Philippa Kaur

Hagen, O. et al. gen3sis: a general engine for eco-evolutionary simulations of the processes that shape Earth’s biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001340 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. et al. Evolutionary origins for ecological patterns in space. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 17482–17490 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (MPB-32) (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature 424, 1035–1037 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
de Aguiar, M. A. M., Baranger, M., Baptestini, E. M., Kaufman, L. & Bar-Yam, Y. Global patterns of speciation and diversity. Nature 460, 384 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Dwyer, J. P. & Green, J. L. Field theory for biogeography: a spatially explicit model for predicting patterns of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 13, 87–95 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, R. A. & Pacala, S. W. Niche and neutral models predict asymptotically equivalent species abundance distributions in high-diversity ecological communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 15821–15825 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mutshinda, C. M., O’Hara, R. B. & Woiwod, I. P. What drives community dynamics? Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2923–2929 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosindell, J., Cornell, S. J., Hubbell, S. P. & Etienne, R. S. Protracted speciation revitalizes the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 13, 716–727 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, R. A. & O’Dwyer, J. P. Species ages in neutral biodiversity models. Theor. Popul. Biol. 93, 85–94 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nee, S. The neutral theory of biodiversity: do the numbers add up? Funct. Ecol. 19, 173–176 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ricklefs, R. E. A comment on Hubbell’s zero-sum ecological drift model. Oikos 100, 185–192 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Etienne, R. S., Apol, M. E. F., Olff, H. & Weissing, F. J. Modes of speciation and the neutral theory of biodiversity. Oikos 116, 241–258 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, T. J., Allen, A. P., Borda-de Água, L., Regetz, J. & Melián, C. J. Neutral biodiversity theory can explain the imbalance of phylogenetic trees but not the tempo of their diversification. Evolution 65, 1841–1850 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Higgs, P. G. & Derrida, B. Stochastic models for species formation in evolving populations. J. Phys. A 24, L985 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gavrilets, S., Li, H. & Vose, M. D. Rapid parapatric speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B 265, 1483–1489 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dieckmann, U. & Doebeli, M. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400, 354 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gavrilets, S. & Vose, A. Dynamic patterns of adaptive radiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18040–18045 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nosil, P. Ecological Speciation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).Gavrilets, S., Acton, R. & Gravner, J. Dynamics of speciation and diversification in a metapopulation. Evolution 54, 1493–1501 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Costa, C. L. N. et al. Signatures of microevolutionary processes in phylogenetic patterns. Syst. Biol. 68, 131–144 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Li, J., Huang, J.-P., Sukumaran, J. & Knowles, L. L. Microevolutionary processes impact macroevolutionary patterns. BMC Evol. Biol. 18, 123 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Melián, C. J., Alonso, D., Allesina, S., Condit, R. S. & Etienne, R. S. Does sex speed up evolutionary rate and increase biodiversity? PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002414 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rangel, T. F. et al. Modeling the ecology and evolution of biodiversity: biogeographical cradles, museums, and graves. Science 361, eaar5452 (2018).Pontarp, M. et al. The latitudinal diversity gradient: novel understanding through mechanistic eco-evolutionary models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 211–223 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
de Alencar, L. R. V. & Quental, T. B. Linking population-level and microevolutionary processes to understand speciation dynamics at the macroevolutionary scale. Ecol. Evol. 11, 5828–5843 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, A. H. & Stegen, J. C. When should species richness be energy limited, and how would we know? Ecol. Lett. 17, 401–413 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morlon, H. Phylogenetic approaches for studying diversification. Ecol. Lett. 17, 508–525 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosindell, J., Harmon, L. J. & Etienne, R. S. Unifying ecology and macroevolution with individual-based theory. Ecol. Lett. 18, 472–482 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosindell, J. & Harmon, L. J. A unified model of species immigration, extinction and abundance on islands. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1107–1118 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Etienne, R. S. & Rosindell, J. Prolonging the past counteracts the pull of the present: protracted speciation can explain observed slowdowns in diversification. Syst. Biol. 61, 204–213 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. & Matute, D. R. Macroevolutionary speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation in Drosophila and birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15354–15359 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. & Pennell, M. W. Extant timetrees are consistent with a myriad of diversification histories. Nature 580, 502–505 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Princepe, D. & De Aguiar, M. A. M. Modeling mito-nuclear compatibility and its role in species identification. Syst. Biol. 70, 133–144 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bar-Yaacov, D., Blumberg, A. & Mishmar, D. Mitochondrial-nuclear co-evolution and its effects on OXPHOS activity and regulation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1819, 1107–1111 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunnucks, P., Morales, H. E., Lamb, A. M., Pavlova, A. & Greening, C. Integrative approaches for studying mitochondrial and nuclear genome co-evolution in oxidative phosphorylation. Front. Genet. 8, 25 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, G. E. The mitonuclear compatibility species concept. Auk 134, 393–409 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima, T. G., Burton, R. S. & Willett, C. S. Genomic scans reveal multiple mito-nuclear incompatibilities in population crosses of the copepod Tigriopus californicus. Evolution 73, 609–620 (2019).Barreto, F. S. & Burton, R. S. Elevated oxidative damage is correlated with reduced fitness in interpopulation hybrids of a marine copepod. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1521 (2013).Hill, G. E. Mitonuclear compensatory coevolution. Trends Genet. 36, 403–414 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gershoni, M., Templeton, A. R. & Mishmar, D. Mitochondrial bioenergetics as a major motive force of speciation. BioEssays 31, 642–650 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, G. E. Mitonuclear coevolution as the genesis of speciation and the mitochondrial DNA barcode gap. Ecol. Evol. 6, 5831–5842 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tobler, M., Barts, N. & Greenway, R. Mitochondria and the origin of species: bridging genetic and ecological perspectives on speciation processes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 59, 900–911 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burton, R. S. & Barreto, F. S. A disproportionate role for mtDNA in Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibilities? Mol. Ecol. 21, 4942–4957 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Telschow, A., Gadau, J., Werren, J. H. & Kobayashi, Y. Genetic incompatibilities between mitochondria and nuclear genes: effect on gene flow and speciation. Front. Genet. 10, 62 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lane, N. Biodiversity: on the origin of bar codes. Nature 462, 272–274 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, G. E Mitonuclear Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).Wolff, J. N., Ladoukakis, E. D., Enríquez, J. A. & Dowling, D. K. Mitonuclear interactions: evolutionary consequences over multiple biological scales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20130443 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koch, R. E. et al. Integrating mitochondrial aerobic metabolism into ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 321–332 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weir, J. T. & Schluter, D. The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals. Science 315, 1574–1576 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero, C. A., Dor, R., McCain, C. M. & Safran, R. J. Environmental harshness is positively correlated with intraspecific divergence in mammals and birds. Mol. Ecol. 23, 259–268 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weir, J. T. Environmental harshness, latitude and incipient speciation. Mol. Ecol. 23, 251–253 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schluter, D. & Pennell, M. W. Speciation gradients and the distribution of biodiversity. Nature 546, 48–55 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, M. G. et al. The evolution of a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Science 370, 1343–1348 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. et al. An inverse latitudinal gradient in speciation rate for marine fishes. Nature 559, 392–395 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. & Hurlbert, A. H. Species richness at continental scales is dominated by ecological limits. Am. Nat. 185, 572–583 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sugihara, G. Minimal community structure: an explanation of species abundance patterns. Am. Nat. 116, 770–787 (1980).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, F. & Broughton, R. E. Mitochondrial–nuclear interactions: compensatory evolution or variable functional constraint among vertebrate oxidative phosphorylation genes? Genome Biol. Evol. 5, 1781–1791 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Piccinini, G. et al. Mitonuclear coevolution, but not nuclear compensation, drives evolution of OXPHOS complexes in bivalves. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 2597–2614 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barreto, F. S. et al. Genomic signatures of mitonuclear coevolution across populations of Tigriopus californicus. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1250–1257 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, J. D. et al. Into and out of the tropics: the generation of the latitudinal gradient among New World passerine birds. J. Biogeogr. 41, 1746–1757 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Etienne, R. S. et al. A minimal model for the latitudinal diversity gradient suggests a dominant role for ecological limits. Am. Nat. 194, E122–E133 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mittelbach, G. G. et al. Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography. Ecol. Lett. 10, 315–331 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163, 192–211 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, K. L. & Gaston, K. J. Can the evolutionary-rates hypothesis explain species–energy relationships? Funct. Ecol. 19, 899–915 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, A. P. & Gillooly, J. F. Assessing latitudinal gradients in speciation rates and biodiversity at the global scale. Ecol. Lett. 9, 947–954 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cutter, A. D. & Gray, J. C. Ephemeral ecological speciation and the latitudinal biodiversity gradient. Evolution 70, 2171–2185 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dowling, D. K., Abiega, K. C. & Arnqvist, G. Temperature-specific outcomes of cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions on egg-to-adult development time in seed beetles. Evolution 61, 194–201 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, B. T., Seeholzer, G. F., Harvey, M. G., Cuervo, A. M. & Brumfield, R. T. A latitudinal phylogeographic diversity gradient in birds. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001073 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, B. G., Weeks, T., Schluter, D. & Tobias, J. A. The latitudinal gradient in rates of evolution for bird beaks, a species interaction trait. Ecol. Lett. 25, 635–646 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vellend, M. Species diversity and genetic diversity: parallel processes and correlated patterns. Am. Nat. 166, 199–215 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pontarp, M. & Wiens, J. J. The origin of species richness patterns along environmental gradients: uniting explanations based on time, diversification rate and carrying capacity. J. Biogeogr. 