters, J. L., Cummings, S. T., Flanagan, R. L. & Siler, C. D. Review of morphometric measurements used in anuran species descriptions and recommendations for a standardized approach. Zootaxa 4072, 477–495 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lovich, J. E. & Gibbons, J. W. A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth Dev. Aging. 56, 269–269 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Ho, S. Y. & Guindon, S. PartitionFinder: Combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29(6), 1695–1701 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J. & Rambaut, A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 7(1), 1–8 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y., Phillips, M. J. & Rambaut, A. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4(5), e88 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rambaut, A. FigTree, A Graphical Viewer of Phylogenetic Trees. (2007)Olalla-Tárraga, M. A., Bini, L. M., Diniz-Filho, J. A. & Rodríguez, M. Á. Cross-species and assemblage-based approaches to Bergmann’s rule and the biogeography of body size in Plethodon salamanders of eastern North America. Ecography 33(2), 362–368 (2010).
Google Scholar 
QGIS.org. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association. http://www.qgis.org. Accessed 10 July 2021 (2022).Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’. Statistician. 56(316), e24 (2017).
Google Scholar 
James, F. C. Geographic size variation in birds and its relationship to climate. Ecology 51(3), 365–390 (1970).
Google Scholar 
Hawkins, B. A. & Felizola Diniz-Filho, J. A. Beyond Rapoport’s rule: Evaluating range size patterns of New World birds in a two-dimensional framework. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15(5), 461–469 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Eager, C. standardize: Tools for standardizing variables for regression in R. R package version 0.21 (2017).Meireles, J. E., O’Meara, B. & Cavender-Bares, J. Linking leaf spectra to the plant tree of life. In Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds Cavender-Bares, J. et al.) 155–172 (Springer, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Pagel, M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401(6756), 877–884 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pagel, M. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 48(3), 612–622 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Revell, L. J. Phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3(2), 217–223 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Revell, L. J. Two new graphical methods for mapping trait evolution on phylogenies. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(8), 754–759 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. et al. BAMM tools: An R package for the analysis of evolutionary dynamics on phylogenetic trees. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(7), 701–707 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE 9(2), e89543 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L., Mitchell, J. S. & Chang, J. Is BAMM flawed? Theoretical and practical concerns in the analysis of multi-rate diversification models. Syst. Biol. 66(4), 477–498 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K. & Vines, K. CODA: Convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News. 6(1), 7–11 (2006).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2021). https://www.R-project.org. Accessed 1 June 2021 (2021).Fairbairn, D. J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 28(1), 659–687 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Fairbairn, D. J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Testing two hypotheses for Rensch’s rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Am. Nat. 166(S4), S69–S84 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Visser, A. G., Beevers, L. & Patidar, S. Complexity in hydroecological modelling: A comparison of stepwise selection and information theory. River Res. Appl. 34(8), 1045–1056 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Calcagno, V. & de Mazancourt, C. glmulti: An R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J. Stat. Softw. 34(12), 1–29 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Callaghan, S., Guilyardi, E., Steenman-Clark, L. & Morgan, M. The METAFOR project. in Earth System Modelling-Volume 1 (Springer, 2013).Garamszegi, L. Z. & Mundry, R. Multimodel-inference in comparative analyses. In Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and THEIR Application in Evolutionary Biology (ed. Garamszegi, L. Z.) 305–331 (Springer Berlin, 2014).
Google Scholar  More

Dehling, D. M., Jordano, P., Schaefer, H. M., Böhning-Gaese, K. & Schleuning, M. Morphology predicts species’ functional roles and their degree of specialization in plant–frugivore interactions. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152444 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grant, P. R. Inheritance of size and shape in a population of Darwin’s finches, Geospiza conirostris. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 220, 219–236 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Des Roches, S. et al. The ecological importance of intraspecific variation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 57–64 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann, C. Über die verhältnisse der wärmeökonomie der thiere zu ihrer grösse. Gött. Stud. 3, 595–708 (1847).
