Philippa Kaur

Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifical Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilBernardo B. N. Strassburg, Alvaro Iribarrem, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato Crouzeilles, Catarina Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Eduardo Lacerda & Agnieszka E. LatawiecInternational Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilBernardo B. N. Strassburg, Alvaro Iribarrem, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato Crouzeilles, Catarina Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Eduardo Lacerda, Agnieszka E. Latawiec, Robin L. Chazdon & Carlos Alberto de M. ScaramuzzaPrograma de Pós Graduacão em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilBernardo B. N. Strassburg, Renato Crouzeilles & Fabio R. ScaranoBotanical Garden Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilBernardo B. N. StrassburgSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaHawthorne L. BeyerAgricultural Science Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, BrazilCatarina JakovacInstitut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainAndré Braga JunqueiraDepartment of Geography, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, BrazilEduardo LacerdaDepartment of Production Engineering, Logistics and Applied Computer Science, Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Kraków, Kraków, PolandAgnieszka E. LatawiecSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKAgnieszka E. LatawiecDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKAndrew Balmford, Stuart H. M. Butchart & Paul F. DonaldInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, SwitzerlandThomas M. BrooksWorld Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of The Philippines, Los Baños, The PhilippinesThomas M. BrooksInstitute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, AustraliaThomas M. BrooksBirdLife International, Cambridge, UKStuart H. M. Butchart & Paul F. DonaldDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USARobin L. ChazdonWorld Resources Institute, Global Restoration Initiative, Washington, DC, USARobin L. ChazdonTropical Forests and People Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, AustraliaRobin L. ChazdonInstitute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, AustriaKarl-Heinz Erb & Christoph PlutzarDepartment of Forest Sciences, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, BrazilPedro BrancalionRSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Edinburgh, UKGraeme Buchanan & Paul F. DonaldSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), Montreal, Quebec, CanadaDavid CooperInstituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, ArgentinaSandra DíazUnited Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UKValerie Kapos & Lera MilesBiodiversity and Natural Resources (BNR) program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, AustriaDavid Leclère, Michael Obersteiner & Piero ViscontiDivision of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaChristoph PlutzarB.B.N.S. wrote the first version of the paper. All authors provided input on subsequent versions of the Reply. More