44, 722–735 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, M. G. et al. Positive association between population genetic differentiation and speciation rates in New World birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6328–6333 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. S. & Costa-Pereira, R. Latitudinal gradients in intraspecific ecological diversity. Biol. Lett. 9, 20130778 (2013).Derrida, B. & Peliti, L. Evolution in a flat fitness landscape. Bull. Math. Biol. 53, 355–382 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Aguiar, M. A. M. Speciation in the Derrida–Higgs model with finite genomes and spatial populations. J. Phys. A 50, 85602 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thibert-Plante, X. & Gavrilets, S. Evolution of mate choice and the so-called magic traits in ecological speciation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1004–1013 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seehausen, O. Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 198–207 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearns, A. M. et al. Genomic evidence of speciation reversal in ravens. Nat. Commun. 9, 906 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gray, J. S., Bjørgesæter, A. & Ugland, K. I. On plotting species abundance distributions. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 752–756 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Seibel, B. A. & Birk, M. A. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01491-6 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. et al. Science 353, aad8466 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pörtner, H. O. & Knust, R. Science 315, 95–97 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verberk, W. C. E. P., Bilton, D. T., Calosi, P. & Spicer, J. I. Ecology 92, 1565–1572 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rubalcaba, J. G., Verberk, W. C., Hendriks, A. J., Saris, B. & Woods, H. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 31963–31968 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2201345119 (2022).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stramma, L. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 33–37 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vergés, A. et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140846 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Study regions and recent trends in land use changeOur analysis focuses on four biomes (referred to as regions in the rest of the text), accounting for nearly all soybean area in Brazil: the Pampa, the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado and the Amazon (Supplementary Section 1). Soybean production is negligible in the Pantanal and the Caatinga, so these two regions were excluded from our analysis. We focused on soybean-based systems in Brazil, either those that include one crop per year (single soybean) or those including a second-crop maize. In the latter system, soybean is sown in September–October, and maize is sown right after the soybean harvest in late January–February. Single soybean is common in the Pampa, where the drier climate does not allow double cropping. In contrast, higher precipitation allows double cropping in the Amazon, the Cerrado and most of the Atlantic Forest (Supplementary Section 2).Recent trends in yield, area and production for soybean and second-crop maize were derived from official statistics for the 2007–2019 period16. We fitted linear models to derive the annual rate of yield improvement and harvested area for soybean and second-crop maize, separately for each region (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Fig. 1). Land use change arising from soybean expansion was estimated using data from the MapBiomas project (v.5.0)10 (Supplementary Table 1). Our estimation of land use change accounted for the time lag between land conversion and the beginning of soybean production, which can include transitional stages such as the cultivation of upland rice or short-term pasture-based livestock systems42. To account for this, we looked at the new land brought into soybean production during the 2008–2019 period, and we analysed how much of this land was under a different land use type (forest, savannah, grassland, pasture or other crops) in 2000 (Extended Data Fig. 2).Estimation of yield potential and yield gapsWe used results on yield potential for Brazil that we generated through the Global Yield Gap Atlas project43 using well-validated process-based crop models and the best available sources of weather, soil and management data. Briefly, we selected 32 sites to portray the distribution of the soybean harvested area within the country, following protocols that ensure representativeness and a reasonable coverage of the national crop area44. The 32 sites collectively accounted for half of the soybean harvested area in Brazil. These sites were located within agro-climatic zones accounting for 86% of the national soybean production and accounted for 72–92% of the soybean area in each region. Following protocols that gave preference to measured data at a high level of spatial and temporal resolution45, we collected databases on weather, soil, management and crop yields for soybean for each site, and also for second-crop maize at those sites where double-cropping is practised (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 and Supplementary Section 3).Yield potential was simulated for widespread cultivars in each region using the CROPGRO soybean model embedded in DSSAT v.4.546 and the Hybrid-Maize model47. Both models simulate crop growth and development on a daily time step. Growth rates are determined by simulating both CO2 assimilation and respiration, with partitioning coefficients to different organs dependent on developmental stage. The model phenological coefficients were calibrated to portray the crop cycle of the most dominant cultivars in each region in Brazil. We used generic default coefficients for growth-related model internal parameters such as photosynthesis, respiration, leaf area expansion, light interception, biomass partitioning and grain filling. In all cases, simulations of yield potential assumed the absence of insect pests, weeds and diseases and no nutrient limitations. In simulating yield potential, both models account for solar radiation, photoperiod, temperature, and the timing and amount of rainfall as well as soil properties influencing crop water balance.We first evaluated the CROPGRO and Hybrid-Maize models on the ability to reproduce measured phenology and yields across 40 well-managed experiments located across the four regions. The models showed satisfactory performance at reproducing the measured values (Extended Data Fig. 3). We then simulated soybean yield potential for the dominant agricultural soils at each site (usually two or three), as determined from the soil maps generated by the Radambrasil project48. The simulations were based on long-term (1999–2018) measured daily weather data retrieved from the Brazilian Institute of Meteorology49. Soybean yield potential was simulated for each year of the time series. We also simulated yield potential for second-crop maize for those sites where double-cropping is practised. To do so, we used sowing dates and cultivar maturities that maximize the overall productivity of the soybean–maize system; these sowing dates and cultivar maturities are within the current ranges in each region21,28. To estimate the average yield potential for each site, we weighted the simulated values for each soil type by soil area fraction at each site. In all cases, the simulations assumed no limitations to crop growth due to nutrient deficiencies or incidence of biotic stresses such as weeds, insect pests and pathogens. The results were upscaled from site to region and then to country following van Bussel et al.44. Briefly, the average yield potential for each region was estimated by averaging the simulated yields across the sites located within each region, weighing sites according to their share of the soybean area within each region. A similar approach was followed to upscale yield potential from region to the national level. Details on crop modelling, data sources and upscaling are provided in Supplementary Section 3.The average farmer yield was calculated separately for soybean and second-crop maize on the basis of the average yield reported over the 2012–2017 period for the municipalities that overlap with each site, weighing municipalities on the basis of their share of the soybean or maize area within each site16. Including more years before 2012 would have led to a biased estimate of average actual yield due to the technological yield trend in Brazil. Average farmer yields were estimated at the region and country levels following the same upscaling approach as for yield potential. Finally, the exploitable yield gap was calculated as the difference between attainable yield and average farmer yield. The attainable yield was calculated as 80% of the simulated yield potential, which is considered a reasonable yield for farmers with adequate access to inputs, markets and technical information (Supplementary Section 2).Assessing scenarios of intensification and land use changeWe explored three scenarios with different soybean and maize yields and areas by 2035 and assessed their outcomes in terms of production, land use change and GWP (Supplementary Table 4). A 15-year future timespan is long enough to facilitate the implementation of long-term policies, investments and technologies devoted to closing the exploitable yield gap and to implement land-use policies, but it is short enough to minimize long-term effects from climate change on crop yields and cropping systems. In the BAU scenario, historical (2007–2019) trends of soybean and second-crop maize area and yield (Extended Data Fig. 1) remain unchanged in all regions between the baseline year (2019) and the final year (2035). Likewise, soybean area expands following the same pattern of land use change observed during 2008–2019 (Extended Data Fig. 2).To explore the available opportunity for increasing production on the existing production area, we considered an NCE scenario in which there is no physical expansion of cropland while full closure of the exploitable yield gap occurs in the regions where the current yield gaps are small (the Pampa and the Atlantic Forest), and 50% closure of the exploitable yield gap takes place in regions where the current yield gaps are large (the Amazon and the Cerrado) (Supplementary Table 4). These rates are comparable to historical yield gains in the Pampa and the Atlantic Forest. A scenario of full yield closure in the Amazon and the Cerrado would have been unrealistic, as it would have required rates of yield improvement that are three to four times higher than historical rates, much higher than those in the Pampa and the Atlantic Forest, and well beyond those reported for main soybean-producing countries. In the case of second-crop maize, we assumed full closure of the exploitable yield gap by 2035 because historical rates of yield improvement are adequate to reach that yield level. Regarding second-crop maize area, we projected the proportion of double-cropping to increase from the current 47% (Amazon), 39% (Cerrado) and 31% (Atlantic Forest) to 100%, 70% and 50%, respectively, as determined on the basis of the degree of water limitation in each region (Supplementary Section 4).Finally, we explored a third scenario of intensification plus target area expansion (INT), in which identical yield gain rates and the adoption of double-cropping equivalent to those in the NCE scenario were assumed, but with physical expansion of the soybean–maize system allowed in low-C ecosystems (that is, pastures and grasslands). In this scenario, soybean expansion is limited to 5% of existing pastures and grasslands in the Pampa, the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado (total of 5.7 Mha) as a result of a parallel intensification in the pasture-based livestock sector that frees up land for soybean production. The latter would require an increase of current stocking rates, not only for freeing up 5% of the area for soybean cultivation but also to meet the projected 7% beef production increase during the study period (2020–2035)17. Hence, an overall 12% increase in stocking rates would be required within our 15-year timeframe, which is a reasonable target as reported in previous studies and based on current trends in stocking rates16,29,32,33.Another assumption is that the yield potential of pasture and grasslands converted for soybean production is similar to that in existing soybean areas in each region. Cropland expansion into grassland and pastures was allowed in all regions except for the Amazon to prevent ‘leaking’ effects and the impact of road development on land clearing50,51. Similarly, the conversion of area cultivated with food crops for soybean production was not allowed to avoid the negative impact of indirect land use change52.Estimation of GWP and gross incomeWe estimated GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O), associated with land conversion (GHGLUC) and crop production (GHGPROD) for the baseline year (2019) and for the three scenarios by year 2035 (BAU, NCE and INT). GHGLUC includes emissions associated with changes in C stocks from aboveground and belowground biomass when land is converted for soybean production (GHGBIO), as well as GHG emissions derived from changes in soil organic C (GHGSOC). For each land use type, annual GHGBIO was estimated on the basis of the difference between C stocks of the land use type that was converted for production (Supplementary Table 5) and, depending on the scenario and region, the average C stocks of the new cropping system53,54,55:$${mathrm{GHG}}_{{mathrm{BIO}}} = {sum} {left( {{mathrm{TDM}}_i-{mathrm{TDM}}_{{mathrm{crop}}}} right) times A_i}$$