Google Scholar 
Allen, J. A. The influence of physical conditions in the genesis of species. Radic. Rev. 1, 108–140 (1877).
Google Scholar 
Altshuler, D. L. & Dudley, R. The physiology and biomechanics of avian flight at high altitude. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, 62–71 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Teplitsky, C. & Millien, V. Climate warming and Bergmann’s rule through time: is there any evidence? Evol. Appl. 7, 156–168 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 285–291 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yom-Tov, Y., Yom-Tov, S., Wright, J., Thorne, C. J. R. & Du Feu, R. Recent changes in body weight and wing length among some British passerine birds. Oikos 112, 91–101 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Van Buskirk, J., Mulvihill, R. S. & Leberman, R. C. Declining body sizes in North American birds associated with climate change. Oikos 119, 1047–1055 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Weeks, B. C. et al. Shared morphological consequences of global warming in North American migratory birds. Ecol. Lett. 23, 316–325 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeSante, D. F., Saracco, J. F., O’Grady, D. R., Burton, K. M. & Walker, B. L. Methodological considerations of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program. Stud. Avian Biol. 29, 28–45 (2004).West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276, 122–126 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jirinec, V. et al. Morphological consequences of climate change for resident birds in intact Amazonian rainforest. Sci. Adv. 7, eabk1743 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dubiner, S. & Meiri, S. Widespread recent changes in morphology of Old World birds, global warming the immediate suspect. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 791–801 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Ballinger, M. A. & Nachman, M. W. The contribution of genetic and environmental effects to Bergmann’s rule and Allen’s rule in house mice. Am. Nat. https://doi.org/10.1086/719028 (2022).Andrew, S. C., Hurley, L. L., Mariette, M. M. & Griffith, S. C. Higher temperatures during development reduce body size in the zebra finch in the laboratory and in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 2156–2164 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Siepielski, A. M. et al. No evidence that warmer temperatures are associated with selection for smaller body sizes. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191332 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Salewski, V., Siebenrock, K.-H., Hochachka, W. M., Woog, F. & Fiedler, W. Morphological change to birds over 120 years is not explained by thermal adaptation to climate change. PLoS ONE 9, e101927 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, E. A., Iknayan, K. J., Wolf, B. O., Sinervo, B. & Beissinger, S. R. Cooling requirements fueled the collapse of a desert bird community from climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21609–21615 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Futuyma, D. J. Evolutionary constraint and ecological consequences. Evolution 64, 1865–1884 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Murren, C. J. et al. Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity. Heredity 115, 293–301 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rollinson, C. R. et al. Working across space and time: nonstationarity in ecological research and application. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 66–72 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Riemer, K., Guralnick, R. P. & White, E. P. No general relationship between mass and temperature in endothermic species. eLife 7, e27166 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryding, S., Klaassen, M., Tattersall, G. J., Gardner, J. L. & Symonds, M. R. Shape-shifting: changing animal morphologies as a response to climatic warming. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 1036–1048 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baldwin, M. W., Winkler, H., Organ, C. L. & Helm, B. Wing pointedness associated with migratory distance in common-garden and comparative studies of stonechats (Saxicola torquata). J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1050–1063 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Förschler, M. I. & Bairlein, F. Morphological shifts of the external flight apparatus across the range of a passerine (Northern Wheatear) with diverging migratory behaviour. PLoS ONE 6, e18732 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Macpherson, M. P., Jahn, A. E. & Mason, N. A. Morphology of migration: associations between wing shape, bill morphology and migration in kingbirds (Tyrannus). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 135, 71–83 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Newton, I. The Migration Ecology of Birds (Elsevier, 2010).Clegg, S. M., Kelly, J. F., Kimura, M. & Smith, T. B. Combining genetic markers and stable isotopes to reveal population connectivity and migration patterns in a neotropical migrant, Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla). Mol. Ecol. 12, 819–830 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bell, C. P. Leap-frog migration in the fox sparrow: minimizing the cost of spring migration. Condor 99, 470–477 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Billerman, S., Keeney, B., Rodewald, P. & Schulenberg, T. (eds) Birds of the World (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 2020).Desrochers, A. Morphological response of songbirds to 100 years of landscape change in North America. Ecology 91, 1577–1582 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Swaddle, J. P. & Lockwood, R. Morphological adaptations to predation risk in passerines. J. Avian Biol. 29, 172–176 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Chown, S. L. & Klok, C. J. Altitudinal body size