Philippa Kaur

Steen AD, Carini ACP, Lloyd KG, Thrash JC, Deangelis KM, Fierer N. High proportions of bacteria and archaea across most biomes remain uncultured. ISME J. 2019;13:3126–30.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd KG, Steen AD, Ladau J, Yin J. Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate earth microbiomes. mSystems. 2018;3:e00055–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marcy Y, Ouverney C, Bik EM, Lo T, Ivanova N, Garcia H, et al. Dissecting biological “dark matter” with single-cell genetic analysis of rare and uncultivated TM7 microbes from the human mouth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:11889–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pascoal F, Costa R, Magalhães C. The microbial rare biosphere: current concepts, methods and ecological principles. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2021;97:fiaa227.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sogin ML, Morrison HG, Huber JA, Welch DM, Huse SM, Neal PR, et al. Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:12115–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gareev KG, Grouzdev DS, Kharitonskii PV, Kosterov A, Koziaeva VV, Sergienko ES, et al. Magnetotactic bacteria and magnetosomes: basic properties and applications. Magnetochemistry. 2021;7:86.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lefevre CT, Bazylinski DA. Ecology, diversity, and evolution of magnetotactic bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2013;77:497–526.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin W, Pan Y, Bazylinsky DA. Diversity and ecology of and biomineralization by magnetotactic bacteria. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2017;9:345–56.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uebe R, Schüler D. Magnetosome biogenesis in magnetotactic bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:621–37.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lefèvre CT, Frankel RB, Bazylinski DA. Magnetotaxis in prokaryotes. eLS. 2011. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1002%2F9780470015902.a0000397.pub2https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1002%2F9780470015902.a0000397.pub2.Goswami P, He K, Li J, Pan Y, Roberts AP, Lin W. Magnetotactic bacteria and magnetofossils: ecology, evolution and environmental implications. npj Biofilms Microbiomes. 2022;8:43.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Flies CB, Jonkers HM, De Beer D, Bosselmann K, Böttcher ME, Schüler D. Diversity and vertical distribution of magnetotactic bacteria along chemical gradients in freshwater microcosms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005;52:185–95.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wolfe RS, Thauer RK, Pfennig N. A’capillary racetrack’ method for isolation of magnetotactic bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1987;45:31–5.
Google Scholar 
Jogler C, Lin W, Meyerdierks A, Kube M, Katzmann E, Flies C, et al. Toward cloning of the magnetotactic metagenome: identification of magnetosome island gene clusters in uncultivated magnetotactic bacteria from different aquatic sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:3972–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin W, Zhang W, Paterson GA, Zhu Q, Zhao X. Expanding magnetic organelle biogenesis in the domain Bacteria. Microbiome. 2020;8:152.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Geissinger O, Herlemann DPR, Mo E, Maier UG, Brune A. The ultramicrobacterium “Elusimicrobium minutum” gen. nov., sp. nov., the first cultivated representative of the Termite Group 1 phylum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:2831–40.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wakako I-O, Brune A. Cospeciation of termite gut flagellates and their bacterial endosymbionts: Trichonympha species and ‘Candidatus Endomicrobium trichonymphae’. Mol Ecol. 2009;18:332–42.
Google Scholar 
Zheng H, Dietrich C, Radek R, Brune A. Endomicrobium proavitum, the first isolate of Endomicrobia class. nov. (phylum Elusimicrobia) – an ultramicrobacterium with an unusual cell cycle that fixes nitrogen with a Group IV nitrogenase. Environ Ecol Stat. 2016;18:191–204.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Méheust R, Castelle CJ, Carnevali PBM, Chen L, Amano Y, Hug LA, et al. Groundwater Elusimicrobia are metabolically diverse compared to gut microbiome Elusimicrobia and some have a novel nitrogenase paralog. ISME J. 2020;14:2907–22.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin H, Ascher DB, Myung Y, Lamborg CH, Hallam SJ, Gionfriddo CM, et al. Mercury methylation by metabolically versatile and cosmopolitan marine bacteria. ISME J. 2021;15:1810–25.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Rinke C, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil PA, Woodcroft BJ, Evans PN, et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:1533–42.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang L, Gong X, Wang L, Guo K, Cao S, Zhou Y. Science of the total environment metagenomic insights into the effect of thermal hydrolysis pre-treatment on microbial community of an anaerobic digestion system. Sci Total Environ. 2021;791:148096.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woodcroft BJ, Singleton CM, Boyd JA, Evans PN, Emerson JB, Zayed AAF, et al. Genome-centric view of carbon processing in thawing permafrost. Nature. 2018;560:49–54.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uzun M, Alekseeva L, Krutkina M, Koziaeva V, Grouzdev D. Unravelling the diversity of magnetotactic bacteria through analysis of open genomic databases. Sci Data. 2020;7:252.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tully BJ, Wheat CG, Glazer BT, Huber JA. A dynamic microbial community with high functional redundancy inhabits the cold, oxic subseafloor aquifer. ISME J. 2018;12:1–16.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kirillova NP, Sileva TM, Ul’yanova TY, Rozov SY, Il’yashenko MA, Makarov MI. Digital soil map of Chashnikovo training and experimental soil ecological center, Moscow State University. Mosc Univ Soil Sci Bull. 2015;70:58–65.
Google Scholar 
Koziaeva VV, Alekseeva LM, Uzun MM, Leão P, Sukhacheva MV, Patutina EO, et al. Biodiversity of magnetotactic bacteria in the freshwater lake Beloe Bordukovskoe, Russia. Microbiology. 2020;89:348–58.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–1.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC, Flyvbjerg H. Error filtering, pair assembly and error correction for next-generation sequencing reads. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3476–82.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. bioRxiv 2016. https://doi.org/10.1101/081257.Pruesse E, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. SINA: Accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1823–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fierer N, Jackson JA, Vilgalys R, Jackson RB. Assessment of soil microbial community structure by use of taxon-specific quantitative PCR assays. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:4117–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. MetaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu YW, Simmons BA, Singer SW. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:605–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R, An H, et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7359.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin HH, Liao YC. Accurate binning of metagenomic contigs via automated clustering sequences using information of genomic signatures and marker genes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:12–9.
Google Scholar 
Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:1072–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil P, Mussig AJ, Parks DH, Hugenholtz P. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics. 2019;36:1925–7.PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tatusova T, Dicuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:6614–24.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ji R, Zhang W, Pan Y, Lin W. MagCluster: a tool for identification, annotation, and visualization of magnetosome gene clusters. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2022;11:e01031–21.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu S, Zhu Z, Fu L, Niu B, Li W. WebMGA: a customizable web server for fast metagenomic sequence analysis. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:444.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kanehisa M, Sato Y. KEGG Mapper for inferring cellular functions from protein sequences. Protein Sci. 2020;29:28–35.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaffer M, Borton MA, McGivern BB, Zayed AA, La Rosa SL. 0003 3527 8101, Solden LM, et al. DRAM for distilling microbial metabolism to automate the curation of microbiome function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:8883–900.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5114.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, Von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, Haeseler AVon, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14:587–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoang DT, Chernomor O, Von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:518–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:W293–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coleman GA, Davín AA, Mahendrarajah TA, Szánthó LL, Spang A, Hugenholtz P, et al. A rooted phylogeny resolves early bacterial evolution. Science. 2021;372:eabe0511.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH. https://github.com/dparks1134/CompareM.Dombrowski N, Lee JH, Williams TA, Offre P, Spang A. Genomic diversity, lifestyles and evolutionary origins of DPANN archaea. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2019;366:fnz008.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin W, Zhang W, Zhao X, Roberts AP, Paterson GA, Bazylinski DA, et al. Genomic expansion of magnetotactic bacteria reveals an early common origin of magnetotaxis with lineage-specific evolution. ISME J. 2018;12:1508–19.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Urakawa H, Garcia JC, Nielsen JL, Le VQ, Kozlowski JA, Stein LY, et al. Nitrosospira lacus sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, ammonia-oxidizing bacterium from sandy lake sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65:242–50.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kalyuzhnaya MG, De Marco P, Bowerman S, Pacheco CC, Lara JC, Lidstrom ME, et al. Methyloversatilis universalis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel taxon within the Betaproteobacteria represented by three methylotrophic isolates. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:2517–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bazylinski DA, Frankel RB, Konhauser KO. Modes of biomineralization of magnetite by microbes. Geomicrobiol J. 2007;24:465–75.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uzun M, Koziaeva V, Dziuba M, Leão P, Krutkina M, Grouzdev D. Detection of interphylum transfers of the magnetosome gene cluster in magnetotactic bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:945734.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A, Chaumeil PA, et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:996.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Murphy CL, Biggerstaff J, Eichhorn A, Ewing E, Shahan R, Soriano D, et al. Genomic characterization of three novel Desulfobacterota classes expand the metabolic and phylogenetic diversity of the phylum. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:4326–43.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Konstantinidis KT, Rosselló-Móra R, Amann R. Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. ISME J. 2017;11:2399–406.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Denise R, Abby SS, Rocha EPC. Diversification of the type IV filament superfamily into machines for adhesion, protein secretion, DNA uptake, and motility. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000390.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hennell James R, Deme JC, Kjӕr A, Alcock F, Silale A, Lauber F, et al. Structure and mechanism of the proton-driven motor that powers type 9 secretion and gliding motility. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:221–33.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nolan LM, Whitchurch CB, Barquist L, Katrib M, Boinett CJ, Mayho M, et al. A global genomic approach uncovers novel components for twitching motility-mediated biofilm expansion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Micro Genomics. 2018;4:e000229.