(1)
where i is the land cover type, TDM is the total dry matter (tC ha−1) in land cover type i and in cropland (crop), and Ai is the annual area converted from land use type i for soybean cultivation (Supplementary Table 4). C stocks for single soybean and soybean–second-crop maize systems were assumed at 2 and 5 tC ha−1, respectively53,54,55. Changes in SOC stocks were estimated following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2019 guidelines54, available country-specific emission factors56 and the SOC values estimated for each region57,58:$${mathrm{GHG}}_{{mathrm{SOC}}} = {sum} {left( {{mathrm{SOC}}_{{mathrm{REF}},i} times F_{{mathrm{LU}}}} right) times A_i}$$
(2)
where SOCREF is the SOC stock for mineral soils in the upper 30 cm for the reference condition (tC ha−1)57 in land cover type i (Supplementary Table 5), and FLU is the stock change factor for SOC land-use systems for a particular land use (Supplementary Table 4). Because no-till is the predominant soil management strategy in Brazil59, we used FLU = 0.96 for natural vegetation converted to no-till annual crop production, and FLU = 1.16 for pasture and grassland converted to no-till annual crop production56. Because we wanted to assess the full impact of the three scenarios (BAU, NCE and INT) on GWP, we assigned all GHGBIO and GHGSOC derived from land conversion to the first year after land conversion and expressed them as CO2 equivalents by multiplying changes in C stocks by 3.67.Annual GHG emissions derived from soybean and second-crop maize production (GHGPROD) were calculated for each scenario and included those derived from manufacturing, packaging and transportation of agricultural inputs, fossil fuel use for field operations, soil N2O emissions derived from the application of nitrogen (N) fertilizer, and domestic grain transportation. For the baseline year (2019), annual GHG emissions from N, phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers and other inputs (lime, pesticides and fuel) were calculated on the basis of current average input rates for soybean and second-crop maize in each region as derived from the crop management data collected for each region (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Section 3.4). To calculate GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, packaging and transportation of N, P and K fertilizers and lime, we used specific updated emissions factors for South America60, selecting those fertilizer sources that are most commonly used for soybean and second-crop maize production: urea (N), monoammonium phosphate (P) and potassium chloride (K). Our calculations also included the extra lime application that is needed to correct soil acidity in converted areas. Emission factors associated with seed production, pesticides and diesel were derived from ref. 61. Soil N2O emissions derived from N fertilizer application were calculated assuming an N2O emission factor of 1% of the applied N fertilizer on the basis of the country-specific emission factor62. Emissions derived from domestic grain transportation for each region were estimated using the GHGs per ton of grain as reported by previous studies for each region63. We assumed that inputs other than nutrient fertilizer will not change relative to the baseline in the BAU scenario. In the INT scenario, applied inputs were calculated on the basis of those reported for current high-yield fields where the yield gap is small. We estimated fertilizer nutrient rates for the three scenarios following a nutrient-balance approach that depends on the projected yield for each scenario (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Section 3.4).GHGPROD in the baseline year (2019) and for the three scenarios in 2035 (BAU, NCE and INT) was estimated for each region by multiplying the emissions per unit of area by the annual soybean harvested area, summing them to estimate GHG emissions at the national level. Overall 100-year GWP was estimated as the sum of GHGLUC and GHGPROD, both expressed as CO2e to account for the higher warming potential of CH4 and N2O, which are 25 and 298 times the intensity of CO2 on a per mass basis, respectively. The gross income was estimated for each scenario by multiplying the annual crop production by the average price for soybean and maize grain during the past ten years (US$453 and US$184 per t for soybean and maize, respectively1). Finally, to combine the environmental and economic impacts into one metric, we calculated the GWP intensity as the ratio between GWP and gross income.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hong, C. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589, 554–561 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cassman, K. G. & Grassini, P. A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 262–268 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodge, I., Hauck, J. & Bonn, A. The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union. Conserv. Biol. 29, 996–1005 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J. & Gibbs, H. K. Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 1, 801–810 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diffenbaugh, N. S. et al. Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4881–4886 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iizumi, T. & Ramankutty, N. How do weather and climate influence cropping area and intensity? Glob. Food Security 4, 46–50 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, K. F., Downs, S. & Gephart, J. A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2, 54–65 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Emergent constraint on crop yield response to warmer temperature from field experiments. Nat. Sustain. 3, 908–916 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Afifi, T., Liwenga, E. & Kwezi, L. Rainfall-induced crop failure, food insecurity and out-migration in Same-Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Clim. Dev. 6, 53–60 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stigter, K. in Applied Agrometeorology (ed. Stigter, K.) 531–534 (Springer, 2010).Seifert, C. A. & Lobell, D. B. Response of double cropping suitability to climate change in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 024002 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kawasaki, K. Two harvests are better than one: double cropping as a strategy for climate change adaptation. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 101, 172–192 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ceglar, A., Zampieri, M., Toreti, A. & Dentener, F. Observed northward migration of agro‐climate zones in Europe will further accelerate under climate change. Earths Future 7, 1088–1101 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohn, A. S., VanWey, L. K., Spera, S. A. & Mustard, J. F. Cropping frequency and area response to climate variability can exceed yield response. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 601–604 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Challinor, A. J., Simelton, E. S., Fraser, E. D. G., Hemming, D. & Collins, M. Increased crop failure due to climate change: assessing adaptation options using models and socio-economic data for wheat in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 034012 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ray, D. K. & Foley, J. A. Increasing global crop harvest frequency: recent trends and future directions. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 044041 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, W. et al. Global cropping intensity gaps: increasing food production without cropland expansion. Land Use Policy 76, 515–525 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Climate analogues suggest limited potential for intensification of production on current croplands under climate change. Nat. Commun. 7, 12608 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scherer, L. A., Verburg, P. H. & Schulp, C. J. E. Opportunities for sustainable intensification in European agriculture. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 43–55 (2018).Article 

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

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

Google Scholar 
Raderschall, C. A., Vico, G., Lundin, O., Taylor, A. R. & Bommarco, R. Water stress and insect herbivory interactively reduce crop yield while the insect pollination benefit is conserved. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 71–83 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ding, M. et al. Variation in cropping intensity in Northern China from 1982 to 2012 based on GIMMS-NDVI data. Sustainability 8, 1123 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu, Q., Xiang, M., Sun, Z. & Wu, W. The complexity of measuring cropland use intensity: an empirical study. Agr. Syst. 192, 103180 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, F. C. & Lobell, D. B. Adaptation potential of European agriculture in response to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 610–614 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agnolucci, P. et al. Impacts of rising temperatures and farm management practices on global yields of 18 crops. Nat. Food 1, 562–571 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, P. & Burney, J. Temperature‐driven harvest decisions amplify US winter wheat loss under climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 550–562 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortiz-Bobea, A., Knippenberg, E. & Chambers, R. G. Growing climatic sensitivity of U.S. agriculture linked to technological change and regional specialization. Sci. Adv. 4, 4343 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duku, C., Zwart, S. J. & Hein, L. Impacts of climate change on cropping patterns in a tropical, sub-humid watershed. PLoS ONE 13, 0192642 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Folberth, C. et al. The global cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 3, 281–289 (2020).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Yang, X. et al. Potential benefits of climate change for crop productivity in China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 208, 76–84 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burney, J., Woltering, L. & Burke, M. Solar-powered drip irrigation enhances food security in the Sudano–Sahel. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1848–1853 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