clines: latitudinal effects associated with changing seasonality. Ecography 26, 445–455 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Hsiung, A. C., Boyle, W. A., Cooper, R. J. & Chandler, R. B. Altitudinal migration: ecological drivers, knowledge gaps, and conservation implications: animal altitudinal migration review. Biol. Rev. 93, 2049–2070 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barras, A. G., Liechti, F. & Arlettaz, R. Seasonal and daily movement patterns of an alpine passerine suggest high flexibility in relation to environmental conditions. J. Avian Biol. 52, jav.02860 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Spence, A. R. & Tingley, M. W. Body size and environment influence both intraspecific and interspecific variation in daily torpor use across hummingbirds. Funct. Ecol. 35, 870–883 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreau, R. E. Variation in the western Zosteropidae (Aves). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. 4, 311–433 (1957).
Google Scholar 
Hamilton, T. H. The adaptive significances of intraspecific trends of variation in wing length and body size among bird species. Evolution 15, 180–194 (1961).
Google Scholar 
Hodkinson, I. D. Terrestrial insects along elevation gradients: species and community responses to altitude. Biol. Rev. 80, 489–513 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Feinsinger, P., Colwell, R. K., Terborgh, J. & Chaplin, S. B. Elevation and the morphology, flight energetics, and foraging ecology of tropical hummingbirds. Am. Nat. 113, 481–497 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Aldrich, J. W. Ecogeographical Variation in Size and Proportions of Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia) (American Ornithological Society, 1984).Sun, Y. et al. The role of climate factors in geographic variation in body mass and wing length in a passerine bird. Avian Res. 8, 1 (2017).Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol. Lett. 6, 253–256 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conradie, S. R., Woodborne, S. M., Cunningham, S. J. & McKechnie, A. E. Chronic, sublethal effects of high temperatures will cause severe declines in southern African arid-zone birds during the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14065–14070 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Radchuk, V. et al. Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient. Nat. Commun. 10, 3109 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tingley, M. W., Monahan, W. B., Beissinger, S. R. & Moritz, C. Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19637–19643 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Youngflesh, C. et al. Migratory strategy drives species-level variation in bird sensitivity to vegetation green-up. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 987–994 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blueweiss, L. et al. Relationships between body size and some life history parameters. Oecologia 37, 257–272 (1978).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kleiber, M. Body size and metabolic rate. Physiol. Rev. 27, 511–541 (1947).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yodzis, P. & Innes, S. Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am. Nat. 139, 1151–1175 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Prum, R. O. Interspecific social dominance mimicry in birds: social mimicry in birds. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 172, 910–941 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Pyle, P. Identification Guide to North American Birds: A Compendium of Information on Identifying, Ageing, and Sexing ‘Near-Passerines’ and Passerines in the Hand (Slate Creek Press, 1997).Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P. & Licata, L. Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 764–766 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Danielson, J. J. & Gesch, D. B. Global Multi-Resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010) (US Geological Survey, 2011).Thornton, M. M. et al. Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km Grid for North America, Version 4 (ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center, 2020).Greenewalt, C. H. The flight of birds: the significant dimensions, their departure from the requirements for dimensional similarity, and the effect on flight aerodynamics of that departure. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 65, 1–67 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Longo, G. & Montévil, M. Perspectives on Organisms: Biological Time, Symmetries, and Singularities (Springer, 2014).Harvey, P. H. in Scaling in Biology (eds Brown, J. H. & West, G. B.) 253–265 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).Orme, D. et al. The caper package: comparative analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 5 (2013).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).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).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nudds, R. L., Kaiser, G. W. & Dyke, G. J. Scaling of avian primary feather length. PLoS ONE 6, e15665 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nudds, R. Wing-bone length allometry in birds. J. Avian Biol. 38, 515–519 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, S. C., Branch, T. A., Cooper, A. B. & Dulvy, N. K. Black-swan events in animal populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3252–3257 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual, Version 2.18.0 (Stan Development Team, 2018); http://mc-stan.orgCarpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–32 (2017).Youngflesh, C. MCMCvis: tools to visualize, manipulate, and summarize MCMC output. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 640 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M. & Gelman, A. Visualization in Bayesian workflow. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 182, 389–402 (2019).