Google Scholar 
Uzun M, Koziaeva V, Dziuba M, Alekseeva L, Grouzdev D. Mam protein trees. 2022. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6045158.v1.Arnoux P, Siponen MI, Lefèvre CT, Ginet N, Pignol D. Structure and evolution of the magnetochrome domains: no longer alone. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:117.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Katzmann E, Scheffel A, Gruska M, Plitzko JM, Schüler D. Loss of the actin-like protein MamK has pleiotropic effects on magnetosome formation and chain assembly in Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense. Mol Microbiol. 2010;77:208–24.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner-Döbler I, Bennasar A, Vancanneyt M, Strömpl C, Brümmer I, Eichner C, et al. Microcosm enrichment of biphenyl-degrading microbial communities from soils and sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:3014–22.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ibekwe AM, Papiernik SK, Gan J, Yates SR, Crowley DE, Yang CH. Microcosm enrichment of 1,3-dichloropropene-degrading soil microbial communities in a compost-amended soil. J Appl Microbiol. 2001;91:668–76.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yakimov MM, Denaro R, Genovese M, Cappello S, D’Auria G, Chernikova TN, et al. Natural microbial diversity in superficial sediments of Milazzo Harbor (Sicily) and community successions during microcosm enrichment with various hydrocarbons. Environ Microbiol. 2005;7:1426–41.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tringe SG, Von Mering C, Kobayashi A, Salamov AA, Chen K, Chang HW, et al. Comparative metagenomics of microbial communities. Science. 2005;308:554–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lefèvre CT, Trubitsyn D, Abreu F, Kolinko S, Jogler C, de Almeida LGP, et al. Comparative genomic analysis of magnetotactic bacteria from the Deltaproteobacteria provides new insights into magnetite and greigite magnetosome genes required for magnetotaxis. Environ Microbiol. 2013;15:2712–35.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wadhwa N, Berg HC. Bacterial motility: machinery and mechanisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20:161–73.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhu K, Pan H, Li J, Yu-Zhang K, Zhang SD, Zhang WY, et al. Isolation and characterization of a marine magnetotactic spirillum axenic culture QH-2 from an intertidal zone of the China Sea. Res Microbiol. 2010;161:276–83.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kaimer C, Zusman DR. Regulation of cell reversal frequency in Myxococcus xanthus requires the balanced activity of CheY-like domains in FrzE and FrzZ. Mol Microbiol. 2016;100:379–95.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kühn MJ, Talà L, Inclan YF, Patino R, Pierrat X, Vos I, et al. Mechanotaxis directs Pseudomonas aeruginosa twitching motility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118:e2101759118.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Gill, J. A. et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132161 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tomotani, B. M. et al. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 823–835 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teplitsky, C., Mills, J. A., Alho, J. S., Yarrall, J. W. & Merilä, J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13492–13496 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 285–291 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Youngflesh, C., Saracco, J. F., Siegel, R. B. & Tingley, M. W. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01893-x (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, E. C. et al. Ecol. Lett. 25, 598–610 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tobias, J. A. et al. Ecol. Lett. 25, 581–597 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shine, R. Q. Rev. Biol. 64, 419–461 (1989).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dubiner, S. & Meiri, S. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 791–801 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jirinec, V. et al. Sci. Adv. 7, eabk1743 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weeks, B. C. et al. Ecol. Lett. 23, 316–325 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonamour, S., Chevin, L. M., Charmantier, A. & Teplitsky, C. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 374, 20180178 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R. & Thomas, C. D. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 450–455 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forero-Medina, G., Joppa, L. & Pimm, S. L. Conserv. Biol. 25, 163–171 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, R. H. The Ecological Implications of Body Size (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).Berg, M. P. & Ellers, J. Evol. Ecol. 24, 617–629 (2010).Article 

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

Mangrove cover change variables. We used the Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) v2.0 dataset from 1996 to 201656 to calculate four response variables across landscape mangrove geomorphic units24 over two time periods, 1996–2007 and 2007–2016: (1) percent net loss (units that had a net change in mangrove cover of 0), (3) percent gross loss (units that had a decrease in mangrove cover, not accounting for any increase), and (4) percent gross gain (units that had an increase in mangrove cover, not accounting for any decrease). Percent variables were calculated relative to the area at the start of the time period and were log transformed to meet the assumptions of the statistical models. We initially also considered 5 primary response variables (Supplementary Table 3), including net change in mangrove area ranging from negative (loss) to zero (no change) to positive (gain), however, the data did not meet model assumptions of equal variance (Supplementary Table 9). It was therefore necessary to separate areas of net loss and net gain and areas of gross loss and gross gain to remove zeros and log-transform to achieve normal distribution. Area of mangrove change was correlated with size of the mangrove geomorphic unit (higher area of mangrove loss or gain in bigger units), therefore we included geomorphic unit size as an explanatory variable in the models with primary response variables. We selected the transformations of these primary variables – percent net loss, percent net gain, percent gross loss, and percent gross gain to include in the analysis, because the percent changes control for differences in relative sizes of geomorphic units and because net change alone can underestimate the extent of change57.Examining mangrove change across geomorphic settings is likely to be relevant to socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Mangroves occur in the intertidal zone in diverse coastal geomorphic settings (e.g., deltas, estuaries, lagoons) shaped by rivers, tides, and waves58,59. The distribution, structure, and productivity of mangroves varies spatially with regional climate and local geomorphological processes (e.g., river discharge, tidal range, hydroperiod, and wave activity) that control soil biogeochemistry60,61,62,63. These geomorphic settings are defined by natural landscape boundaries (e.g., catchments/bays) which also often delineate boundaries of human settlements. A global mangrove biophysical typology v2.2 dataset64 was used for the delineation of landscape mangrove geomorphic units, which used a composite of the GMW dataset from the 1996, 2007, 2010, and 2016 timesteps to classify the maximal extent of mangrove cover into 4394 units (classified as delta, estuarine, lagoon or open coast). The mangrove geomorphic units do not include non-mangrove patches, unless they have been lost from the unit over time. The mean size of geomorphic units was 33.63 ha. Some splits of geomorphic units were undertaken to reduce size and divide by country boundaries. The four largest deltas (northern Brazil Delta ID 70000, Sundarbans Delta ID 70004, Niger Delta ID 70009, and Papua coast Delta ID 70013) were split into 4, 5, 4, and 2 units, respectively to aid with data processing. Mangrove geomorphic units that overlapped two countries (Peru/Ecuador, Singapore/Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea/Australia) were split by the national boundary.The country governing each geomorphic unit was assigned to match national-level variables to geomorphic units. To capture mangroves that are mapped outside of country coastline boundaries, we did a union of the GADM country shapefile v3.665 and the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) v1166. The following manual country designations were made to resolve overlapping claims in the EEZs: (1) Hong Kong was merged with China as Hong Kong does not have a mapped EEZ; (2) The overlapping claim of Sudan/Egypt was maintained as a joint Sudan/Egypt designation, as this is an area of disputed land called the Halayib Triangle. However, for this study, mangrove units within this area were assigned to Egypt because Egypt currently has military control over the area; (3) Mayotte (claimed by France and Comoros) was assigned to Mayotte as it is a separate overseas territory of France recognised in GADM that has different socioeconomic variables; (4) The protected zone established under the Torres Strait Treaty was assigned to Australia as these islands are Australian territory.Areas of mangrove cover in 1996, 2007, and 2016, and gross losses and gains in each geomorphic units over the two time periods were assessed in ArcMap 10.867. Percent losses and gains were calculated in R 4.0.268. In using the GMW mapping, a minimum mapping unit of 1 ha is recommended for reliable results5, therefore we removed all geomorphic units less than 1 ha from the analysis, which reduced the available sample size from 4394 across 108 countries to 4235 units across 108 countries. In calculating percent net gains, 11 and 12 of the units returned infinity values for 1996–2007 and 2007–2016, respectively, because there was no initial mangrove cover. In these instances, 100% gain was assigned to these units.Socioeconomic variables (Supplementary Table 4)Economic growthPrevious global analyses of mangroves have been limited by data availability on economic activity to national metrics, such as a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)12,18. Night-time lights satellite data provide local measures of economic activity that are comparable through time and available globally9,69. The data improve estimates of GDP in low to middle income countries69 and are strongly correlated with local indicators of human development70 and electricity consumption and GDP at the national-level71. We used the Night-time Lights Time Series v472 stable lights data, where transient lights that are deemed ephemeral, e.g., fires, have been filtered out and non-lit areas set to zero73, choosing the newer satellites where applicable70. As a proxy for local economic growth, we calculated the change in annual average stable lights within a 100 km buffer of the centroid of each geomorphic unit from 1996 to 2007 and 2007 to 2013 (no data available past 2013) using the ‘raster’ package in R74. The 100 km buffer was chosen to account for pressures from human activity within and surrounding the mangrove area, and to avoid bias with larger spatial units70.Market accessibilityTravel time to the nearest major