You, L. et al. What is the irrigation potential for Africa? A combined biophysical and socioeconomic approach. Food Policy 36, 770–782 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, B., Chenu, K., Fernanda Dreccer, M. & Chapman, S. C. Breeding for the future: what are the potential impacts of future frost and heat events on sowing and flowering time requirements for Australian bread wheat (Triticum aestivium) varieties? Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2899–2914 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flach, R., Fader, M., Folberth, C., Skalský, R. & Jantke, K. The effects of cropping intensity and cropland expansion of Brazilian soybean production on green water flows. Environ. Res. Commun. 2, 071001 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. A., Jina, A. S., Jain, M., Kristjanson, P. & DeFries, R. S. Smallholder farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across multiple regions. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 163–172 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paola, A. D. et al. The expansion of wheat thermal suitability of Russia in response to climate change. Land Use Policy 78, 70–77 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brunelle, T. & Makowski, D. Assessing whether the best land is cultivated first: a quantile analysis. PLoS ONE 15, e0242222 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lark, T. J., Spawn, S. A., Bougie, M. & Gibbs, H. K. Cropland expansion in the United States produces marginal yields at high costs to wildlife. Nat. Commun. 11, 4295 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zabel, F., Putzenlechner, B. & Mauser, W. Global agricultural land resources—a high resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PLoS ONE 9, e107522 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petkeviciene, B. The effects of climate factors on sugar beet early sowing timing. Agron. Res. 7, 436–443 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. 30 years of free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): what have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation? Glob. Change Biol. 27, 27–49 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 11 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).Pendergrass, A. G., Knutti, R., Lehner, F., Deser, C. & Sanderson, B. M. Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep. 7, 17966 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asadieh, B. & Krakauer, N. Y. Global trends in extreme precipitation: climate models versus observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 877–891 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., You, L., Lee, D. & Block, P. Integrating climate prediction and regionalization into an agro-economic model to guide agricultural planning. Clim. Change 158, 435–451 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, S. W. D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Kim, S. H. & Kyle, P. Influence of groundwater extraction costs and resource depletion limits on simulated global nonrenewable water withdrawals over the twenty‐first century. Earths Future 7, 123–135 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, W., Jia, S., Devineni, N., Lv, A. & Lall, U. Evaluating China’s water security for food production: the role of rainfall and irrigation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 11155–11166 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997).Egli, L., Schröter, M., Scherber, C., Tscharntke, T. & Seppelt, R. Crop asynchrony stabilizes food production. Nature 588, E7–E12 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hersbach, H. et al. ERA5 Hourly Data on Single Levels from 1979 to Present (Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS), accessed 1 August 2020); https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 (2018).Feng, P. et al. Impacts of rainfall extremes on wheat yield in semi-arid cropping systems in eastern Australia. Clim. Change 147, 555–569 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teluguntla, P. et al. in Land Resources Monitoring, Modeling, and Mapping with Remote Sensing (ed. Thenkabail, P. S.) 849 (CRC Press, 2015).Hawkins, E. et al. Increasing influence of heat stress on French maize yields from the 1960s to the 2030s. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 937–947 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Deryng, D., Sacks, W. J., Barford, C. C. & Ramankutty, N. Simulating the effects of climate and agricultural management practices on global crop yield. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 25, GB2006 (2011).New, M., New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M. & Makin, I. A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim. Res. 21, 1–25 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Willmott, C. J. Terrestrial Air Temperature and Precipitation: Monthly and Annual Time Series (1950–1996) (Center for Climatic Research, 2000); http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/README.ghcn_ts2.htmlVan Beveren, I. Total factor productivity estimation: a practical review. J. Econ. Surv. 26, 98–128 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, J. et al. Double cropping and cropland expansion boost grain production in Brazil. Nat. Food 2, 264–273 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedl, M. & Gray, J. MCD12Q2 MODIS/Terra+ Aqua Land Cover Dynamics Yearly L3 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006 (NASA EOSDIS, 2019).Sulla-Menashe, D. & Friedl, M. A. User Guide to Collection 6 MODIS Land Cover (MCD12Q1 and MCD12C1) Product (USGS, 2018).Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19656–19657 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lange, S. Trend-preserving bias adjustment and statistical downscaling with ISIMIP3BASD (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3055–3070 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng Zhu. Climate effects on caloric yield and cropping frequency. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7038556 (2022). More

Robison, B. H. Conservation of deep pelagic biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 23, 847–858 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Alamo, M. A. & Färber-Lorda, J. Zooplankton and the oceanography of the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Prog. Oceanogr. 69, 318–359 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Bianchi, D., Galbraith, E. D., Carozza, D. A., Mislan, K. A. S. & Stock, C. A. Intensification of open-ocean oxygen depletion by vertically migrating animals. Nat. Geosci. 6, 545–548 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg, D. K. & Landry, M. R. Zooplankton and the ocean carbon cycle. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 413–444 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kiko, R. & Hauss, H. On the estimation of zooplankton-mediated active fluxes in oxygen minimum zones regions. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00741 (2019).Longhurst, A., Bedo, A., Harrison, W., Head, E. & Sameoto, D. Vertical flux of respiratory carbon by oceanic diel migrant biota. Deep Sea Res. Part I 37, 685–694 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elder, L. E. & Seibel, B. A. The thermal stress response to diel vertical migration in the hyperiid amphipod, Phronima sedentaria. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 187, 20–26 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, N., Gomez-Gutierrez, J., Zenteno-Savin, T., Robinson, C. J. & Sanchez-Velascoa, L. Role of oxidative stress in seasonal and daily vertical migration of three krill species in the Gulf of California. Limnol. Oceanogr. 55, 2570–2584 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lopes, A. R. et al. Oxidative stress in deep scattering layers: heat shock response and antioxidant enzymes activities of myctophid fishes thriving in oxygen minimum zones. Deep Sea Res. Part I 82, 10–16 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A., Schneider, J., Kaartvedt, S., Wishner, K. F. & Daly, K. L. Hypoxia tolerance and metabolic suppression in oxygen minimum zone euphausiids: implications for ocean deoxygenation and biogeochemical cycles. Integr. Comp. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw091 (2016).Seibel, B. A. et al. Metabolic suppression during protracted exposure to hypoxia in the jumbo squid, Dosidicus gigas, living in an oxygen minimum zone. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 2710–2716 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Wishner, K. F. et al. Ocean deoxygenation and zooplankton: very small oxygen differences matter. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau5180 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koslow, J. A., Goericke, R., Lara-Lopez, A. & Watson, W. Impact of declining intermediate-water oxygen on deepwater fishes in the California Current. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 436, 207–218 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Oschlies, A. A committed fourfold increase in ocean oxygen loss. Nat. Commun. 12, 2307 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wishner, K. F., Seibel, B. A. & Outram, D. Ocean deoxygenation and copepods: coping with oxygen minimum zone variability. Biogeosciences 17, 2315–2339 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Stramma, L. et al. Expansion of oxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat for tropical pelagic fishes. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 33–37 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Köhn, E. E., Münnich, M., Vogt, M., Desmmet, F. & Gruber, N. Strong habitat compression by extreme shoaling events of hypoxic waters in the Eastern Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 127, e2022JC018429 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Selden, R. L. & Kitchel, Z. J. Climate-driven shifts in marine species ranges: scaling from organisms to communities. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 153–179 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Cavole, L. M. et al. Biological impacts of the 2013–2015 warm-water anomaly in the northeast Pacific: winners, losers, and the future. Oceanography 29, 273–285 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Lavaniegosa, B. E., Jiménez-Herrera, M. A. & Ambriz-Arreola, I. Unusually low euphausiid biomass during the warm years of 2014–2016 in the transition zone of the California Current. Deep Sea Res. Part II 1, 69–170 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Lilly, L. E. & Ohman, M. D. Euphausiid spatial displacements and habitat shifts in the southern California Current system in response to El Niño variability. Prog. Oceanogr. 193, 102544 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Zeidberg, L. D. & Robison, B. H. Invasive range expansion by the Humboldt squid, Dosidicus gigas, in the eastern North Pacific. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12948–12950 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szesciorka, A. R. et al. Timing is everything: drivers of interannual variability in blue whale migration. Sci. Rep. 10, 7710 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoving, H.-J. et al. Extreme plasticity in life‐history strategy allows a migratory predator (jumbo squid) to cope with a changing climate. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2089–2103 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Boscolo-Galazzo, F. et al. Temperature controls carbon cycling and biological evolution in the ocean twilight zone. Science 371, 1148–1152 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C., Ferrel, A., Seibel, B. A., Pörtner, H.-O. & Huey, R. B. Climate change tightens a metabolic constraint on marine habitats. Science 348, 1132–1135 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A. & Deutsch, C. Oxygen supply capacity in animals evolves to meet maximum demand at the current oxygen partial pressure regardless of size or temperature. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb210492 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C., Penn, J. L. & Seibel, B. A. Diverse hypoxia and thermal tolerances shape biogeography of marine animals. Nature 585, 557–562 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Childress, J. J. Are there physiological and biochemical adaptations of metabolism in deep-sea animals? Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 30–36 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A. & Drazen, J. C. The rate of metabolism in marine animals: environmental constraints, ecological demands and energetic opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 362, 2061–2078 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A. et al. Oxygen supply capacity breathes new life into the critical oxygen partial pressure (Pcrit). J. Exp. Biol. 224, jeb242210 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Childress, J. J. & Seibel, B. A. Life at stable low oxygen: adaptations of animals to oceanic oxygen minimum layers. J. Exp. Biol. 201, 1223–1232 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, H. E., et al. World Ocean Atlas 2018, Volume 3: Dissolved Oxygen, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, and Oxygen Saturation (NOAA/NESDIS, 2019).Locarnini, R. A., et. al. World Ocean Atlas 2018, Volume 1: Temperature (NOAA/NESDIS, 2019).Maas, A. E., Frazar, S., Outram, D., Seibel, B. A. & Wishner, K. F. Fine-scale vertical distribution of macroplankton and micronekton in an eastern tropical North Pacific in association with an oxygen minimum zone. J. Plankton Res. 36, 1557–1575 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Rosa, R. & Seibel, B. A. Synergistic effect of climate-related variables suggests future physiological impairment in a top oceanic predator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 52, 20776–20780 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Halsey, L. G., Killen, S. S., Clark, T. D. & Norin, T. Exploring key issues of aerobic scope interpretation in ectotherms: absolute versus factorial. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 28, 405–415 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Peterson, C. C., Nagy, K. A. & Diamond, J. Sustained metabolic scope. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 2324–2328 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A., Luu, B. E., Tessier, S. N., Towanda, T. & Storey, K. B. Metabolic suppression in the pelagic crab, Pleuroncodes planipes, in oxygen minimum zones. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 224, 88–97 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hadj-Moussa, H., Logan, S. M., Seibel, B. A. & Storey, K. B. Potential role for microRNA in regulating hypoxia-induced metabolic suppression in the jumbo squid? BBA Gene Regul. Mech. 1861, 586–593 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Torres, J. J. & Childress, J. J. Relationship of oxygen consumption to swimming speed in Euphausia pacifica. Mar. Biol. 74, 79–86 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. H. & Forward, R. B. Jr. Zooplankton diel vertical migration—a review of proximate control. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 47, 77–110 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Gilly, W. F. et al. Locomotion and behavior of Humboldt squid, Dosidicus gigas, in relation to natural hypoxia in the Gulf of California, Mexico. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 3175–3190 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Jaffe, J. S., Ohman, M. D. & De Robertis, A. Sonar estimates of daytime activity levels of Euphausia pacifica in Saanich inlet. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 2000–2010 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Klevjer, T. A. & Kaartvedt, S. Krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica) swim faster at night. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 765–774 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Backus, R. H. et al. Ceratoscopelus maderensis: pecuiiar sound-scattering layer identified with this myctophid fish. Science 160, 991–993 (1968).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barham, E. G. in Proceedings of an International Symposium on Biological Sound Scattering in the Ocean (ed. Farquhar, G. B.) 100–118 (Superintendent of Documents, 1971).Sanders, N. K. & Childress, J. J. A comparison of the respiratory function of the haemocyanins of vertically migrating and non-migrating pelagic, deep-sea Oplophorid shrimps. J. Exp. Biol. 152, 167–187 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A. Critical depth in the jumbo squid, Dosidicus gigas (Ommastrephidae), living in oxygen minimum zones II. Blood-oxygen binding. Deep Sea Res. Part II 95, 139–144 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pörtner, H.-O., Bock, C. & Mark, F. C. Oxygen- and capacity-limited thermal tolerance: bridging ecology and physiology. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 2685–2696 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Laffoley, D. & Baxter, J. M. Ocean Deoxygenation: Everyone’s Problem—Causes, Impacts, Consequences and Solutions (IUCN, 2019).Birk, M. A. Respirometry: Tools for Conducting and Analyzing Respirometry Experiments. R version 1.4.0 http://cran.r-project.org/package=respirometry (2021).Huang, B. et al. Improvements of the daily optimum interpolation sea surface temperature (DOISST) Version 2.1. J. Clim. 34, 2923–2939 (2021).
Google Scholar  More

Seasonal fluctuations in animal population dynamics are among the most fundamental attributes of life on Earth. A long recognized but poorly understood example is the dramatic seasonal fluctuation in the abundance of malaria vectors in the semi-arid savannah and Sahel regions of Africa. In these regions, the vector mosquitoes largely disappear during a prolonged 3- to 8-month dry season, when lack of rain causes the aquatic larval habitats to disappear. As a result, malaria transmission plummets. When the rains return, the mosquito vectors rapidly reappear, leading to a resurgence of malaria transmission. How the vector populations are able to persist through the prolonged dry season and rapidly rebound with the onset of rains is referred to as the ‘dry-season malaria paradox’, and has remained an enduring mystery of malariology for nearly 100 years. Writing in Nature Ecology & Evolution, Faiman et al.1 help to resolve this mystery by using an innovative isotopic labelling strategy: they demonstrate that at least approximately 20% of the local population of the malaria vector Anopheles coluzzi in the West African Sahel survive the dry season locally by undergoing summer dormancy, known as aestivation. More

Knowlton, N. et al. in Life in the World’s Oceans 65–78 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).Fisher, R. et al. Species richness on coral reefs and the pursuit of convergent global estimates. Curr. Biol. 25, 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.022 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brandl, S. J., Goatley, C. H. R., Bellwood, D. R. & Tornabene, L. The hidden half: Ecology and evolution of cryptobenthic fishes on coral reefs. Biol. Rev. 93, 1846–1873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12423 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Appeltans, W. et al. The magnitude of global marine species diversity. Curr. Biol. 22, 2189–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carvalho, S. et al. Beyond the visual: Using metabarcoding to characterize the hidden reef cryptobiome. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2697 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, M. J., Bellwood, O., Fulton, C. J. & Bellwood, D. R. Refining the invertivore: Diversity and specialisation in fish predation on coral reef crustaceans. Mar. Biol. 162, 1779–1786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2710-0 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandl, S. J. et al. Demographic dynamics of the smallest marine vertebrates fuel coral reef ecosystem functioning. Science 364, 1189–1192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav3384 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, M. J., Bellwood, D. R. & Bellwood, O. Cryptofauna of the epilithic algal matrix on an inshore coral reef, Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 31, 1007–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0924-x (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rocha, L. A. et al. Specimen collection: An essential tool. Science 344, 814–815. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6186.814 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berumen, M. L. et al. The status of coral reef ecology research in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 32, 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-013-1055-8 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paknia, O., Sh, H. R. & Koch, A. Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration. Org. Divers. Evol. 15, 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-015-0202-1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knowlton, N. & Leray, M. Censusing marine life in the twentyfirst Century. Genome 58, 238–238 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Yu, D. W. et al. Biodiversity soup: Metabarcoding of arthropods for rapid biodiversity assessment and biomonitoring. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 613–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00198.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ransome, E. et al. The importance of standardization for biodiversity comparisons: A case study using autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and metabarcoding to measure cryptic diversity on Mo’orea coral reefs, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175066 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Coker, D. J., DiBattista, J. D., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H. & Berumen, M. L. Spatial patterns of cryptobenthic coral-reef fishes in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 37, 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1647-9 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearman, J. K. et al. Cross-shelf investigation of coral reef cryptic benthic organisms reveals diversity patterns of the hidden majority. Sci. Rep. 8, 8090. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26332-5 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pearman, J. K. et al. Disentangling the complex microbial community of coral reefs using standardized Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS). Mol. Ecol. 28, 3496–3507. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15167 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Selkoe, K. A. et al. The DNA of coral reef biodiversity: Predicting and protecting genetic diversity of reef assemblages. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0354 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
DiBattista, J. D. et al. Digging for DNA at depth: Rapid universal metabarcoding surveys (RUMS) as a tool to detect coral reef biodiversity across a depth gradient. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6379 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
DiBattista, J. D. et al. Assessing the utility of eDNA as a tool to survey reef-fish communities in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 36, 1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1618-1 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nester, G. M. et al. Development and evaluation of fish eDNA metabarcoding assays facilitate the detection of cryptic seahorse taxa (family: Syngnathidae). Environ. DNA 2, 614–626 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
West, K. M. et al. eDNA metabarcoding survey reveals fine-scale coral reef community variation across a remote, tropical island ecosystem. Mol. Ecol. 29, 1069–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15382 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DiBattista, J. D. et al. Environmental DNA can act as a biodiversity barometer of anthropogenic pressures in coastal ecosystems. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64858-9 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spalding, M. et al. Mapping the global value and distribution of coral reef tourism. Mar. Policy 82, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. & Willerslev, E. Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biol. Cons. 183, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8048 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Monroe, A. A. et al. In situ observations of coral bleaching in the central Saudi Arabian Red Sea during the 2015/2016 global coral bleaching event. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195814 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roth, F. et al. Coral reef degradation affects the potential for reef recovery after disturbance. Mar. Environ. Res. 142, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.09.022 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Foster, T. & Gilmour, J. P. Seeing red: Coral larvae are attracted to healthy-looking reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 559, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11902 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karcher, D. B. et al. Nitrogen eutrophication particularly promotes turf algae in coral reefs of the central Red Sea. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8737 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pancrazi, I., Ahmed, H., Cerrano, C. & Montefalcone, M. Synergic effect of global thermal anomalies and local dredging activities on coral reefs of the Maldives. Marine Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111585 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vercelloni, J. et al. Forecasting intensifying disturbance effects on coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 2785–2797. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15059 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