Google Scholar 
McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018).Data Zone (BirdLife International, 2019); http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdisCramp, S. & Brooks, D. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. VI. Warblers (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992).Che-Castaldo, J., Che-Castaldo, C. & Neel, M. C. Predictability of demographic rates based on phylogeny and biological similarity. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1290–1300 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Villemereuil, P., de, Wells, J. A., Edwards, R. D. & Blomberg, S. P. Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 102 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Pagel, M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 877–884 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hendry, A. P. & Kinnison, M. T. Perspective: the pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53, 1637–1653 (1999).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gingerich, P. Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling. Science 222, 159–162 (1983).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bird, J. P. et al. Generation lengths of the world’s birds and their implications for extinction risk. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1252–1261 (2020).Gingerich, P. D. Rates of evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 657–675 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Bürger, R. & Lynch, M. Evolution and extinction in a changing environment: a quantitative-genetic analysis. Evolution 49, 151–163 (1995).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hendry, A. P., Farrugia, T. J. & Kinnison, M. T. Human influences on rates of phenotypic change in wild animal populations. Mol. Ecol. 17, 20–29 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

OverviewWe compiled systematically sampled empirical taxa occurrence across the landscape, and inferentially assembled respective blue and green local food webs by combining these data with a metaweb approach. We quantified key properties of the inferred food webs, then analysed with GIS-derived environmental information how focal food-web metrics change along elevation and among different land-use types in blue versus green systems. Details are given below.Assemble food webs using a metaweb approachWe applied a metaweb method to obtain the composition and structure of multiple local food webs across a landscape spatial scale10. A metaweb is an accumulation of all interactions (here, trophic relationships) among the focal taxa. In this study, we built our metaweb based on known trophic interactions derived from literature and published datasets, which themselves were all based on primary empirical natural history observations. We further complemented or refined the trophic interactions in the metaweb based on expert knowledge of primary observations that are not yet published or only accessible in grey literature. The expert knowledge covers authors and collaborators who have specific natural history knowledge on Central European plants, herbivorous insects, birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. Importantly, these observations were all based on empirical observations and/or unpublished data accumulated over considerable field research experience. The respective literature we referred, as well as the metaweb itself with information source of each trophic link (online repository), are provided in Supplementary Methods. By assuming that any interaction in the metaweb will realise if the interacting taxa co-occur, the metaweb approach allows an inference of local food webs if taxa occurrence is known. Such an assumption of fixed diets may lead to an over-estimation of the locally realised trophic links32, as it essentially ignores the possible intraspecific diet variation caused by resource availability61,62, predation risk63, temperature64, ontogenetic shift65, or other genetic and environmental sources66. Therefore, the food webs we inferred systematically using this method capture trophic relationships driven by community composition (species presence versus absence) but not the above-mentioned processes. Nonetheless, since the trophic interactions were based on empirical observations, the fixed diets can be seen as collapsing all intraspecific variations of diet-determining traits (or trait-matching) at species level, within which we know realisable interactions surely exist. This, together with co-occurrence as a pre-requisite, gives realistic boundaries for the potential interaction realisation, which is plausible and non-biased when applying to localised sites. With this approach, we were addressing a systematic comparison among potential local food webs between the blue and green systems and across the selected gradients. For sensitivity analyses considering the potential inaccuracy of the metaweb approach mentioned here, please see further below Food-web metrics and analyses and Supplementary Discussion.We