Chaigneau, A., Gizolme, A. & Grados, C. Mesoscale eddies off Peru in altimeter records: identification algorithms and eddy spatio-temporal patterns. Prog. Oceanogr. 79, 106–119 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McGillicuddy, D. J. Jr et al. Influence of mesoscale eddies on new production in the Sargasso Sea. Nature 394, 263–266 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dufois, F. et al. Anticyclonic eddies are more productive than cyclonic eddies in subtropical gyres because of winter mixing. Sci. Adv. 2, 1–7 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Godø, O. R. et al. Mesoscale eddies are oases for higher trophic marine life. PLoS ONE 7, e30161 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chelton, D. B., Gaube, P., Schlax, M. G., Early, J. J. & Samelson, R. M. The influence of nonlinear mesoscale eddies on near-surface oceanic chlorophyll. Science 334, 328–333 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarmiento, J. L. et al. Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 18, GB3003 (2004).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bell, J. D. et al. Diversifying the use of tuna to improve food security and public health in Pacific Island countries and territories. Mar. Policy 51, 584–591 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Della Penna, A. & Gaube, P. Mesoscale eddies structure mesopelagic communities. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 454 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Braun, C. D. et al. The functional and ecological significance of deep diving by large marine predators. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14, 129–159 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McGillicuddy, D. J. Jr Mechanisms of physical-biological-biogeochemical interaction at the oceanic mesoscale. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8, 125–159 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fennell, S. & Rose, G. Oceanographic influences on deep scattering layers across the North Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 105, 132–141 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duffy, L. M. et al. Global trophic ecology of yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore tunas: understanding predation on micronekton communities at ocean-basin scales. Deep-Sea Res. Part II Topical Stud. Oceanogr. 140, 55–73 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaube, P. et al. Mesoscale eddies influence the movements of mature female white sharks in the Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea. Sci. Rep. 8, 7363 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braun, C. D., Gaube, P., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H., Skomal, G. B. & Thorrold, S. R. Mesoscale eddies release pelagic sharks from thermal constraints to foraging in the ocean twilight zone. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 17187–17192 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Doyle, T. K. et al. Leatherback turtles satellite-tagged in European waters. Endanger. Species Res. 4, 23–31 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pauly, D. & Christensen, V. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374, 255–257 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynham, J., Nikolaev, A., Raynor, J., Vilela, T. & Villaseñor-Derbez, J. C. Impact of two of the world’s largest protected areas on longline fishery catch rates. Nat. Commun. 11, 979 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Polovina, J. J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E. A. & Woodworth, P. Increases in the relative abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific, 1996-2006. Fish. Bull. 107, 523–531 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Royer, T. C. Ocean eddies generated by seamounts in the North Pacific. Science 199, 1063–1064 (1978).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. et al. Eddy analysis in the subtropical zonal band of the North Pacific Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 68, 54–67 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernstein, R. L. & White, W. B. Time and length scales of baroclinic eddies in the central North Pacific Ocean. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 4, 613–624 (1974).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Maunder, M. N. & Punt, A. E. Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fish. Res. 70, 141–159 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodworth, P. A. et al. Eddies as offshore foraging grounds for melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra). Mar. Mammal Sci. 28, 638–647 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaube, P. et al. The use of mesoscale eddies by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the southwestern Atlantic. PLoS ONE 12, e0172839 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chambault, P. et al. Swirling in the ocean: immature loggerhead turtles seasonally target old anticyclonic eddies at the fringe of the North Atlantic Gyre. Prog. Oceanogr. 175, 345–358 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaube, P., McGillicuddy Jr, D., Chelton, D., Behrenfeld, M. & Strutton, P. Regional variations in the influence of mesoscale eddies on near-surface chlorophyll. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 119, 8195–8220 (2014).Waga, H., Kirawake, T. & Ueno, H. Impacts of mesoscale eddies on phytoplankton size structure. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13191–13198 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Irigoien, X. et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 5, 3271 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y.-lL. et al. Biologically active warm-core anticyclonic eddies in the marginal seas of the western Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part I 106, 68–84 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harke, M. J. et al. Microbial community transcriptional patterns vary in response to mesoscale forcing in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 4807–4822 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawco, N. J. et al. Iron depletion in the deep chlorophyll maximum: mesoscale eddies as natural iron fertilization experiments. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2021GB007112 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Klevjer, T. A. et al. Large scale patterns in vertical distribution and behaviour of mesopelagic scattering layers. Sci. Rep. 6, 19873 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Global satellite-observed daily vertical migrations of ocean animals. Nature 576, 257–261 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Madigan, D. J. et al. Water column structure defines vertical habitat of twelve pelagic predators in the South Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 78, 867–883 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arostegui, M., Gaube, P. & Braun, C. Movement ecology and stenothermy of satellite-tagged shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris). Fish. Res. 215, 21–26 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehodey, P., Senina, I. & Murtugudde, R. A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model (SEAPODYM)—modeling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Prog. Oceanogr. 78, 304–318 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Varghese, S. P., Somvanshi, V. S. & Dalvi, R. S. Diet composition, feeding niche partitioning and trophic organisation of large pelagic predatory fishes in the eastern Arabian Sea. Hydrobiologia 736, 99–114 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, P. & Myers, R. A. Inferring the depth distribution of catchability for pelagic fishes and correcting for variations in the depth of longline fishing gear. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 62, 1130–1142 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kai, E. T. et al. Top marine predators track Lagrangian coherent structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8245–8250 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima, I. D., Olson, D. B. & Doney, S. C. Biological response to frontal dynamics and mesoscale variability in oligotrophic environments: biological production and community structure. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 107, 25-1–25-21 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spall, S. A. & Richards, K. J. A numerical model of mesoscale frontal instabilities and plankton dynamics—I. model formulation and initial experiments. Deep-Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 47, 1261–1301 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Siegelman, L., O’Toole, M., Flexas, M., Rivière, P. & Klein, P. Submesoscale ocean fronts act as biological hotspot for southern elephant seal. Sci. Rep. 9, 5588 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lévy, M., Ferrari, R., Franks, P. J., Martin, A. P. & Rivière, P. Bringing physics to life at the submesoscale. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052756 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guidi, L. et al. Does eddy-eddy interaction control surface phytoplankton distribution and carbon export in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre? J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JG001984 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chow, C. H., Cheah, W., Tai, J. H. & Liu, S. F. Anomalous wind triggered the largest phytoplankton bloom in the oligotrophic North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Sci. Rep. 9, 15550 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guo, M., Xiu, P., Chai, F. & Xue, H. Mesoscale and submesoscale contributions to high sea surface chlorophyll in subtropical gyres. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 13217–13226 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Klein, P. et al. Ocean-scale interactions from space. Earth Space Sci. 6, 795–817 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. et al. The oceans’ twilight zone must be studied now, before it is too late. Nature 580, 26–28 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
St. John, M. A. et al. A dark hole in our understanding of marine ecosystems and their services: perspectives from the mesopelagic community. Front. Marine Sci. 3, 31 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Bigelow, K., Musyl, M. K., Poisson, F. & Kleiber, P. Pelagic longline gear depth and shoaling. Fish. Res. 77, 173–183 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brodziak, J. & Walsh, W. A. Model selection and multimodel inference for standardizing catch rates of bycatch species: a case study of oceanic whitetip shark in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 70, 1723–1740 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodworth-Jefcoats, P. A., Polovina, J. & Drazen, J. Synergy among oceanographic variability, fishery expansion, and longline catch composition in the central North Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. 116, 228–239 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boggs, C. H. Depth, capture time, and hooked longevity of longline-caught pelagic fish: timing bites of fish with chips. Fish. Bull. 90, 642–658 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Walsh, W. A. & Brodziak, J. Applications of Hawaii longline fishery observer and logbook data for stock assessment and fishery research. NOAA Tech. Memo. 57, 62 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Walsh, W. A. & Brodziak, J. Billfish CPUE standardization in the Hawaii longline fishery: model selection and multimodel inference. Fish. Res. 166, 151–162 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Fitchett, M., Cantrell, D. L. & Merrifield, M. Ecological responses to blue water MPAs. PLoS ONE 15, e0235129 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Portner, E. J., Polovina, J. J. & Choy, C. A. Patterns in micronekton diversity across the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre observed from the diet of longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox). Deep-Sea Research Part I 125, 40–51 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.3.3.0 http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/ (2020).Jackson, C. H. Multi-state models for panel data: the msm package for R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v038.i08 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ’Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-25 https://github.com/lme4/lme4/ (2020).Lenth, R. et al. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares mean. R package version 1.7.2 https://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans (2022).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); http://www.r-project.org/ More