González-Barrios, F. J., Cabral-Tena, R. A. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Recovery disparity between coral cover and the physical functionality of reefs with impaired coral assemblages. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15431 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rice, M. M., Ezzat, L. & Burkepile, D. E. Corallivory in the anthropocene: Interactive effects of anthropogenic stressors and corallivory on coral reefs. Front. Marine Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00525 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y.-J. et al. Long-term ecological changes in fishes and macro-invertebrates in the world’s warmest coral reefs. Sci. Total Environ. 750, 142254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142254 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: A synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12073 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Handley, L. L. How will the “molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording?. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 115, 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12516 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ducklow, H. W., Doney, S. C. & Steinberg, D. K. Contributions of long-term research and time-series observations to marine ecology and biogeochemistry. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163801 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, B. B. et al. Long-term studies contribute disproportionately to ecology and policy. Bioscience 67, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw185 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct. Ecol. 29, 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12345 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00608.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vellend, M. The Theory of Ecological Communities (MPB-57). (Princeton University Press, 2016).Condon, R. H. et al. Recurrent jellyfish blooms are a consequence of global oscillations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 1000–1005. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210920110 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boero, F., Kraberg, A. C., Krause, G. & Wiltshire, K. H. Time is an affliction: Why ecology cannot be as predictive as physics and why it needs time series. J. Sea Res. 101, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2014.07.008 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearman, J. K., Anlauf, H., Irigoien, X. & Carvalho, S. Please mind the gap – Visual census and cryptic biodiversity assessment at central Red Sea coral reefs. Mar. Environ. Res. 118, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.04.011 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
David, R. et al. Lessons from photo analyses of autonomous reef monitoring structures as tools to detect (bio-)geographical, spatial, and environmental effects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.066 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pennesi, C. & Danovaro, R. Assessing marine environmental status through microphytobenthos assemblages colonizing the autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and their potential in coastal marine restoration. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 125, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.001 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chang, J. J. M., Ip, Y. C. A., Bauman, A. G. & Huang, D. MinION-in-ARMS: Nanopore sequencing to expedite barcoding of specimen-rich macrofaunal samples from Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures. Front. Marine Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00448 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hazeri, G. et al. Latitudinal species diversity and density of cryptic crustacean (Brachyura and Anomura) in micro-habitat Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures across Kepulauan Seribu, Indonesia. Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers. 20 (2019).Al-Rshaidat, M. M. D. et al. Deep COI sequencing of standardized benthic samples unveils overlooked diversity of Jordanian coral reefs in the northern Red Sea. Genome 59, 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0208 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pearman, J. K. et al. Pan-regional marine benthic cryptobiome biodiversity patterns revealed by metabarcoding Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15692 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leray, M. & Knowlton, N. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of standardized samples reveal patterns of marine benthic diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 2076–2081. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424997112 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Obst, M. et al. A marine biodiversity observation network for genetic monitoring of hard-bottom communities (ARMS-MBON). Front. Marine Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.572680 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Ecological memory modifies the cumulative impact of recurrent climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0351-2 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T. & Simpson, T. Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef. Ecology 99, 501–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2092 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Furby, K. A., Bouwmeester, J. & Berumen, M. L. Susceptibility of central Red Sea corals during a major bleaching event. Coral Reefs 32, 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0998-5 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Froehlich, C. Y. M., Klanten, O. S., Hing, M. L., Dowton, M. & Wong, M. Y. L. Uneven declines between corals and cryptobenthic fish symbionts from multiple disturbances. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95778-x (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R. et al. Coral recovery may not herald the return of fishes on damaged coral reefs. Oecologia 170, 567–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2306-z (2012).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Archana, A. & Baker, D. M. Multifunctionality of an urbanized coastal marine ecosystem. Front. Marine Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.557145 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Servis, J. A., Reid, B. N., Timmers, M. A., Stergioula, V. & Naro-Maciel, E. Characterizing coral reef biodiversity: Genetic species delimitation in brachyuran crabs of Palmyra Atoll Central Pacific. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 31, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2020.1769087 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaves-Fonnegra, A. et al. Bleaching events regulate shifts from corals to excavating sponges in algae-dominated reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13962 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. & Morgan, K. M. Post-bleaching coral community change on southern Maldivian reefs: Is there potential for rapid recovery?. Coral Reefs 36, 1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1610-9 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DeCarlo, T. M. The past century of coral bleaching in the Saudi Arabian central Red Sea. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10200 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cortés, J. et al. in Coral Reefs of the Eastern Tropical Pacific: Persistence and Loss in a Dynamic Environment (eds Peter W. Glynn, Derek P. Manzello, & Ian C. Enochs) 203–250 (Springer Netherlands, 2017).Enochs, I. C. & Manzello, D. P. Species richness of motile cryptofauna across a gradient of reef framework erosion. Coral Reefs 31, 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0886-z (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Timmers, M. A. et al. Biodiversity of coral reef cryptobiota shuffles but does not decline under the combined stressors of ocean warming and acidification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2103275118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103275118 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Khalil, M. T., Bouwmeester, J. & Berumen, M. L. Spatial variation in coral reef fish and benthic communities in the central Saudi Arabian Red Sea. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3410 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roik, A. et al. Year-long monitoring of physico-chemical and biological variables provide a comparative baseline of coral reef functioning in the central Red Sea. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163939 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Largier, J. L. Considerations in estimating larval dispersal distances from oceanographic data. Ecol. Appl. 13, S71–S89 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. Patterns of relative species abundance in rainforests and coral reefs. Nature 450, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06197 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alsaffar, Z., Cúrdia, J., Borja, A., Irigoien, X. & Carvalho, S. Consistent variability in beta-diversity patterns contrasts with changes in alpha-diversity along an onshore to offshore environmental gradient: The case of Red Sea soft-bottom macrobenthos. Mar. Biodivers. 49, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-017-0791-3 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alsaffar, Z. et al. The role of seagrass vegetation and local environmental conditions in shaping benthic bacterial and macroinvertebrate communities in a tropical coastal lagoon. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70318-1 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rocha, L. A. et al. Mesophotic coral ecosystems are threatened and ecologically distinct from shallow water reefs. Science 361, 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1614 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Soininen, J., Lennon, J. J. & Hillebrand, H. A multivariate analysis of beta diversity across organisms and environments. Ecology 88, 2830–2838. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1730.1 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chust, G. et al. Dispersal similarly shapes both population genetics and community patterns in the marine realm. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28730 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gianuca, A. T., Declerck, S. A. J., Lemmens, P. & De Meester, L. Effects of dispersal and environmental heterogeneity on the replacement and nestedness components of beta-diversity. Ecology 98, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1666 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Enochs, I. C., Toth, L. T., Brandtneris, V. W., Afflerbach, J. C. & Manzello, D. P. Environmental determinants of motile cryptofauna on an eastern Pacific coral reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 438, 105-U127. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09259 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22901 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fabricius, K. E. Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: Review and synthesis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.11.028 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chaidez, V., Dreano, D., Agusti, S., Duarte, C. M. & Hoteit, I. Decadal trends in Red Sea maximum surface temperature. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25731-y (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hubbell, S. P. in Monographs in Population Biology. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography Vol. 32 Monographs in Population Biology i-xiv, 1–375 (2001).Dornelas, M., Connolly, S. R. & Hughes, T. P. Coral reef diversity refutes the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 440, 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04534 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baselga, A. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1324–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12207 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hollander, M. & Wolfe, D. A. Nonparametric statistical methods. Ergonomics 18, 701–702 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Kohler, K. E. & Gill, S. M. Coral point count with excel extensions (CPCe): A visual basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Comput. Geosci. 32, 1259–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.009 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Geller, J., Meyer, C., Parker, M. & Hawk, H. Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12138 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hao, X., Jiang, R. & Chen, T. Clustering 16S rRNA for OTU prediction: A method of unsupervised Bayesian clustering. Bioinformatics 27, 611–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq725 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Ranwez, V., Harispe, S., Delsuc, F. & Douzery, E. J. P. MACSE: Multiple alignment of coding SEquences accounting for frameshifts and stop codons. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022594 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Machida, R. J., Leray, M., Ho, S. L. & Knowlton, N. Data Descriptor: Metazoan mitochondrial gene sequence reference datasets for taxonomic assignment of environmental samples. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.27 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00062-07 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Generate High-Resolution Venn and Euler Plots v. 1.6.20 (2018).Ginestet, C. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. Stat. Soc. 174, 245–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00676_9.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 26, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hervé, M. Testing and plotting procedures for biostatistics v. 0.9-79. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RVAideMemoire/index.html (2021).De Caceres, M. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1823.1 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Anderson, M. J. Distance-based redundancy analysis: Testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 69, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0001:dbratm]2.0.co;2 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, D. Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology v. 2.0-1. Retrieved from http://ecology.msu.montana.edu/labdsv/R (2019).Dray, S., Bauman, D., Blanchet, G., Borcard, D., Clappe, S., Guenard, G. & Wagner, H. Adespatial: Multivariate multiscale spatial analysis v. 0.3-13. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=adespatial (2021). More