market (national or provincial capital, landmark city, or major population centre) has been shown to be a stronger predictor of fish biomass on coral reefs than population density or linear distance to markets27. We used the global map of travel time to cities for 201575 to estimate the average travel time from each geomorphic unit to the nearest city via surface transport using the ‘raster’ package in R74, as an indicator of access to markets to trade commodities (e.g., rice, shrimp, palm oil).Economic complexityPrevious studies have examined the effect of GDP on mangrove change18, however, this is a blunt measure of country capability. Measuring a country’s economic complexity, that is the diversified capability of a nation’s economy, is preferable. For example, a country with high GDP but low economic complexity can be prone to regulatory capture by high-value natural resource industries and resource corruption26. Therefore, we used the Economic Complexity Index (ECI)76 for countries as an indicator of regulatory independence. The ECI had better coverage of countries in later years (Supplementary Table 4), therefore the ECI for the end of the time periods was used (2007 and 2016), although we recognise this may reduce the detection of trends because of potential time lags in impacts.DemocracyWe used the Varieties of Democracy (VDEM) index v10 which measures a country’s degree of freedom of association, clean elections, freedom of expression, elected executives, and suffrage77, and has been indicated to influence NDC ambition in countries to address climate change78. We adopted the VDEM index for the start of the time periods (1996 and 2007) to account for potential time lags in impacts.Community forestry supportWe determined the extent that community forestry (CF) is implemented across countries through a systematic review of articles returned in the Web of Science database (Core collection; Thomson Reuters, New York, U.S.A.). We used the search terms: TS = (“community forestry” OR “community-based forestry” OR “social forestry”) AND (TI = ”country” OR AB = ”country”) to identify how many CF case studies were reported in each country, and whether any were in mangroves. As scientific literature is biased towards particular regions, we also reviewed relevant FAO global studies79,80,81 and online databases (ICCA registry82 and REDD projects database83) to identify additional case studies (Supplementary Fig. 5). We then generated scores of 0–3 for each country based on summing values assessed using these criteria: +1 (1–50 CF case studies); +2 ( >50 CF case studies); +1 (CF case study in mangroves). There may have been some double counting as we counted the number of case studies in each article, and we will have missed CF projects not published or communicated in English. However, this is likely to have had a limited impact on the scoring method.Indigenous landThe proportion of Indigenous peoples’ land versus other land per country was calculated from national-level data84. Whilst this study involved Indigenous peoples’ land mapping at a global scale, the spatial data was not published, and thus we could only evaluate the influence of Indigenous land at the national level rather than local level.Restoration effortThe number of mangrove restoration sites per country was calculated from combining two datasets collated by C. Lovelock (2020) and Y.M. Gatt and T.A. Worthington (2020) identifying mangrove restoration project locations from web searches in English and for scientific and grey literature using Google Scholar. Duplications were removed and the number of sites was used as an indicator of effort. This will underrepresent effort in countries with few, large sites, and where restoration projects are not published or communicated in English.Climate commitmentsThe Paris Agreement is a global programme for countries to commit to climate action by submitting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the United Nations Framework for the Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). First, we reviewed NDCs for mangrove-holding nations from the NDC Registry85 submitted as of 07/01/2021 to determine the extent that mangroves or coastal ecosystems were included in national climate policy (scoring method in Supplementary Table 4). We hypothesised that countries with mangrove or coastal ecosystem NDCs may be more likely to promote mangrove conservation or restoration. While the first NDCs were submitted around 2015, at the end of our time series, we suspected higher commitments would point towards a stronger baseline in environmental governance. Most countries submitted updated or second NDCs during 2021 however these were not considered relevant to the time periods assessed. Google Translate was used to interpret NDCs in languages other than English.Ramsar wetlandsThe ecological character of Ramsar wetlands have been found to be significantly better than those of wetlands generally86. The area of Ramsar coastal and marine wetlands from the Ramsar Sites Information Service87 was calculated per country. Thirty-eight mangrove-holding countries are not signatories to the Ramsar Convention, and these countries were assigned a value of 0. The area of Ramsar wetlands per country was scaled by dividing by the country’s area of mangroves in 1996.Environmental governanceWe assessed the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)88 as an indicator of a country’s effectiveness in environmental governance. The biodiversity and habitat (BDH) issue category assesses countries’ actions toward retaining natural ecosystems and protecting the full range of biodiversity within their borders. We took the BDH score for 2020 for the 2007–2016 time period and the BDH score for 2010 for the 1996–2007 time period (calculated by subtracting the ten-year change from BDH 2020). However, due to collinearity with other variables this index was excluded from the analysis (see statistical analysis).Protected area managementWe also assessed Marine Protected Area (MPA) staff capacity as an indicator of the effectiveness of management of protected areas for countries. We used published global marine protected area (MPA) management data14 which is based on the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), the World Bank MPA Score Card, and the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Programme’s MPA Management Assessment Checklist. Adequate staff capacity was the most important factor in explaining fish responses to MPA management globally, followed by budget capacity, but they were significantly correlated14. We, therefore, calculated the mean staff capacity across MPAs per country as our indicator. Mangroves can be included in terrestrial protected areas, which are not represented in this dataset, however, this measure provides an indicator of national governance of protected areas. However, due to collinearity with other variables this indicator was excluded from the analysis (see statistical analysis). The extent of protected areas was not included in the analysis because it has already been found to influence mangrove loss18.Biophysical variables (Supplementary Table 5)Coastal geomorphic typeMangrove extent change likely varies among different coastal geomorphic settings because human activities or environmental changes occur more commonly in some geomorphic settings than others. For example, losses of lagoonal mangroves were nearly twice as large as those in other geomorphic types24. Landscape geomorphic units from the global mangrove typology dataset v2.264 were classified as delta, estuary, lagoon or open coast.Sediment availabilityMangrove expansion and retreat are driven by sediment deposition and erosion, which are influenced by sediment availability from rivers and wave action, and alterations in hydrodynamic regimes47,89. We used the sediment trapping index from the global free-flowing rivers (FFR) dataset90 to indicate sediment availability from rivers within different geomorphic units. A mangrove catchment dataset was created based on the HydroSHEDS database91. River networks that intersected with mangrove geomorphic units were linked to that unit’s ID. Where rivers intersected multiple units, they were manually assigned by visual inspection. River basins that intersected either with the geomorphic units directly or the river networks were also linked to that unit’s ID. The FFR dataset90 was then spatially joined to the mangrove catchment dataset to identify the most downstream (i.e., the coastal outlet) segment of each FFR and its associated sediment trapping index. Not all geomorphic units (n = 3475) were linked to an FFR, however, an individual unit could be linked with several FFRs. Therefore, the unit sediment trapping index was the weighted mean of the river values, with weighting based on each FFR’s average long-term (1971–2000) naturalised discharge (m3s−1), with discharge set to the minimum value for segments with zero flow. Geomorphic units without connecting FFRs were given an index of zero (no sediment trapping). The sediment trapping index represents the percentage of the potential sediment load trapped by anthropogenic barriers along the river section. The focus on river barriers may obscure larger scale oceanic patterns that influence mangrove losses and gains (e.g., movement of mud banks from the Amazon River over 1000’s of kilometres92) or increases in sediment that could be coming from soils with catchment deforestation and erosion.Habitat fragmentationMany countries with high mangrove loss have been associated with elevated fragmentation of mangrove forests, although the relationship is not consistent at the global scale93. We calculated the clumpiness index of mangrove patches within geomorphic units within each time period, as this habitat fragmentation metric is independent of areal extent93. Whilst habitat fragmentation can be human-driven, clumpiness measures the patchy distribution of mangroves, which can also be due to natural factors inducing edge effects. We used a similar approach to Bryan-Brown, et al.86 to quantify the clumpiness index. The ‘landscape’ was defined as the combined extent of the mangrove geomorphic units across four timesteps (1996, 2007, 2010, and 2016) from the GMW dataset56. For the three focal years in this study (1996, 2007, and 2016) each geomorphic unit (n = 4394) was converted into a two-class polygon, where class one represented mangroves present during that time step and class two mangroves present in the other time steps (i.e., areas of mangrove loss). The polygons were transformed to a projected coordinate system (World Cylindrical Equal Area) and converted to rasters with a resolution of 25 m. Each raster was imported into R version 3.6.394, with clumpiness calculated using the package ‘landscapemetrics’ v1.5.095.Clumpiness describes how patches are dispersed across the landscape and ranges between minus one, where patches are maximally disaggregated, to one, where patches are maximally aggregated, a value of zero represents a case whereby patches are randomly distributed across the landscape. The clumpiness index requires that both classes are present in the landscape, therefore a no data value (NA) was returned for units where no loss of mangroves had occurred, or where there was 100% gain of mangroves in a later time period. The number of directions in which patches were connected was set to eight. The following manual fixes were conducted for NA values returned: 