This study proposed a protocol to evaluate the behavior of geese reared outdoors in agroforestry systems. A data collection form (i.e., BOF) was developed and validated both in relation to its reliability and its validity. In this context, moreover, ABMs useful for a welfare assessment protocol could be defined, and changes in the behavior of geese due to daily time and environmental context could be identified.Behavioral observations, based on the capture of the major changes in an animal’s body language17, are used daily in the assessment of animal health and welfare. Body language is a type of dynamic expression of the interactions among conspecifics or between animals and their environment. Behavioral changes can happen quickly or as subtle shifts not easily detectable18. Indeed, especially in the case of direct observation in the field, it becomes difficult to identify each behavioral variation. Furthermore, the on-farm use of the BOF proposed in the present study involved focal subgroup sampling, as ten geese were simultaneously observed, which may increase the difficulties. Indirect observation by videos, which allow the review of a certain action several times and the focal-animal approach, is a useful tool to partially overcome these issues and thus improve the accuracy of observation. The validation process of the BOF adopted in this study, therefore, included the definition of both its interobserver reliability and correlation with indirect observations.In this study, the direct observations in the field were performed by both an expert (i.e., main observer) and an inexperienced trained observer. As expected, the main observer was able to detect a higher frequency of behaviors, especially the rarer ones. For example, the inexperienced observer did not report any examples of allo-grooming, squawking, wagging tail, stretching, or panting behavior. However, the two observers showed excellent interobserver reliability (ICC  > 0.75). Major agreements were found for walking, roosting, and foraging. Accordingly, several studies have shown that observers with little experience can also provide a valuable contribution in observational research19,20. Overall, these results support the reliability of the BOF even if the observer’s experience helps him or her to better grasp rarer behaviors, as these behaviors could play an important role as welfare indicators.In the last two decades, important technological developments have occurred in the livestock sector. The use of sensors, cameras, and other devices can generate objective information about individual behavior, thereby allowing its evaluation in large observation areas and for large groups of animals and resulting in the better detection of natural animal behavior. Thus, in our study, the data collected by a video recording system (Noldus XT) were used as a gold standard measure to define the criterion validity of the BOF. Our results indicated excellent agreement between direct and indirect observations, supporting the BOF criterion validity. A poor correlation was only found for 2 variables (i.e., squawking and wagging tail), which were more difficult to collect by direct observation. The use of the BOF involved the simultaneous observation of 10 animals, but the geese had a synchronized behavior and moved in groups within the grazing area. This greatly facilitated focal subgroup sampling, allowed all animals to always be under observation, and could explain the high correlation between the two observation methods. However, the comparison between the observations collected in the field by the main observer and those recorded using the computerized system confirmed the greater accuracy of the latter. The analysis of the video in continuous with the use of some tools, such as the zoom or slow-motion functions, and the focal-animal sampling provided an easier identification of some behaviors and, in general, greater accuracy. Due to its nonintrusive approach, video recording has become a common practice for behavior assessment21, but it can be expensive and time-consuming. On the other hand, direct observations made by the BOF were valid and less expensive, suggesting that it could be a feasible tool with which to evaluate the welfare principle of Appropriate behavior. As recommended for welfare assessment protocols22, the BOF ethogram included indicators of both positive and negative states; however, it would be necessary to integrate it with behavioral tests and other ABMs evaluating the human-animal relationship.As mentioned above, there is no standardized geese behavior ethogram. Thus, to verify the content validity of the BOF, its behavior variables were analyzed through a PCA. The 4 extracted PCs could represent the broad behavioral dimensions of geese. In particular, the geese’s activity reported in PC1 was characterized by locomotor, foraging, and exploratory behaviors, with opposite signs with respect to roosting. The positive correlation between explorative and grazing activities and their negative correlation with static behaviors has been widely demonstrated in chickens. Chicken genotypes characterized by low exploratory aptitude exhibited low kinetic behaviors but a high frequency of roost and rest behaviors23. Göransson et al.24 showed that 50% of the observed birds exhibited sitting behavior, whereas less than 10% performed foraging activity.PC2 included all the variables that characterized the geese’s social aspects, including both positive and negative interactions. Usually, greylag geese live in a large flock because the offspring remain with their parents for an entire year. Such groups are characterized by complex relationships based on social interactions25. The formation of a group is characterized by agonistic behaviors such as fighting, pecking, and threatening, as well as submissive behaviors such as avoiding contact, crouching, and escaping26 to