Overview of U.S. domestic migration flowsThe most recent ACS county-to-county flow dataset26 reports that about 45.6 million people migrated to the U.S. per year during the period 2015–2019, which corresponds to 14.2% of the U.S. population27. Approximately 43.5 million annual moves corresponded to domestic migration (moves within the U.S.28), while 2.1 million accounted for inflows of individuals from other countries (viz. international immigration).With respect to domestic migration, 25.7 million people per year migrated within the same county, thus showing that the highest share of domestic flows (59%) is intra-county. Annually, about 10.4 people moved between different counties within the same state, thus intra-state flows account for 24% of the domestic migration (Supplementary Fig. 1), mainly driven by the search for more affordable housing, better jobs, and for family reasons such as change in marital status29. Long distance moves, captured by inter-state flows, represent the remaining 17% of domestic flows, which comprises about 7.5 million moves per year. Here, we will refer to these domestic migration flows as inflows or outflows, and netflows (inflows-outflows).The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) classifies counties as metropolitan, micropolitan, or neither30. A metropolitan statistical area contains a core urban area of at least 50,000 population. A metro area represents a functional delineation of an urban area with a network of strong socioeconomic ties, and provision of infrastructure services31,32,33. A micropolitan statistical area contains an urban core of at lest 10,000 but less than 50,000 inhabitants. There are over 380 metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S., each composed of one or more counties, accounting for about 86% of the total U.S. population and comprising approximately 28% of the land area of the country. For this reason, our analysis focuses on the growth dynamics of MSA counties. Supplementary Fig. 2 shows the 3141 counties (administrative subdivisions of the states) in the U.S., comprising about 321 million inhabitants in the starting year of the ACS 5-Year survey period (2015–2019) of our analysis26.Population growth has two components, namely natural growth and migration. Natural growth accounts for births minus deaths, and migration comprises domestic and international migration. With recent trends showing that births and natural increase have declined in the U.S. and in recent years contribute less to overall city population growth34,35, migration patterns become more relevant to the study of city population growth. Because the ACS flow files contain international inflows only, the relative importance of migrations on population growth is here addressed by x = ∣Inflows−Outflows∣/∣Births−Deaths∣ (Supplementary Figs. 3, 4), which is the ratio between domestic netflows and natural growth. The statistical distribution of this quantity computed for all U.S. counties is well fitted by a lognormal distribution, and shows that x≥1 for 76.5% of counties. For most counties, domestic migration dominates population growth, and understanding the spatial structure of domestic netflows (and their distribution within a city) is crucial to the comprehension of the mechanisms behind the heterogeneity of city population growth.At this spatial granularity, we observe a strong heterogeneity among the U.S. counties (Supplementary Fig. 2) for the period 2015 − 2019, along with examples of specific MSAs. In particular, the relative dispersion of counties relative growth due to netflows is higher than one for about 85% of the metro areas, indicating a large heterogeneity within the same city and pointing towards the spatial structure of domestic migration. The observed difference in the netflows stresses the relevance of our approach: counties belonging to the same city may have specific growth rates due to population flow patterns, thus indicating preferential flow destinations and pinpointing the direction in which the city has expanded.Heterogeneity of inter- and intra-city flowsInter-city flows represent the major component of the total flows (~55%), while intra-city flows represent ~25%. Flows between metro and micro areas, and between metro and non-statistical areas are the smallest components, with ~13% and ~7%, respectively. Given that about 80% of the domestic migration are composed of intra- and inter-city flows, we will focus our attention on describing the structure of intra- and inter-city flows, but in the Supplementary Information we offer a brief analysis of flows between metro and micro areas, and between metro and non-statistical areas.Inter-city flows are not uniform across the U.S. cities. The most intense annual netflows ( >2000 people per year), accounting for approximately 17% of the entire inter-city U.S. netflows, are mainly from New York and Chicago to California and Florida (Fig. 2), and from Los Angeles to neighboring cities. Notably, netflows among the Midwestern cities are mostly negative and below the threshold we set. These flows are mainly responsible for increasing or decreasing the population of a given city. Intra-city flow patterns, illustrated with the 7 most populous U.S. cities with more than 5 counties, are also non-uniform.Fig. 2: Heterogeneity of inter- and intra-city netflows.The map (A) suggests that the domestic redistribution of people between different U.S. metro areas are non-uniform: the black arrows, indicating the direction of the most intense inter-city netflows (higher than 2000 people per year), reveal migration trends from northern and eastern cities to western and southern regions. Cities (composed of one or more counties) are colored according to the relative growth (viz. population growth adjusted by population) of the whole MSA during the 2015–2019 period, and the black intensity and the thickness of the arrows are proportional to the netflows. Alaska and Hawaii are not shown. Panels (B–H), which are close-up of New York (B), Chicago (C), Dallas (D), Houston (E), Washington D.C. (F), Philadelphia (G), Atlanta (H), suggest that the most intense intra-city netflows are oriented radially outwards: people are moving from core to external counties. Here, counties are colored according to their relative growth in the 2015–2019 period and the width of the arrows is proportional to the netflows between origin and destination counties.Full size imageOur analysis reveals that city centers (defined as the core county with the highest population density) are more likely to have negative netflows, indicating that people are leaving the central regions of cities. The arrows in Fig. 2 indicate the direction of the most intense netflows, supporting this finding and highlighting that there is a trend of people moving from internal to external regions, contributing to population growth and spatial expansion of U.S. cities. In fact, we found no correlation between relative population growth (viz. population growth by county size) and distance from the core county (Supplementary Fig. 5A) for the 46 cities with more than 5 counties, with relative growth about 0.03 ± 0.05. On the other hand, we found that relative natural growth (Supplementary Fig. 5B) is negatively correlated with the distance to core county, thus natural growth is less relevant as a component of growth in the outer regions of cities. Consequently, our results show that not only the contribution of each component of growth changes with distance to core county, but also that the internal redistribution of people is an important mechanism of growth, mainly in the external counties.We also examined variability in inter- and intra-city flows within the 50 states (Supplementary Fig. 6). Total flows within a state increase, as expected, with the state population. Two special cases are, however, of interest: (1) two states (Vermont and Rhode Island) with small populations have only one MSA, in which case within-state inter-city flows are zero; and (2) nearly 40%, or 149, of MSAs have only one county, in which case intra-city flows could not be estimated. For all other cases, we observe on average an equal split between inter- and intra-city flows, but with considerable variability among the states, with a mean about 0.5 and standard deviation about 0.2. A generalization of the intra- and inter-city migratory patterns for all 46 cities with more than 5 counties shows that the percentage of migrants from intra- and inter-city flows are of the same order of magnitude (Fig. 3).Fig. 3: Roles of intra- and inter-city flows in driving the heterogeneous population growth of cities.We define the core county as the one with the highest population density, and we plot the percentage of inflows due to intra- (A) and inter-city flows (B) of each county within a city as a function of its distance to the core county. The percentage of outflows due to intra- and inter-city flows are shown in (C) and (D), respectively. The positive correlation of the relative growth with distance due to intra-city flows in (E), along with the lack of correlation due to inter-city flows in (F), indicates that intra-city flows are mainly responsible for increasing the population in the external regions of cities. The sizes of red circles and blue squares are proportional to the city population. The range of distances is split into equally spaced bins. The number of counties n within each bin, from left to right, is 46, 1, 4, 7, 7, 17, 21, 31, 36, 38, 34, 31, 31, 30, 20, 20, 21, 14, 17, 9, 9, 6, 4, 2, 5, 5, 2, 1. The black dots and the error bars indicate the mean and the 90% interval, respectively, of the counties within the corresponding bin. We also show the Pearson correlation coefficient R and the p-value associated with the two-sided test of the null hypothesis of non-correlation.Full size imageApart from the core county, flows from the same city correspond to about 50% of the inflow of people in the counties, presenting a slightly positive correlation with their distance from the city center (Fig. 3A). The low percentage for the core county indicates that it is not the major destination of flows from the same city. The percentage of inflows from other cities is higher in the core county and decays as we move towards the suburbs (Fig. 3B). The moderate negative correlation of this percentage with the distance reveals that inflows from other cities are more likely to concentrate in the core regions of a city.The percentage of outflows directed from the core county to other counties within the same city has a slightly negative correlation with the distance of the origin county to the city center, so it is more likely to find intra-city flows with outflows from internal regions (Fig. 3C). The core county is an exception again, suggesting that it is less likely that someone leaving the core county will move to another county within the same city. The slightly negative correlation of the percentage of outflows directed to other cities suggests that there is a trend of people leaving the core county and the central regions to move to other cities (Fig. 3D). The high percentage of inflows (Fig. 3B) and outflows (Fig. 3D) in the central region due to inter-city flows implies that the central regions of cities are more dynamic and diverse and that people tend to move to counties with similar levels of urbanization. The same pattern is observed for flows between metro and micro areas, and for metro and non-statistical areas, allowing us to conclude that people moving from rural areas are more likely to move to the external regions of a city (Supplementary Fig. 7).The positive correlation of the relative growth with the distance due to intra-city flows (Fig. 3E) shows that the resulting intra-city redistribution of people, given by the difference between inflows and outflows, is such that there is a trend from core county to the external counties (viz. suburbs). When compared to the relative growth due to inter-city flows (Fig. 3F), which do not show any trend and that have negative values for the most distant counties, it becomes clear that intra-city flows play a major role in the population increase observed in outer regions of cities. Interestingly, large circle and square dots in Fig. 3E and F suggest that the loss of people due to inter-city netflows is more intense than the gain of people due to intra-city netflows in some external counties of the largest metro areas, thus explaining the population decline in some outer regions of New York and Chicago (as shown in Fig. 2B and C).The population growth due to intra-city flows is also depicted in Fig. 4. The concentration of flows below the diagonal