compiled taxa occurrence of four terrestrial and two aquatic broad taxonomic groups (“focal groups”) to assemble local green and blue communities, respectively and independently, based on the well-resolved data available. Each focal group referred to a distinct taxonomic group, and the within- and among-group trophic relationships captured most of the realised interactions. These focal groups were vascular plants, butterflies, grasshoppers, and birds in the green biome, and stream invertebrates and fishes in the blue biome. Notably, with “butterflies” we refer to their larval stage and accordingly their mostly-herbivorous trophic interactions throughout this study. Larval interactions were also the predominant interaction assessed for stream invertebrates (i.e., all interactions of stream invertebrates focussed on their aquatic stage, which is predominant larval). The occurrence data of these focal groups were compiled from highly standardised multiple-year empirical surveys of various authorities, all conducted by trained biologists with fixed protocols (Supplementary Methods). The information across sites should thus be representative and can be up-scaled to the landscape. The occurrences of plants, butterflies, birds, and stream invertebrates were from the Biodiversity Monitoring Switzerland programme (BDM Coordination Office67) managed by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU/FOEN). The occurrences of grasshoppers and fishes were from the Swiss database on faunistic records, info fauna (CSCF), where we further complemented fish occurrence from the data of Progetto Fiumi Project (Eawag). In terms of biological resolution, taxa were resolved to species level in most cases, while the plant and butterfly groups included some multi-species complexes. Insects of the order Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera were resolved to species, while all other stream invertebrates were resolved to family level. These were each treated as a node later in our food-web assembly, and referred to as “species”, as the species within such complexes and families mostly share the same trophic role. Spatially, the occurrence datasets adopted coordinates resolved to 1 × 1 km2. The species that were recorded in the same 1 × 1 km2 grid were considered to co-occurred. We took the co-occurring four/two focal groups to form local green/blue local communities, respectively. To obtain better co-occurrence across group-specific data from different sources (e.g., BDM and info fauna), we intentionally coarsened the grasshopper and fish occurrence to 5 × 5 km2 coordinates. This is arguably a biologically acceptable approximation considering the high mobility of these two groups. Also, we only included known stream-borne fishes and dropped pure lake-borne ones to match our stream-only invertebrate occurrence data. Across all 462 green and 465 blue communities we assembled, we covered 2016 plant, 191 butterfly, 109 grasshopper, 155 bird, 248 stream invertebrate, and 78 stream fish species. Unlike the knowledge of plant occurrence in green communities, we did not have detailed occurrence information of the basal components (e.g., primary producers) in blue ones. Therefore, we assumed three mega nodes—namely plant (including all alive or dead plant materials), plankton (including zooplankton, phytoplankton, and other algae), and detritus—as the basal nodes occurring in all blue communities, without further discrimination of identities or biology within. These adding to our focal groups thus cover major taxonomic groups as well as trophic roles from producers to top consumers in both blue and green systems.Taking the above-assembled local communities then drawing trophic links among species (nodes) according to the metaweb yielded the local food webs (illustrated in Fig. 1), representatively covering the whole Swiss area. Notably, although our understanding of trophic interactions indeed encompassed some links across the blue and green taxa (e.g., between piscivorous birds and fishes), our occurrence datasets did not present sufficient spatial grids where these taxa co-occur. We, therefore, did not include such links, nor assembled blue-green interconnected food webs, but the blue and green food webs separately instead (but see Supplementary Discussion). Also, we dropped isolated nodes, i.e., basal nodes without any co-occurring consumer and consumer nodes without any co-occurring resource, from the inferred food webs. These could possibly be passing-by species that were recorded but had no trophic interaction locally, or those that interact with non-focal taxa whose occurrence information was unknown to us. We thus had to exclude them to focus on evidence-supported occurrences and trophic interactions. Nonetheless, across all cases, isolated nodes were rather rare (averaged less than 3% of species occurred in either blue or green communities).Environmental dataWe acquired environmental data across all of Switzerland (42,000 km2) on a 1 × 1 km2 grid basis (i.e., values are averaged over the grid) from