establish a hierarchical order. After this phase, a tolerance status develops, and birds maintain their social interactions through the use of body postures and vocalizations. Accordingly, the variables reported in PC2 were related not only to aggressive behaviors but also to geese’s vocalization and posture, which probably helped to maintain flock stability. Therefore, a higher PC2 score could indicate the need to establish and maintain a hierarchical order within the group, resulting in high social interactions.PC3 reported comfort and body care behaviors. The opportunity to spend a lot of time on body care, which should also include access to water for bathing, is of paramount importance with regard to fulfilling the biological requirements of geese27. Thus, a higher loading of this PC means that animals showed a good degree of both welfare and adaptability. In our study, a high frequency of self-cleaning and wing flapping behaviors was recorded, and the geese often took advantage of the water tub. In contrast, a very low frequency of aggression behaviors was observed, suggesting that the groups of geese were quite stable and that the animals felt safe in the environment in which they were rear. These findings confirm that agroforestry has a favorable impact on bird welfare by allowing the display of the full range of behavior, improving the animals’ comfort28.PC4 was mainly represented by the neck forward behavior. This position only occasionally represents an attack behavior and is not utilized during the establishment of hierarchical order but when it is necessary to maintain and reinforce the order inside the group. Furthermore, a goose that assumes this posture often does so while continuing another activity29. The neck forward behavior was positively associated with the stretching behavior. Stretching is usually categorized as a comfort behavior for broilers30, but it could also be used when the animal needs to relax stress-related tension in their muscles31,32 or as an adaptive strategy for dealing with unknown contexts33. Neck forward and stretching were eventually considered social avoidance behaviors, although they could be ambivalent and thus require further study, case-by-case assessment, and perhaps a better description in the ethogram.Finally, some interesting results emerged regarding the comparison of geese’s behavior during the morning and afternoon and between the two different agroforestry systems. In particular, geese showed a higher frequency of active behaviors such as walking, foraging, drinking, neck forward, and feeding during the morning compared to the afternoon. All of these behaviors suggest that geese concentrate their grazing and exploration activities during the morning. When and where to move is crucial for the food search and to avoid both predators and adverse climate conditions34. Cartoni Mancinelli et al.35 included exploratory attitude, walking, and eating grass activities in a multifactorial score as important parameters to consider to evaluate the adaptability of different organically reared chicken genotypes. Thus, exploratory and kinetic behaviors are fundamental, especially in animals reared outdoors. Moreover, the positive correlation between walking and grazing behaviors is widely known36,37. In contrast, during the afternoon, geese showed higher frequencies of static behaviors such as resting, roosting, and self-grooming, suggesting that geese are more dedicated to comfort and body care activities during this time. These trials were performed in the hottest season; thus, the geese’s behavioral differences during the day could also depend on the fact that animals preferred to carry out active behaviors during the cooler hours (morning), while in the hottest hours (afternoon), they engaged in static activities. Active behaviors cause an increase in metabolism and body temperature38, whereas static behavior, such as roosting, is considered adaptative behavior to promote heat dissipation31,39.This could also explain why higher frequencies of walking and foraging and lower frequencies of static behaviors were found in the orchard system than in the vineyard system. Studies carried out on chickens have reported that, among different pasture enrichments, the presence of trees promotes walking animal activity compared with crop inclusion40,41. The cover provided by trees made the animals feel protected from predators and provided shade during the hottest part of the day40, thereby stimulating the animals to explore all the available space in the pen. Accordingly, geese reared in the apple orchard ingested more grass than those reared in a vineyard36. However, there were no differences between the two systems for social behaviors. Moreover, the highest frequency of roosting and self-cleanliness behaviors was recorded in the vineyard, suggesting that this space offered a comfortable environment and that both systems seem respectful of the biological needs and welfare of the geese.The behavioral assessment protocol proposed in this study involving the BOF ethogram was feasible, low-cost, fast, and responsive both over time and between housing systems. It could thus be used for the assessment of Appropriate behavior in a welfare assessment protocol for geese reared in outdoor or free-range systems, although it lacks indicators of the human-animal relationship, such as avoidance distance or handling tests; such a scoring system should be developed. Regarding the specific behaviors in the two agroforestry systems, it should also be noted that they are difficult to generalize, as the characteristics of the plants, the environment, and management could have influenced these traits. Specifically, the behaviors could have been affected by the temperatures; therefore, further trials at different altitudes, seasons (i.e., autumn and winter), and climate are necessary for external validation. More