captures the heterogeneity and the preferential destination of intra-city netflows. We observe that people are more likely to move to lower population density counties when moving from one place to another within the same city, as exemplified by 7 cities in panel A. Panel B summarizes this analysis for the 46 cities with more than 5 counties by showing the fraction ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) of intra-city netflows to lower density counties. We note that more than 93% of the cities have ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}} > 0.5) and that there is a positive correlation of ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) with the city population, and C shows the rank of cities according to the fraction of intra-city netflows to lower density counties.Fig. 4: People are moving to counties with lower population density.A The population density of the origin (ρo) and destination (ρd) counties of intra-city netflows for New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, reveal that the majority of the flows occur from high to low-density counties. The size of the symbols are proportional to the intensity of the netflow, and the black line corresponds to y = x. B The fraction of netflows to lower density counties ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) has a positive correlation with city population when we consider the 46 MSAs with more than 5 counties, suggesting that intra-city netflows to lower density counties are more frequent as the city size increases. We also show the Pearson correlation coefficient R and the p-value associated with the two-sided test of the null hypothesis of non-correlation. C The ranking of the cities according to ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}).Full size imagePopulation density does not seem to play a major role in driving flows between counties of different cities. The fraction of inter-city netflows to lower density counties is about 57% when we consider all the 384 MSAs. The heterogeneity in the inter-city netflow pattern can be assessed by analyzing ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) versus the population of the destination city (Fig. 5A, B) and ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) versus the population of the origin city (Fig. 5C, D). The negative correlation of ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) with the population of the destination city in panel A indicates that inflows are more likely to come from lower density counties as the destination city size increases. The positive correlation of ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) with the population of the origin city in panel C reveals that outflows tend to be directed to lower density counties as the origin city size increases. The trends observed in panels A and C reveal that inter-city flows are more likely between counties with different population densities rather than between counties with similar population densities. Panels B and D show the rank order of cities according to a function of the destination city size and the origin city size, respectively.Fig. 5: Inter-city flow patterns depend on the population size of the origin and destination cities.Each point corresponds to a particular city. A Fraction ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) of netflows going to lower density counties versus the population of the destination city. Inflows to counties of large cities (with population greater than 106, dashed line) usually comes from counties with lower population densities. B Rank of cities according to the share of inflows from lower density counties. C Fraction ({{{{{{{mathcal{F}}}}}}}}) versus the population of the origin city. Outflows from counties of large cities usually go to cities with lower density counties. D The rank of cities according to the share of inter-city netflows to lower density counties is presented. The dots are colored according to the city population density (darker red means higher density). We also show the Pearson correlation coefficient R and the p-value associated with the two-sided test of the null hypothesis of non-correlation.Full size imageWe would expect that there might be preferential locations within a given city to which people move due to various factors such as lower costs of housing and employment opportunities. However, it seems that house prices have little to no effect on intra-city netflows (Supplementary Fig. 8). While the fraction of intra-city netflows to counties with less expensive houses is about 0.8 for cities like New York, Chicago and Washington, this fraction is about 0.2 for cities like Dallas, Houston and Philadelphia. The lack of a clear national pattern highlights the specificity of each city and the heterogeneity of the regional housing market in the U.S.36,37. On the other hand, the fraction of intra-city netflows to counties with lower unemployment rates is higher than 0.5 for about 2/3 of the cities (Supplementary Fig. 9), thus showing that people are more likely to move to counties with lower unemployment rates.Statistical structure of inter-city flowsIntra-city flows capture the internal redistribution of population, without altering the total city population. In this context, we focus on inter-city flows to investigate whether or not extreme flows play an important role in shaping the growth of counties as observed at the city level5. For cities, Verbavatz and Barthelemy5 introduce a stochastic equation to describe population growth, composed of two terms. The first term accounts for out-of-system growth, which includes natural growth and international migration, and the second term accounts for the growth due to domestic netflows. They find that total netflows adjusted by population size can be well approximated by a Lévy distribution, and this heavy-tailed distribution indicates that rare and extreme inter-city flows (viz. migratory shocks) dominate city population growth.Here, we find that, for counties, the distribution of total netflows adjusted by population size, which is represented by ζi and captures the intensity of inter-city migratory flows (see the section “Methods” for details), can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution (Fig. 6). The lack of a heavy tail in the empirical distribution of ζi suggests the absence of extreme flows at the county level, thus indicating that the growth of counties can be described by smoother migratory process than cities. Given that cities do experience migratory shocks5, our findings indicate that cities redistribute inflows among its different counties, leading to a spill-over effect that dampens flow shocks at the county level.Fig. 6: Extreme shocks are dissipated at the county level.The distribution of ζi, which is the sum of the netflows of a county i adjusted by its population, suggests that migratory events are exponentially bounded at the county level since ζi is well described by a Gaussian distribution. The distribution of ζi is computed here for all the counties with at least 50.000 inhabitants. We also show the result of the two-sided KS test under the null hypothesis that ζi follows a Gaussian distribution.Full size imageHeterogeneity of international inflowsThe highest share of international inflows is concentrated in large cities. About 40% of the international inflows are destined to the top 10 (~2.6%) largest metro areas of the U.S. New York is the first with 8.5% of international inflows, followed by Los Angeles and Miami with 5.4% and 5.0%, respectively. Indeed, international inflows Yk scale superlinearly with the population Sk of the metro area k (Fig. 7A), thus larger cities have more immigrants per capita than smaller cities.Fig. 7: International inflow scales superlinearly with city size.Panel (A) shows the number of international immigrants as a function of the city size S for the 384 U.S. metro areas. The performance of the model Y = Y0Sθ, in which θ = 1.19 (95% CI [1.13, 1.24]) and Y0 = 4.10−4 is a normalization constant, is assessed by the coefficient of determination R2. Note that the spread of empirical data around the model narrows as the size of the city increases. Panel (B) shows the rank of the metro areas and the residues, which captures the deviation from the null model thus highligthing cities receiving more/less than expected international inflows. Names of the cities are followed by two-letter state abbreviations.Full size imageInterestingly, this gain with scale is also observed in socioeconomic city metrics as crime, GDP, innovation and wealth creation due to the manifestation of nonlinear agglomeration phenomena38,39,40. Using Y = Y0Sθ as a null model, we can compute deviations from the average behavior by means of residuals given by (log ({Y}_{k}/{Y}_{0}{S}_{k}^{theta }))38. The rank of the residues (Fig. 7B) shows that college towns are among the top metro areas receiving more international inflows than expected, while large cities as Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and Chicago are among the metro areas receiving less international inflows than expected.The spatial distribution of international inflows within cities is shown in Supplementary Fig. 10. The highest share of inflows is concentrated at core counties, and the percentage of inflows decreases dramatically with the distance from the core county. This result suggests that inflow of international migrants is an important component of population growth, particularly at the core regions of large cities.Robustness of our findingsPatterns of population redistribution change from time to time in the U.S., and are affected by several factors. For instance, in the 1960s non-metropolitan counties lost about 3 million people due to outflows to metropolitan counties, while the reverse trend was observed in the 1970s when non-metropolitan counties experienced net inflows of about 2.6 million people41. Wardwell and Brown in41 indicate that three factors might be among the main reasons of such change, namely economic decentralization, preference for rural living, and modernization of rural life. The temporal influence of factors as socioeconomic conditions, transportation infrastructure, natural amenities, and land use and development on population growth in rural and suburban areas is explored in42. Changes in rural migration patterns are also studied in43, where age-specific rural migration patterns from 1950 to 1995 are analyzed. In44, the authors explore redistribution trends across U.S. counties from 1980 to 1995 split into three five year periods (1980–1985, 1985–1990, 1990–1995), and45 analyzes changes in age-specific nationwide migration patterns from 1950 to 2010.The spatial structure of migration patterns may indeed change from time to time; our results correspond to the current intra- and inter-city redistribution trends, based on the most recent ACS migration flow files. We present a thorough empirical and statistical analysis of domestic migration flows among U.S. cities ans counties. Our study also introduces a framework that can be used for analyzing and comparing internal redistribution of people across different time periods. Indeed, we extended our analysis for two other time periods, 2005–2009 and 2010–2014. With respect to the spatial distribution of intra- and inter-city flows, similar trends are observed in both periods (Supplementary Figs. 12, 13), namely inter-city flows are responsible for the highest share of inflows to core counties, and intra-city flows are responsible for the highest share of inflows to external counties. We also explored the role of population density in driving netflows between counties within the same metro area in 2005–2009 and 2010–2014. The results (Supplementary Figs. 14 and 15) indicate that 95.7% of cities were dominated by intra-city moves to lower density counties in 2005–2009, and this percentage dropped to 76.1% in 2010–2014. Our findings indicate that the trends we report here are taking place since 2005 but with different intensities.The robustness of our findings is checked with additional migration data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which reports the year-to-year address changes on individual tax returns filled with the IRS46. The results obtained with the analysis of IRS datasets from periods 2015–2016, 2016–2017, 2017–2018, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Figs. 16, 17, 18, 19), reveal similar trends to those we found using ACS data. Particularly, we observe that, for all periods considered, the correlation between intra-city netflow/S and distance to core county is stronger than we found with ACS data, thus highlighting the role of intra-city flows in driving population to external regions of cities. The main difference between both datasets is in the percentage of intra- and inter-city inflows and outflows: while ACS data indicates that both flows have approximately the same contribution to the total flows, the IRS data indicates that, besides the core county, intra-city flows are responsible for about 80% of inflows and outflows of metro areas. More