GIS databases, with which we mapped environmental conditions to the grids where we assembled food webs. These included: topographical information from DHM25 (Swisstopo, FOT), land-cover information from CLC (EEA), and climate information (averaged over the decade of 2005–2015) from CHELSA. Among environmental variables, elevation and temperature are essentially highly correlated. In this study, we took elevation as the focal environmental gradient throughout, as after accounting for the main effects of elevation on temperature, the residual temperature was not a good predictor of the food-web metrics we looked at (see next section, and Supplementary Table 4). In other words, by analysing along the elevation gradient, we already captured most of the temperature influences on food webs. Based on the labels provided by the GIS databases, we categorised the originally detailed land cover into the five major land-use types that we used in this study, namely forest, scrubland, open space, farmland, and urban area. Forest includes broad-leaved, coniferous, and mixed forests. Scrub includes bushy and herbaceous vegetation, heathlands, and natural grasslands. Open space encompasses sparsely vegetated areas, such as dunes, bare rocks, glaciers and perpetual snow. Farmland include any form of arable, pastures, and agro-forestry areas. Finally, urban area is where artificial constructions and infrastructure prevail. As each grid could contain multiple land-use types, we then defined the dominant land-use type of the grid as any of the five above that occupied more than 50% of the grid’s area. Analyses separated by land-use types with subsetted food webs (land-use-specific analyses) were based on the grids’ dominant land-use type. There were a few grids where the dominant land-use type did not belong to the focal major five, e.g., wetlands or water bodies, and a few where no single land-use type covered more than 50% of the area. Food webs of these grids were still included in the overall analyses but excluded from any land-use-specific analyses (as revealed in the difference in sample sizes between all versus land-use type subsetted food webs in Fig. 2; analyses details below).Food-web metrics and analysesWe quantified five metrics as the measures of the food webs’ structural and ecological properties. For the fundamental structure of the food webs, the number of nodes (“No. Nodes”) reflects the size of the web, meanwhile represents local species richness (though the few isolated nodes were excluded as above-mentioned). Connectance is the proportion of realised links among all potential ones (thus bounded 0–1), reflecting how connected the web is. We also derived holistic topological measures, namely nestedness and modularity. Nestedness of a food web, on the one hand, describes the tendency that some nodes’ narrower diets being subsets of other’s broader diets. We adopted a recently developed UNODF index68 (bounded 0–1) that is especially suitable for quantifying such a feature in our unipartite food webs. On the other hand, modularity (bounded 0–1 with our index) reflects the tendency of a food web to form modules, where nodes are highly connected within but only loosely connected between. Nestedness and modularity are two commonly investigated structures in ecological networks and have been considered relevant to species feeding ecology24 and the stability of the system69. Finally, we measured the level of consumers’ diet niche overlap of the food webs (Horn’s index70, bounded 0–1), which essentially depends on the arrangement of trophic relationships (thus the structure of the webs), and could have strong ecological implications as niche partitioning has been recognised to be a key mechanism that drives species coexistence71,72. We selected these fundamental and holistic properties as they are potentially more relevant to the processes that may have shaped food webs across a landscape scale (e.g., community assembly), in comparison to some node- or link-centric properties. Also, addressing similar metrics as in the literature13,69 would facilitate potential cross-study comparison or validation.To first gain a glimpse of the structure of the blue and green food webs, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA; Fig. 3a) on the inferred food webs (n = 462 and 465 in green and blue, respectively) taking the four structural metrics (number of nodes, connectance, nestedness, and modularity) as the explaining variables of blue versus green system types. We then confirmed that system type, elevation, and land-use type were all important predictors of food-web metrics (whereas the residual temperature after accounting elevation effects was not) by conducting general linear model analyses, taking the former as interactive predictors while the latter response variables (Supplementary Tables 3, 4). To check how elevation influences food-web properties in blue and green systems separately, and how food-web properties depend on each other, we ran a series of piecewise structural equation modelling (SEM)73 