1) Where NA was returned for units where no loss of mangroves had occurred in another time period, i.e., class 1 (mangrove present) = 1 and class 2 (mangrove loss) = 0, assume +1 (maximally clumped); and 2) Where NA was returned for units where there was 100% gain of mangroves in a later time period, i.e., class 1 (mangrove present) = 0, class 2 (mangrove present) = 1 (100% gain), assume −1 (maximally disaggregated).Tidal amplitudeIn settings of low tidal range, mangrove vertical accretion is less likely to keep pace with rapid sea level rise3. However, in settings of high tidal range, mangroves may be more extensive and vulnerable to conversion to aquaculture or agriculture because of larger tidal flat extents. The Finite Element Solution global tide model (FES2014)96 is considered one of the most accurate tide models for shallow coastal areas97 and was selected to estimate the mean tidal amplitude within each geomorphic unit using the principal lunar semi-diurnal or M2 tidal amplitude as this is this most dominant tidal constituent98. To account for potential variation in the tidal amplitude across large geomorphic units, the raster pixel value for M2 tidal amplitude96 closest to the centroid of each mangrove patch within each unit was calculated, with the smallest value set at 0.01 m. For each geomorphic unit, the tidal amplitude was calculated as the weighted mean of the patch values, with weighting based on the patch area relative to the total unit area.Antecedent sea-level riseThe distribution of mangroves on shorelines changes over time with sediment accretion, erosion, subsidence, and sea-level rise (SLR)99, and periods of low sea level can cause mangrove dieback100. We used regional mean sea-level trends between January 1993 and December 2015 from the global sea level Essential Climate Variable (ECV) product v.2101,102 to estimate the mean antecedent SLR for each geomorphic unit. Spatial variation in regional sea-level trends generally range between −5 and +5 mm yr−1 (global mean of 3 mm yr−1)13. Extreme values ( >5 mm yr−1) observed in the dataset are subject to high levels of uncertainty (Sea Level CCI team, pers. comm.), and were therefore truncated to 5 mm yr−1. The raster pixel value for SLR102 closest to the centroid of each mangrove patch within each geomorphic unit was calculated. The geomorphic unit antecedent SLR values was calculated as the weighted mean of the patch values within the unit.DroughtWhilst long-term precipitation and temperature influence mangrove distribution globally62, periods of low rainfall have been reported to cause extensive mangrove dieback at regional scales, particularly when combined with high temperatures and low sea levels103. We used the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) from the global SPEI database v.2.6104 as an index of drought severity. SPEI is derived from precipitation and temperature and is considered an improved drought index that allows spatial and temporal comparability105,106. The mean SPEI raster pixel value was calculated for each time period and then averaged across the geomorphic units using the ‘ncdf4’107 and ‘raster’ packages74 in R.Tropical storm frequencyLarge-scale destruction of mangroves across regions have been reported from strong winds, high energy waves, and storm surges associated with tropical storms108. We used the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) dataset since 1980 v4109 to calculate the number of tropical cyclone occurrences (points along their paths) within a 200 km buffer of the centroid of geomorphic units within each time period using the sf package110 in R. Maximum wind velocity and surface pressures are likely experienced within 100 km of a cyclone’s eye111, therefore the 200 km buffer zone was selected to cover the average size of geomorphic units (33.63 ha), and all tropical storms potentially influencing mangrove growth. Whilst tropical storms affect only 42% of the world’s mangroves60, they are likely to be important stressors within cyclone-impacted countries.Minimum temperatureExtreme low temperature events were a driver of mangrove loss in subtropical regions, such as Florida and Louisianan of the US, and China28,112. We used the WorldClim bioclimatic variable 6 (minimum temperature of the coldest month averaged for the years 1970–2000)113 to calculate the mean minimum temperature across the geomorphic units using the ‘sf’110 and ‘raster’ packages74 in R. Where NAs were returned due to no overlapping raster layer, the value of the closest raster pixel to the centroid of the geomorphic unit was assigned.Statistical analysisWe used multi-level linear modelling to investigate relationships between mangrove cover change variables and socioeconomic and biophysical variables to consider landscape (level 1) and country (level 2) predictors in a hierarchical approach114. For each response variable, we modelled the response for 1996–2007 and 2007–2016, using explanatory variables specific to the time-period where available. Data inspection revealed that high percent loss or gain was concentrated in small geomorphic units, therefore to avoid bias in our results, we removed geomorphic units less than 100 ha from the analysis, which further reduced the available sample size to 3134 units across 95 countries. Statistical analysis was undertaken in R 4.0.268.The response variables were log-transformed to fit normal distribution. We tested for collinearity between our explanatory variables using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r  > 0.5) (Supplementary Tables 6 and 7). MPA staff capacity and EPI were excluded from our models because MPA staff capacity was correlated with ECI 2007 and ECI 2016 (both r = 0.54), and EPI 2020 was correlated with VDEM 2016 (r = 0.63). To improve model fit, travel time to the nearest city, mangrove restoration effort and Ramsar wetland area (relative) were log+1-transformed, and tidal amplitude was log-transformed.Two linear multi-level (mixed-effects) models were fitted for each response variable using the lme function in the ‘lme4’ package115 (Supplementary Table 8). First, a random intercept model with intercepts of landscape-level predictors varying by country was fitted. Then a random intercept and slope (coefficients) model with intercepts of landscape-level predictors varying by country, as well as slopes for socioeconomic predictors considered to have between-country variation (travel time to nearest city and night-time lights growth) was fitted, as we expect that mangrove cover change may respond to economic growth and market accessibility depending on national governance. A likelihood ratio test between the null linear model and the null random intercept model for each response variable showed that effects varied across countries and therefore we included country as a random effect (Supplementary Table 9). We also conducted likelihood ratio tests between the random intercept model and the random coefficient model to test whether the effect of travel time and night-time lights on mangrove change varies across countries. If significant, the model including random slopes for travel time and night-time lights was used (Supplementary Table 9). Mixed-effects models were fitted by maximum likelihood and model fit was validated by inspection of residual plots for the four response variables included in the analysis; percent net loss, percent net gain, percent gross loss, and percent gross gain (Supplementary Table 9).To test for spatial autocorrelation we performed spatial autoregressive (SAR) models using the errorsarlm function in the ‘spatialreg’ package116. SAR models were first fitted using a range of neighbourhood distances (50, 500, and 1000 km in 100 km intervals) for the net change variable117. Distance of 500 km showed the smallest AIC and was therefore adopted for all response variables. Neighbourhood lists of the centroid coordinates of the geomorphic units were defined with the row-standardised (‘W’) coding using the ‘spdep’ package118. We then produced Moran’s I correlograms using the correlog function in the ‘ncf’ package119 and the centroid coordinates of the geomorphic units. Correlograms for the multi-level model and SAR model were compared for each response variable (Supplementary Fig. 4). The SAR models did not improve spatial autocorrelation for any of the mangrove cover change variables and therefore the multi-level models were adopted.Hotspot estimatesWe defined hotspots as geomorphic units where raw values of percent net and gross loss and gain between 2007 and 2016 ((gamma)) differed by more than two standard deviations (sd) from the country average ((mu)).$${{{{{{rm{More}}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{loss}}}}}}}/{{{{{{rm{more}}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{gain}}}}}}}=left(gamma -mu right) , > , (2,times {{{{{{rm{sd}}}}}}})$$
(1)
$${{{{{{rm{Less}}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{loss}}}}}}},/,{{{{{{rm{less}}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{gain}}}}}}}=left(gamma -mu right) , < , -(2,times {{{{{{rm{sd}}}}}}})$$ (2) We excluded countries with only one geomorphic unit. Large deviations of the raw value from the country average were found for small units at a threshold below 50 km2, therefore we removed all units smaller than 50 km2 to overcome bias of hotspots towards smaller sites. This likely removed the identification of several hotspots. For example, Myanmar has had some large gains due to river sediments in the Gulf of Martaban (net gain of 100 % in Estuary 5834 and 39 % in Open Coast 62244), however, these areas were small (8 and 2 km2, respectively) and were therefore removed from the hotspot estimates.We analysed the factors contributing to hotspots by spatial investigation of satellite imagery in Google Earth with mangrove specialists from those countries. The hotspots were also assessed against protected area datasets for those countries120,121,122,123.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

A health-care worker in Chicago, Illinois, administers a COVID-19 vaccine aimed at the Omicron subvariant.Credit: Scott Olson/Getty

Omicron boosters protect against future variantsBooster shots against current SARS-CoV-2 variants can help to arm the human immune system against variants yet to arise. That’s the implication of two studies (W. B. Alsoussi et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/jhht (2022); C. I. Kaku et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/jhhv; 2022) that analysed how a booster shot or breakthrough infection affects antibody-producing cells. The work shows that some cells evolve to exclusively create antibodies targeting new strains, whereas others make antibodies against both new and old strains.The findings have not been peer reviewed, but provide reassurance that vaccines targeting the Omicron variant will be effective. Their utility had been questioned because of evidence that the immune system has trouble pivoting between variants.One study examined people who became infected with Omicron after receiving the original vaccine. One month after infection, nearly 97% of participants’ antibodies against the virus bound to the original strain better than to Omicron BA.1. But six months after infection, nearly half of their B cells produced antibodies that bound to Omicron BA.1 better than to the original strain — showing that the immune system continued to adapt long after the infection had passed.