In early 2020, my colleagues and I realized that animal-tracking data collected before, during and after the pandemic lockdowns could provide invaluable insights into human–wildlife interactions and conservation benefits on a global scale. We launched a research consortium — the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative — to investigate how animals behaved while much of the world’s human population sheltered at home.But we had no way to establish how many, and which, animals were wearing tags. Miniature tracking devices are routinely attached to a vast range of species — from songbirds to whales — to collect detailed data on their movements, behaviour and physiology. Yet, of the thousands of ‘bio-loggers’ deployed every year, many generate data sets that remain effectively undiscoverable — they are saved on personal hard drives or institutional servers, inaccessible to the wider community. This problem can be solved by setting up a global registry for all tags on wild animals.Although individual tracking studies make important contributions to our understanding of the ecological needs of animal species, pooling data (across taxa, longer time periods or multiple locations) can reveal general patterns, aiding the design of particularly effective conservation strategies. For example, integrating the tracks of 4,060 animals across 17 marine species (including albatrosses, penguins, seals and whales) has helped to identify conservation priority areas in the Southern Ocean (M. A. Hindell et al. Nature 580, 87–92; 2020).In an ideal world, all animal-tracking data would be archived — with either open or restricted access — in public repositories, such as Movebank. Excellent progress has been made towards this goal, but universal uptake is hindered by time constraints, governmental or institutional restrictions and concerns over inappropriate data use.To encourage as many data owners as possible to join the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative, we launched a recruitment campaign through Movebank, social media, mailing lists, newsletters, personal contacts and a published call to action (C. Rutz et al. Nature Ecol. Evol. 4, 1156–1159; 2020). Our consortium has grown to more than 600 international collaborators, accumulating a staggering one billion location records for some 200 animal species. Despite this impressive community response, we know that this is only the tip of the iceberg.The global tag registry that I suggest would contain metadata for tags (including tag type and settings, information on the animal, and date and location of deployment), as well as researchers’ contact details — but not the actual tracking data. This decoupling of information would unlock the field’s full conservation potential in the short term and would build the trust required to allow raw data to be archived routinely in public repositories in the longer term. Over time, the tag registry is likely to evolve naturally into a ‘meta-repository’, linking to raw data sets hosted across a multitude of repositories.The registry would enable researchers to check data availability at the push of a button — for example, for a particular taxonomic group, such as terrestrial carnivores, or a specific region, such as the Pacific Ocean — and to get in touch with the relevant data owners. Registry management must comply with international best practices, so robust processes would need to be set up to vet queries, pass on collaboration proposals to data owners and minimize overlap between studies.For the registry to fulfil its intended purpose, it must be used by the entire animal-tracking community. How can this be achieved? I see an opportunity to integrate tag registration into existing ethical-review processes. Governmental authorities, research institutions, funders, publishers and fieldworkers agree that permits must be in place before animals can be tagged. Building on this international consensus, ethical review boards could make tag registration a condition of study approval.To complement this bottom-up approach, well established initiatives — such as those associated with the United Nations Environment Programme or the International Union for Conservation of Nature — could help to build an international policy mandate and provide independent oversight. The International Bio-Logging Society, which has been working to unite animal-tracking efforts on land and at sea, could provide crucial support.This vision is no doubt ambitious, but it is achievable. Every civil aircraft on the planet must be registered — so I am convinced that, with effective coordination, we can accomplish the same for tagged animals. Furthermore, the basic principle of hosting metadata, but not raw data, is being used productively by other databases, such as AviSample — a registry for biological samples collected from wild birds.Many researchers, myself included, feel a moral obligation to the animals carrying our tags. A global tag registry would help to realize the full conservation potential of all tracking data, minimize duplication of tagging efforts and facilitate sharing of welfare-related expertise. The conservation cost of missing data in large-scale collaborative projects cannot be easily measured, but is probably substantial. We simply cannot afford this, and must ensure that all animal-tracking data are immediately discoverable.