analyses on inferred food webs (Fig. 3b, c) whose dominant land use can be defined (n = 421 and 430 in green and blue, respectively). This was also conducted on subsetted webs of each of the five major land-use types (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). The SEM relationships were derived from linear mixed model analyses with dominant land-use type as a random effect (assumption tests see Supplementary Figs. 12–17). The SEM structure of direct effects was set according to the literature13,69 and is illustrated in Fig. 3b. In short, this structure tests the dependencies from elevation (an environmental predictor) to food-web metrics (ecological responses). The further dependencies among food-web metrics themselves were assigned with the principle of pointing from relative lower-level properties to higher-level ones. That is, from number of nodes (purely determined by nodes) to connectance (determined by numbers of nodes and links), further to nestedness and modularity (holistic topologies, determined further by the arrangement of links), then to diet niche overlap (ecological functional outcome).Finally, to check and visualise the exact changing patterns of food webs, we applied generalised additive models (GAMs) to reveal the relationships between food-web metrics and the whole-ranged elevation (Figs. 4 and 5), as well as a particular comparison between food webs in forests and farmlands below 1500 m a.s.l. (Supplementary Fig. 5), as this elevation segment covered most of the sites belonged to these two land-use types. We also performed a series of linear models (LMs) and least-squared slope comparisons based on land-use-specific subsets of food webs (Figs. 4 and 5; Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4), to investigate whether food-web elevational patterns are different among land-use types (assumption tests see Supplementary Tables 5 and 6). In the GAMs analyses, specifically, we simulated two sets of randomised webs, i.e., “keep-group” and “fully”, as the null models to compare with the inferred ones74. Both randomisations generated ten independently simulated webs from each input inferred local food web, keeping the same number of nodes and connectance as of the latter. On the one hand, the keep-group randomisation shuffled trophic links from an input local web but only allowed them to realised fulfilling some pre-set within- and among-group relationships. That is, in green communities, birds can feed on all groups, grasshoppers on any groups but birds, while butterflies only on plants; in blue communities, fishes can feed on all groups, while invertebrates on themselves and the basal resources. These pre-set group-wide relationships captured the majority of realistic trophic interactions compiled in our metaweb. On the other hand, the fully randomised webs shuffled trophic links disregarding the biological identity of nodes. The GAMs of nestedness, modularity, and niche overlap illustrated the patterns of these randomised webs (Fig. 5). Comparing among the three types of webs, the patterns exhibited already by fully randomised webs should be those contributed by variations in web size and connectance, while the difference between keep-group and fully randomised webs by the focal-group composition of local communities, and the difference between inferred and keep-group randomised webs further by the realistic species-specific diets. In addition, we also applied the same GAMs and LMs approach to analyse node richness, as well as both realised and potential diet generality (vulnerability for plants) of each focal group (Supplementary Figs. 6–11). These analyses provided hints about the changes in community composition and species diet breadths along elevation and among land-use types, which helped explain the detected food-web responses in mechanistic ways.In addition, to check if our findings were shaped or strongly influenced by the potential inaccuracy of using the metaweb, we repeated the above PCA, SEM, and GAM analyses as a series of sensitivity analyses. We generated food webs based on our locally inferred ones (i.e., the observations) but with random 10% link removal. This procedure mimics the effect of potential intraspecific diet variation (mentioned earlier) so that some trophic interactions in the metaweb do not realise locally. Overall, these analyses with link removal showed that our conclusions are qualitatively and quantitatively highly robust, and only very minorly affected by the such potential inaccuracy of metawebs, which is also in accordance to other food-web studies (see e.g., Pearse & Altermatt 201575). All details and outcomes of these additional analyses are given in Supplementary discussion.All metric quantification and analyses were performed under R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team76). All applied packages and functions were described in Supplementary Methods, while the R scripts performing these tasks can be accessed at the online repository provided.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More