White Island, also called Whakaari, is one of New Zealand’s most active volcanos.Credit: Phil Walter/Getty

Charge dropped in New Zealand volcano caseVolcanologists have applauded a judge’s decision to dismiss one of two criminal charges against New Zealand’s Earth-science research agency, GNS Science. The charges were laid in the wake of a fatal 2019 volcanic eruption on Whakaari White Island, a popular tourist destination, that killed 22 people and injured 25 others.GNS Science issues volcanic-alert bulletins for the country’s active volcanoes, which are disseminated to the media, emergency-response agencies and the public through a service called GeoNet. The dismissed charge alleged that GNS Science should have coordinated with tour operators and other agencies and reviewed its volcanic-alert bulletins to ensure that they effectively communicated the implications of volcanic activity on the island.With the charge dismissed, scientific organizations that provide information on public health and safety risks can now “breathe a bit of a sigh of relief”, says Simon Connell, a lawyer at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand.GNS Science is also charged with having failed to ensure the health and safety of helicopter pilots whom it hired to take its employees to the island. This charge will go to trial. GNS Science has pleaded not guilty.

A herd of Asian elephants wandered out of their nature reserve in southwestern China last year.Credit: Wang Zhengpeng/VCG via Getty

Asian elephants mostly roam outside protected areas — and it’s a problemAsian elephants spend most of their time outside protected areas because they prefer the food that they find there, an international team of scientists reports. But this behaviour is putting the animals and people in harm’s way, say researchers.If protected areas do not contain animals’ preferred habitats, they will wander out, says Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, who studies Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden in Menglun, China.Human–elephant conflict is the biggest threat for Asian elephants. Over the past few decades, animals in protected areas have increasingly wandered into villages. They often cause destruction, damaging crops and infrastructure and injuring and even killing people.Campos-Arceiz and his colleagues set out to get a precise picture of Asian-elephant movements. They collared 102 individuals in Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo, recording 600,000 GPS locations over a decade. They found that elephants tend to spend most of their time in habitats outside the protected areas, at the forest edge and in areas of regrowth. The findings were published in the Journal of Applied Ecology (J. A. de la Torre et al. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/gq28qp; 2022) on 18 October.The researchers suspect that the elephants venture out because they like to eat grasses, bamboo, palms and fast-growing trees, which are commonly found in disturbed forests and are relatively scarce under the canopy of old-growth forests.Philip Nyhus, a conservation biologist who specializes in human–wildlife conflict at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, says that Asian elephants live deep in dense forest and so are much more difficult to study than African elephants, which roam open savannahs. “The sample size is impressive,” he says.The research provides strong evidence for how to set up suitable protected areas that reduce the risk of elephants wandering out, he says.The results do not diminish the importance of protected areas, which provide long-term safety for the animals, says Campos-Arceiz. “But they are clearly not enough.” More

UAVs indeed proved to be a practical, efficient, and accurate tool in sampling insects within four different habitats in Quebec. Furthermore, different drone settings of speed, height, and net diameter may yield different insect orders, which can be useful in studies that aim to target specific insects. Nonetheless, only height, and not speed, net diameter or drone type influenced insect abundance. Compared with Lindgren funnels, drones were not only able to catch more insects in less time, but also a wider array of the insect community diversity.Our study successfully shows the promise of using drones to collect forest and wetland canopy arthropods. More arthropods were collected flying at zero meters (grazing the canopy) than flying at one meter, while different speed, net size and drone type had less of an effect on insect yield (Fig. 2). The one-meter setting was expected to yield different arthropod diversity, such as fewer terrestrial families (ex. Araneae) and more aerial families (ex. Diptera) compared to the grazing zero-meter setting. However, the proportions of the top three orders (Diptera, Hemiptera, and Araneae) were similar among settings (Fig. 3). The capture of arachnids at one meter above the canopy can be explained by webs that are attached to taller foliage in proximity to the area, or spiders ‘ballooning’ in the airspace on silk threads25. Because canopy height was not always uniform, flying while grazing the canopy underneath the drone was at times lower than other parts of the canopy. Another explanation could be jumping spiders (ex. family Salticidae) which have been found to react to a disturbance or threat by leaping, possibly into the drone net26. Though the main three orders were in similar proportion, the one-meter setting caught five fewer orders in total than the zero-meter setting did. Flying at one meter was the only setting that captured no insects of order Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, or Orthoptera, suggesting that these orders spend time in and among the wetland canopy, and are seldom above the grassy canopy (Fig. 3). Most importantly, this setting only caught nine insects total over all flights, revealing itself to be an inefficient method of insect collection. This can be due to the number of insects available to be collected at each height. When flying at one meter, the net has access to only aerial insects in flight above the canopy (ex. flies). Flying while grazing the canopy, however, gives the researcher access to the same aerial insects in flight above the canopy, but also aerial insects in flight within the canopy (ex. bees), aerial insects at rest on the canopy (ex. leafhoppers), and terrestrial insects on the canopy (ex. ants). Thus, flying the drone while grazing the canopy opens the possibility of capturing three more insect groups compared to flying above the canopy. It is also possible that there are indeed many insects to be caught solely in the airspace, but that the ideal height for collecting insects strictly above the canopy is either less than or greater than one meter—which is the only height above the canopy that we tested.This sampling period caught three total insects from order Odonata, with two of the three being caught with the 18-inch diameter net setting (Fig. 3). As these dragonflies are typically fast flyers and of large body size, perhaps the extra diameter of the larger net was helpful in increasing the chances of catching Odonates, though we do not have enough data to make solid conclusions. This would be a valuable line of future research for studies focused on dragonflies, or other large and fast-flying insects.Flying the drone and hanging sweep net at 20 km/hr yielded the highest number and proportion of insects in the order Hemiptera, which are often found at rest within the canopy27. We speculate that the faster speed of the drone striking the grassy canopy more swiftly, thus giving the insects resting on the grasses less of an opportunity to evade the threat of the approaching net. Future studies targeting the collection of true bugs should utilize a faster drone speed in flight to optimize yield.With 84% of insects found within the second layer of our net, we conclude that our novel net design with two layers of tulle is satisfactory in retaining insects and preventing most from escaping when landing the drone. In addition to the insects counted, we never witnessed any insects flying out during landing stages. We believe that our methodology of flying the drone in quickly and covering the opening of the net with cardboard before landing the drone, in addition to the extra layer of netting, was successful at retaining the insects caught. Determining how to fly the drone and net over the two forest canopy habitats was a challenge. When flying, it was impossible for the drone camera to look both forward—to see obstacles coming up, and downwards—to see how close the net was hanging regarding the top of the canopy. For this reason, we used a second drone as a spotter for the first, the pilot of which could give instructions on moving up or down. Forest canopies were particularly difficult, as the height from one tree to the next was always different, the drone had to be constantly adjusted. We experienced many snags on branches, although they were not damaging to the net or drone. Once we became comfortable flying the drone low enough to graze the canopy, snagging became a common occurrence that was easily remedied. In fact, snagging the net probably helped in the collection of insects on those branches—a technique that could be honed and used in future studies using nets and drones over forest canopies.Over our 12 days of sampling habitat canopies with drones, we were able to determine that wetlands had the highest diversity and abundance of the four habitats examined, with lake habitats showing the lowest Shannon-Weiner Diversity index (H’), and the highest Pielou’s evenness index (J). It is unsurprising that lakes showed the most even distribution of families, as is often the case with habitats having low species richness, as there are less competitors that could dominate the habitat28. Habitat, humidity, and temperature were the most important variables affecting drone insect yield, with habitat being the common variable in all high scoring models. Wetlands had by the far the most insects collected, in addition to the highest diversity and species richness. This can be explained simply by the plant composition in wetlands compared to the other habitats. While coniferous and deciduous forests are dominated by a few species (and lakes have little to no vegetation over the water) wetlands can host a wide variety of plant species. Because insect diversity correlates with plant richness and abundance, wetlands can provide shelter and sustenance for many more groups of insects that the other habitats we studied29.Lindgren funnels disproportionately collected insects from order Coleoptera (Fig. 7). Although Lindgren funnels have been used in papers reporting results focused on insects of orders Hemiptera30,31,32,33 and Diptera34,35,36, it is unclear whether some were targeted studies or all simply bycatch of the funnel from other experiments. Instead, Lindgren funnels are overwhelmingly used in Coleoptera studies as the funnels resemble a tree and attracts various wood-boring beetles37,38,39,40,41. This attraction explains the large number and proportion of beetles caught in funnels in this study. However, diversity indices show that in three of four habitats, drones collect a higher diversity sample than the Lindgren funnels (Tables 1 and 2). Thus, though Lindgren funnels are undoubtedly effective at collecting beetles from the environment, our results indicate that the drone collection method is preferable when seeking an accurate representation of the insect diversity of the habitat. Studies focused on Coleoptera could also employ this method, which would be helpful in determining the status and proportion of beetles within the population and compared to other insect orders.In addition to the larger diversity collected by drones, the temporal advantage of this technique over the funnels can not be understated. During our study, it took three Lindgren funnel traps established for seven days to collect a total of 36 insects at the wetland sites (0.001 insect collected per minute). Comparatively, at the same height and placement, drones were able to collect 391 insects in only a combined 36 min (10.9 insects collected per minute) (Fig. 7). This large difference in both yield and time scale demonstrates that the drone collection method is vastly more efficient at arthropod sampling compared to the Lindgren funnels.While this study was successful at validating the usefulness of drones in canopy entomology studies and insect collection in general, it does have its limitations. Optimal drone settings were only examined at wetland grassy canopy sites, and it is possible that the drone might perform differently within different habitats. For example, grazing the canopy at 20 km/hr might result in high insect yield at wetlands, where the lack of obstacles made it relatively easy to fly quickly. But the same settings may be unrealistic and prone to net snagging when sampling over other habitats, such as the coniferous forest canopy. Furthermore, Lindgren funnels were an acceptable comparison to drone collection for yield and diversity at some habitats, however it was impossible to get the funnels up into the canopy where sampling took place at coniferous and deciduous sites. There is no doubt that the advantage of this method lies in its accessibility, speed, and safety—studies that need more precise and fine sampling might not benefit from drones.Overall, our research demonstrates that drones are an efficient and accurate tool in collecting a wide diversity of insects above the canopies of different habitats. Benefits included rapidly and safely sampling the airspace while drawbacks included battery life limiting the duration of sampling. If this new technique is integrated into the field of entomology, canopy studies can be done much more often, for less money, and more safely than they have been done using other techniques. In 2019, a review of the potential causes of decline of aerial insectivores concluded that insect declines and changes in high quality prey availability could be a large driver of insectivore declines9. However, there is a lack of research detailing insect trends over time. The drone collection method used in this study could provide the missing link between the need for more research of aerial canopy insects and the limitations of the current methodology in entomology. This technique can be used in conjunction with aerial insectivore surveys and diet studies to begin to determine the relationship between declining predators and prey. Future research may also use and add to our guidelines to customize drone and net settings for studies targeting specific insect orders or families. More

Hantson, S., Huxman, T. E., Kimball, S., Randerson, J. T. & Goulden, M. L. Warming as a driver of vegetation loss in the Sonoran Desert of California. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2020JG005942. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG005942 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J., Filazzola, A., Kelsey, R., Hart, A. K. & Butterfield, H. S. Better late than never: A synthesis of strategic land retirement and restoration in California. Ecosphere 9, e02367. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2367 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ye, J.-S., Reynolds, J. F., Sun, G.-J. & Li, F.-M. Impacts of increased variability in precipitation and air temperature on net primary productivity of the Tibetan Plateau: A modeling analysis. Clim. Change 119, 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0719-2 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pendergrass, A. G., Knutti, R., Lehner, F., Deser, C. & Sanderson, B. M. Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep. 7, 17966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. et al. Increasing precipitation variability on daily-to-multiyear time scales in a warmer world. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf8021. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf8021 (2021).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stahle David, W. Anthropogenic megadrought. Science 368, 238–239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6902 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368, 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9600 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bryant, B. P. et al. Shaping land use change and ecosystem restoration in a water-stressed agricultural landscape to achieve multiple benefits. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 138 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross, C. W. et al. Woody-biomass projections and drivers of change in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01034-5 (2021).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R., Reedy, R. C., Stonestrom, D. A., Prudic, D. E. & Dennehy, K. F. Impact of land use and land cover change on groundwater recharge and quality in the southwestern US. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1577–1593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01026.x (2005).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions. Hydrol. Process. 20, 3335–3370. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6335 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kelsey, R., Hart, A., Butterfield, H. S. & Vink, D. Groundwater sustainability in the San Joaquin Valley: Multiple benefits if agricultural lands are retired and restored strategically. Calif. Agric. 2, 151–154 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Capdevila, P. et al. Reconciling resilience across ecological systems, species and subdisciplines. J. Ecol. 109, 3102–3113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13775 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thebault, A., Mariotte, P., Lortie, C. & MacDougall, A. Land management trumps the effects of climate change and elevated CO2 on grassland functioning. J. Ecol. 102, 896–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12236 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turney, C., Ausseil, A.-G. & Broadhurst, L. Urgent need for an integrated policy framework for biodiversity loss and climate change. Nature Ecol. Evol. 4, 996–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1242-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ellison, A. M. Foundation species, non-trophic interactions, and the value of being common. iScience 13, 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.02.020 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
O’Brien, M. J., Carbonell, E. P., Losapio, G., Schlüter, P. M. & Schöb, C. Foundation species promote local adaptation and fine-scale distribution of herbaceous plants. J. Ecol. 109, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13461 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bagley, J. E. et al. The influence of land cover on surface energy partitioning and evaporative fraction regimes in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 122, 5793–5807. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026740 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Norris, C., Hobson, P. & Ibisch, P. L. Microclimate and vegetation function as indicators of forest thermodynamic efficiency. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02084.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooker, R. W. et al. Tiny niches and translocations: The challenge of identifying suitable recipient sites for small and immobile species. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13008 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forzieri, G. et al. Increased control of vegetation on global terrestrial energy fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 356–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Milling, C. R. et al. Habitat structure modifies microclimate: An approach for mapping fine-scale thermal refuge. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1648–1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13008 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghazian, N., Zuliani, M. & Lortie, C. J. Micro-climatic amelioration in a california desert: Artificial shelter versus shrub canopy. J. Ecol. Eng. 21, 216–228. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/126875 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, A. J., Barry, K. E., Lortie, C. J. & Callaway, R. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Have our experiments and indices been underestimating the role of facilitation?. J. Ecol. 109, 1962–1968. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13665 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Germano, D. J. et al. The San Joaquin Desert of California: Ecologically misunderstood and overlooked. Nat. Areas J. 31, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.031.0206 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fairbairn, M., LaChance, J., De Master, K. T. & Ashwood, L. In vino veritas, in aqua lucrum: Farmland investment, environmental uncertainty, and groundwater access in California’s Cuyama Valley. Agric. Hum. Values 38, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10157-y (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filazzola, A., Lortie, C. J., Westphal, M. F. & Michalet, R. Species-specificity challenges the predictability of facilitation along a regional desert gradient. J. Veg. Sci. 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12909 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cutlar, H. C. Monograph of the North American species of the genus Ephedra. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 26, 373–428 (1939).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hollander, J. L., Wall, S. B. V. & Baguley, J. G. Evolution of seed dispersal in North American Ephedra. Evol. Ecol. 24, 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-009-9309-1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filazzola, A., Brown, C., Westphal, M. & Lortie, C. J. Establishment of a desert foundation species is limited by exotic plants and light but not herbivory or water. Appl. Veg. Sci. 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12515 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J., Gruber, E., Filazzola, A., Noble, T. & Westphal, M. The Groot effect: Plant facilitation and desert shrub regrowth following extensive damage. Ecol. Evol. 8, 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3671 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J. et al. Telemetry of the lizard species Gambelia sila at Carrizo plain national monument. Figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8239667.v2 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Braun, J., Westphal, M. & Lortie, C. J. The shrub Ephedra californica facilitates arthropod communities along a regional desert climatic gradient. Ecosphere 12, e03760. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3760 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terando, A., Youngsteadt, E., Meineke, E. & Prado, S. Accurate near surface air temperature measurements are necessary to gauge large-scale ecological responses to global climate change. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5233–5234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3972 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tielborger, K. & Kadmon, R. Indirect effects in a desert plant community: Is competition among annuals more intense under shrub canopies?. Plant Ecol. 150, 53–63 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holzapfel, C., Tielbörger, K., Parag, H. A., Kigel, J. & Sternberg, M. Annual plant–shrub interactions along an aridity gradient. Basic Appl. Ecol. 7, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2005.08.003 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jankju, M. Role of nurse shrubs in restoration of an arid rangeland: Effects of microclimate on grass establishment. J. Arid Environ. 89, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.09.008 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Baldelomar, M., Atala, C. & Molina-Montenegro, M. A. Top-down and Bottom-up effects deployed by a nurse shrub allow facilitating an endemic mediterranean orchid. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 466 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tielborger, K. & Kadmon, R. Temporal environmental variation tips the balance between facilitation and interference in desert plants. Ecology 81, 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1544:TEVTTB]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walter, J. Effects of changes in soil moisture and precipitation patterns on plant-mediated biotic interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Plant Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-018-0893-4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schob, C., Armas, C. & Pugnaire, F. Direct and indirect interactions co-determine species composition in nurse plant systems. Oikos 122, 1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00390.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eldridge, D. J., Beecham, G. & Grace, J. B. Do shrubs reduce the adverse effects of grazing on soil properties?. Ecohydrology 8, 1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1600 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nerlekar, A. N. & Veldman, J. W. High plant diversity and slow assembly of old-growth grasslands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 18550. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922266117 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tielbörger, K. et al. Middle-Eastern plant communities tolerate 9 years of drought in a multi-site climate manipulation experiment. Nat. Commun. 5, 5102. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6102 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, D. & Anchukaitis, K. J. How unusual is the 2012–2014 California drought?. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 9017–9023. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062433 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Data, U. C. In US Climate Data Product, New Cuyama, vol. 1. https://www.usclimatedata.com (2021).Gherardi, L. A. & Sala, O. E. Effect of interannual precipitation variability on dryland productivity: A global synthesis. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14480 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ding, Y., Li, Z. & Peng, S. Global analysis of time-lag and -accumulation effects of climate on vegetation growth. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 92, 102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102179 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. et al. Analysis of the time-lag effects of climate factors on grassland productivity in Inner Mongolia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 30, e01751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01751 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liancourt, P., Song, X., Macek, M., Santrucek, J. & Dolezal, J. Plant’s-eye view of temperature governs elevational distributions. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4094–4103. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15129 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ryan, M. J. et al. Too dry for lizards: Short-term rainfall influence on lizard microhabitat use in an experimental rainfall manipulation within a pinon-juniper woodland. Funct. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12595 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, D., Stow, A. & Kearney, M. R. Under the weather?—The direct effects of climate warming on a threatened desert lizard are mediated by their activity phase and burrow system. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12812 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gaudenti, N., Nix, E., Maier, P., Westphal, M. F. & Taylor, E. N. Habitat heterogeneity affects the thermal ecology of an endangered lizard. Ecol. Evol. 11, 14843–14856. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8170 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J., Filazzola, A. & Sotomayor, D. A. Functional assessment of animal interactions with shrub-facilitation complexes: A formal synthesis and conceptual framework. Funct. Ecol. 30, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12530 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J. et al. Shrub and vegetation cover predict resource selection use by an endangered species of desert lizard. Sci. Rep. 10, 4884. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61880-9 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
De Frenne, P. et al. Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies. Nature Ecol. Evol. 3, 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0842-1 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Avolio, M. L. et al. Determinants of community compositional change are equally affected by global change. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1892–1904. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13824 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01198-0 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hedden-Nicely, D. R. Climate change and the future of western US water governance. Nat. Clim. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01141-3 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suggitt, A. J. et al. Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 713–717. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0231-9 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, R. T., Flint, L. E., Faunt, C. C., Gibbs, D. R. & Schmid, W. Hydrologic models and analysis of water availability in Cuyama Valley, California. In U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 2015 1–126 (2015).John, S. In Encyclopedia of World Climatology (ed John, E. O.) 89–94 (Springer Netherlands, 2005).James-Jeremy, J. et al. A systems approach to restoring degraded drylands. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 730–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12090 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Upson, J. E. & Worts, G. F. In Ground water in the Cuyama Valley, California. Report No. 1110B 1–82 (1951).Hanson, M. T., Randall, T. & Sweetkind, D. Cuyama Valley, California hydrologic study—an assessment of water availability. In U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20143075 (2014).Greicius, T. NASA data show California’s San Joaquin Valley Still Sinking. JPL 28, 1–9 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Döll, P. et al. Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations. J. Geodyn. 59–60, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J. & Filazzola, A. US climate data, New Cuyama, CA, 2016–2017. Figshare 1, 2016–2017. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17162600.v1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lortie, C. J. & Filazzola, A. Vegetation surveys in Cuyama Valley, CA, USA in 2016 and 2017 at the peak of megadrought. Knowl. Netw. Biocompl. 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5063/F1MG7MZH (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hickman, J. C. The Jepson Manual (University of California Press, 1996).
Google Scholar 
Villanueva-Almanza, L. & Fonseca, R. M. In Taxonomic review and geographic distribution of Ephedra (Ephedraceae) in Mexico. ACTA BOTANICA MEXICANA 96 (2011).Alfieri, F. J. & Mottola, P. M. Seasonal changes in the phloem of Ephedra californica Wats. Bot. Gaz. 144, 240–246 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, O., de-Falco, N., Yizhaq, H. & Boeken, B. Annual plant diversity decreases across scales following widespread ecosystem engineer shrub mortality. J. Veg. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12372 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ivey, K. N. et al. Thermal ecology of the federally endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila). Conserv. Physiol. 2020, 8. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coaa014 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grimes, A. J., Corrigan, G., Germano, D. J. & Smith, P. T. Mitochondrial phylogeography of the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Gambelia sila. Southwestern Natural. 59, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1894/F06-GC-233.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, J. A. E. et al. Habitat restoration opportunities, climatic niche contraction, and conservation biogeography in California’s San Joaquin Desert. PLoS ONE 14, e0210766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210766 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Germano, D. J., Rathbun, G. B. & Saslaw, L. R. Effects of grazing and invasive grasses on desert vertebrates in California. J. Wildl. Manag. 76, 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.316 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moss, B. The water framework directive: Total environment or political compromise?. Sci. Total Environ. 400, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.029 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Denevan, W. M. The “Pristine Myth ” revisited. Geogr. Rev. 101, 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2011.00118.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
da Cunha, A. R. Evaluation of measurement errors of temperature and relative humidity from HOBO data logger under different conditions of exposure to solar radiation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4458-x (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Terando, A. J., Youngsteadt, E., Meineke, E. K. & Prado, S. G. Ad hoc instrumentation methods in ecological studies produce highly biased temperature measurements. Ecol. Evol. 7, 9890–9904. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3499 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nature, I. I. U. f. C. o. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN 2019-1 1–142 (2019).Lortie, C. J., Filazzola, A., Butterfield, H. S. & Westphal, M. Cuyama Micronet. Figshare 1, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11888199.v2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vol. 4.2.1 (R foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S. & Deepayan, S. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. CRAN 3, 1–153 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Pebesma, E. spacetime: Spatio-temporal data in R. J. Stat. Softw. 1(7), 2012. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v051.i07 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4. CRAN 2020, 1–122 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated marginal means. CRAN 1, 1–89 (2022).
Google Scholar  More

Carothers, J. H. & Jaksić, F. M. Time as a Niche difference: The role of interference competition. Oikos 42, 403–406 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Kronfeld-Schor, N. & Dayan, T. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 153–181 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Lesmeister, D. B., Nielsen, C. K., Schauber, E. M. & Hellgren, E. C. Spatial and temporal structure of a mesocarnivore guild in midwestern North America. Wildl. Monogr. 191, 1–61 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Chmura, H. E. et al. Plasticity and repeatability of activity patterns in free-living Arctic ground squirrels. Anim. Behav. 169, 81–91 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Helm, B. et al. Two sides of a coin: Ecological and chronobiological perspectives of timing in the wild. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160246 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Alós, J., Martorell-Barceló, M. & Campos-Candela, A. Repeatability of circadian behavioural variation revealed in free-ranging marine fish. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 160791 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schlicht, L. & Kempenaers, B. The effects of season, sex, age and weather on population-level variation in the timing of activity in Eurasian Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus. Ibis 162, 1146–1162 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Helm, B. & Visser, M. E. Heritable circadian period length in a wild bird population. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 3335–3342 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Nikhil, K. L., Abhilash, L. & Sharma, V. K. Molecular correlates of circadian clocks in fruit fly drosophila melanogaster populations exhibiting early and late emergence chronotypes. J. Biol. Rhythms 31, 125–141 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Allebrandt, K. V. et al. CLOCK gene variants associate with sleep duration in two independent populations. Biol. Psychiatry 67, 1040–1047 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maukonen, M. et al. Genetic associations of chronotype in the finnish general population. J. Biol. Rhythms 35, 501–511 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roecklein, K. A. et al. Melanopsin gene variations interact with season to predict sleep onset and chronotype. Chronobiol. Int. 29, 1036–1047 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Steinmeyer, C., Kempenaers, B. & Mueller, J. C. Testing for associations between candidate genes for circadian rhythms and individual variation in sleep behaviour in blue tits. Genetica 140, 219–228 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stuber, E. F., Baumgartner, C., Dingemanse, N. J., Kempenaers, B. & Mueller, J. C. Genetic correlates of individual differences in sleep behavior of free-living great tits (Parus major). G3 GenesGenomesGenetics 6, 599–607 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cuthill, I. C. & Macdonald, W. A. Experimental manipulation of the dawn and dusk chorus in the blackbird Turdus merula. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 209–216 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Grava, T., Grava, A. & Otter, K. A. Supplemental feeding and dawn singing in black-capped chickadees. Condor 111, 560–564 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Saggese, K., Korner-Nievergelt, F., Slagsvold, T. & Amrhein, V. Wild bird feeding delays start of dawn singing in the great tit. Anim. Behav. 81, 361–365 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Dominoni, D. M. Effects of artificial light at night on daily and seasonal organization of European blackbirds (Turdus merula). https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/32198 Accessed 23 February 2022 (2013).
Lehmann, M., Spoelstra, K., Visser, M. E. & Helm, B. Effects of temperature on circadian clock and chronotype: An experimental study on a passerine bird. Chronobiol. Int. 29, 1062–1071 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zsebők, S. et al. Short- and long-term repeatability and pseudo-repeatability of bird song: Sensitivity of signals to varying environments. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 154 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Raap, T., Pinxten, R. & Eens, M. Artificial light at night disrupts sleep in female great tits (Parus major) during the nestling period and is followed by a sleep rebound. Environ. Pollut. 215, 125–134 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grunst, M. L., Grunst, A. S., Pinxten, R. & Eens, M. Variable and consistent traffic noise negatively affect the sleep behavior of a free-living songbird. Sci. Total Environ. 778, 146338 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stuber, E. F. et al. Perceived predation risk affects sleep behaviour in free-living great tits Parus major. Anim. Behav. 98, 157–165 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Niemelä, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. Individual versus pseudo-repeatability in behaviour: Lessons from translocation experiments in a wild insect. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 1033–1043 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garamszegi, L. Z. & Møller, A. P. Partitioning within-species variance in behaviour to within- and between-population components for understanding evolution. Ecol. Lett. 20, 599–608 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Niemelä, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. On the usage of single measurements in behavioural ecology research on individual differences. Anim. Behav. 145, 99–105 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Browne, W. J., McCleery, R. H., Sheldon, B. C. & Pettifor, R. A. Using cross-classified multivariate mixed response models with application to life history traits in great tits (Parus major). Stat. Model. 7, 217–238 (2007).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pettifor, R. A., Sheldon, B. C., Browne, W. J., Rasbash, J. & McCleery, R.
H. Partitioning of Phenotypic Variance in Life-history Traits in the Great Tit, Parus major.
https://seis.bristol.ac.uk/~frwjb/materials/phenovar.pdf (2003). Accessed 23 February 2022.Casasole, G. et al. Neither artificial light at night, anthropogenic noise nor distance from roads are associated with oxidative status of nestlings in an urban population of songbirds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 210, 14–21 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Payevsky, V. A. Mortality rate and population density regulation in the great tit, Parus major L.: A review. Russ. J. Ecol. 37, 180 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Vermeulen, A., Eens, M., Van Dongen, S. & Müller, W. Does baseline innate immunity change with age? A multi-year study in great tits. Exp. Gerontol. 92, 67–73 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haftorn, S. Incubation during the egg-laying period in relation to clutch-size and other aspects of reproduction in the great tit Parus major. Ornis Scand. Scand. J. Ornithol. 12, 169–185 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Grunst, M. L., Grunst, A. S., Pinxten, R., Eens, G. & Eens, M. An experimental approach to investigating effects of artificial light at night on free-ranging animals: Implementation, results and directions for future research. J. Vis. Exp. 180, e63381 (2022).

Google Scholar 
Halfwerk, W. et al. Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 14549–14554 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Specht, R. Avisoft-saslab pro: Sound analysis and synthesis laboratory. Avis. Bioacoustics
http://avisoft.com/SASLab_deutsch.pdf Accessed 23 February 2022 (2002).Iserbyt, A., Griffioen, M., Borremans, B., Eens, M. & Müller, W. How to quantify animal activity from radio-frequency identification (RFID) recordings. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10166–10174 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raap, T., Pinxten, R. & Eens, M. Light pollution disrupts sleep in free-living animals. Sci. Rep. 5, 13557 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Meijdam, M., Müller, W., Thys, B. & Eens, M. No relationship between chronotype and timing of breeding when variation in daily activity patterns across the breeding season is taken into account. Ecol. Evol. 12, e9353 (2022).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. https://www.R-project.org/ Accessed 23 February 2022 (2013).Rousset, F. & Ferdy, J.-B. Testing environmental and genetic effects in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Ecography 37, 781–790 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Araya-Ajoy, Y. G., Mathot, K. J. & Dingemanse, N. J. An approach to estimate short-term, long-term and reaction norm repeatability. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1462–1473 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Mitchell, D. J., Dujon, A. M., Beckmann, C. & Biro, P. A. Temporal autocorrelation: A neglected factor in the study of behavioral repeatability and plasticity. Behav. Ecol. 31, 222–231 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bell, A. M., Hankison, S. J. & Laskowski, K. L. The repeatability of behaviour: A meta-analysis. Anim. Behav. 77, 771–783 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Graham, J. L., Cook, N. J., Needham, K. B., Hau, M. & Greives, T. J. Early to rise, early to breed: A role for daily rhythms in seasonal reproduction. Behav. Ecol. 28, 1266–1271 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Maury, C., Serota, M. W. & Williams, T. D. Plasticity in diurnal activity and temporal phenotype during parental care in European starlings Sturnus vulgaris. Anim. Behav. 159, 37–45 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schlicht, L., Valcu, M., Loës, P., Girg, A. & Kempenaers, B. No relationship between female emergence time from the roosting place and extrapair paternity. Behav. Ecol. 25, 650–659 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Steinmeyer, C., Schielzeth, H., Mueller, J. C. & Kempenaers, B. Variation in sleep behaviour in free-living blue tits, Cyanistes caeruleus: Effects of sex, age and environment. Anim. Behav. 80, 853–864 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Stuber, E. F., Dingemanse, N. J., Kempenaers, B. & Mueller, J. C. Sources of intraspecific variation in sleep behaviour of wild great tits. Anim. Behav. 106, 201–221 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Raap, T., Pinxten, R. & Eens, M. Cavities shield birds from effects of artificial light at night on sleep. J. Exp. Zool. Part Ecol. Integr. Physiol. 329, 449–456 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Edelaar, P., Siepielski, A. M. & Clobert, J. Matching habitat choice causes directed gene flow: A neglected dimension in evolution and ecology. Evolution 62, 2462–2472 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gorissen, L. & Eens, M. Interactive communication between male and female great tits (Parus major) during the dawn chorus. Auk 121, 184–191 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Halfwerk, W., Bot, S. & Slabbekoorn, H. Male great tit song perch selection in response to noise-dependent female feedback. Funct. Ecol. 26, 1339–1347 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Steinmeyer, C., Mueller, J. C. & Kempenaers, B. Individual variation in sleep behaviour in blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus: Assortative mating and associations with fitness-related traits. J. Avian Biol. 44, 159–168 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Cain, J. R. & Wilson, W. O. The influence of specific environmental parameters on the circadian rhythms of chickens. Poult. Sci. 53, 1438–1447 (1974).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z. C. et al. Circadian clock genes are rhythmically expressed in specific segments of the hen oviduct. Poult. Sci. 95, 1653–1659 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Womack, R. J. Clocks in the wild: biological rhythms of great tits and the environment. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/81345/ Accessed 23 February 2022 (2020).Dominoni, D., Smit, J. A. H., Visser, M. E. & Halfwerk, W. Multisensory pollution: Artificial light at night and anthropogenic noise have interactive effects on activity patterns of great tits (Parus major). Environ. Pollut. 256, 113314 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matthysen, E., Adriaensen, F. & Dhondt, A. A. Multiple responses to increasing spring temperatures in the breeding cycle of blue and great tits (Cyanistes caeruleus, Parus major). Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1–16 (2011).
Google Scholar  More