Competing Interests
This article is a contribution of the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative, which is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9881) and the National Geographic Society (NGS-82515R-20) (both grants to C.R.), and endorsed by the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. More

We used two agent-based simulation models to investigate the concepts of “cooperate for the spread” and “pay for the escape,” both were net logo models created by Dr. Susan Hanisch.Afterward, we modified the first model to represent the concept of sharing the dispersal costs. We used the second model without modifications. Instead, we assigned definite values of some parameters that highlight the pay for the escape strategy.First modelThe original model was entitled “Evolution and patchy resource”18. She first developed it for educational purposes. It illustrates the concepts of cooperator-cheater competition, natural selection, spatial structure mechanisms, multilevel selection, and founder effects.Changeable variables

Distance-resource-areas: the distance between the centers of the resource areas.

Size-resource areas: the size of resource areas as a radius in the number of patches.

Living costs: the costs that each agent has to deduct from energy per iteration for basic survival.

Mutation rate: The probability that offspring agents have different traits than their parents.

Evolution: the ability of agents to produce offspring.

Constant variables

The number of patches is 112 × 112 patches.

Carrying capacity per patch: Resource = 10, Agents = 1

The growth rate of the resource = 0.2

The resources on a patch regrow by a logistic growth function up to the carrying capacity: New resource level = current resource level + (Growth-Rate × current resource level) × (1 – (Current resource level/carrying capacity)).

The cost for producing offspring is ten subtracted units of energy.

The initial level of energy of agents is set at living costs.

Role of randomness

Agents are distributed randomly in resource areas at the beginning of a simulation.

Sustainable behavior is distributed randomly with a probability of percent sustainables among the initial agent population.

The order in which agents move and harvest within one iteration is random.

Agents move to a randomly selected patch if several patches fulfill the objectives.

The order in which agents produce offspring within one iteration is random.

Agents reproduce offspring with a probability of (0.0005 × Energy).

Agents place offspring on a randomly selected unoccupied neighboring patch.

Offspring mutate with a potential mutation rate.

Model processesIn each iteration, each agent moves around in random order. There are three likelihoods:

If there are no unoccupied patches in a two-patch radius, they stay on the current patch.

If there are unoccupied patches with resources amounting to more than living costs, the agents move to them.

If the resource amount is less than the living costs, the agents move randomly to other unoccupied patches.

The agents harvest the resources from separated patches to gain energy for metabolism and proliferation. If the energy level of any agent falls to zero, it dies. The cooperator type harvests half of the resource, while the greedy type consumes 99%.The living costs are deducted from the energy amount of the agent constantly everywhere all the time. This process occurs whether an agent moves within the patch, between the patches, or even not. Therefore, the model does not consider dispersal cost explicitly.If there is an unoccupied neighbor patch, the agent can reproduce with a probability of 0.0005 of his energy, place the offspring on the unoccupied neighbor patch, and then transfer ten units of the energy to his offspring.Resources regrow only on resource patches. When the resource amount is more than or equal to 0.1, then it regrows. When the resource is less than 0.1, its value is set to 0.1.Output diagrams and monitors

The average energy of agents: average energy levels of sustainable and greedy agents, resulting from resource harvest minus living costs and reproduction.

Trait frequencies: the relative frequencies of sustainable and greedy agents in the total population, resulting from mutations, different reproduction rates, and death.

Agent population: the absolute number of the total population size resulting from reproduction and death.

ModificationsIn the first modification, we added a different type of cost that agents only incur when they disperse from one patch to another (in-between the patches). It is the slider entitled “dispersal costs”.In the second modification, we added another sharing dispersal costs tool to reduce them by dividing their value by the number of included agents (flock-mates) in the identified range from the same type. It is the slider entitled “group-dispersal-range.” which is the flock mate’s areas as a radius in the number of patches. Therefore, changing the value of the group dispersal range will change the area around every agent. Accordingly, the number of its flock mates who share the dispersal costs also adjusts.The group dispersal range is not confined to greedy agents but applies to all agents. Therefore, it represents the case of the wild-type cooperators who can also cooperate for the spread. The group dispersal range also does not only target the agents in between patches. However, it counts the agents inside and outside the patches. For example, once an agent starts its dispersion with a determined range containing ten agents, four from another type, three non-dispersal agents from the same type that existed inside a patch, and three dispersal agents from the same type outside the patches. The dispersal costs for this agent will be divided by 6.Our assumption that non-dispersal agents at the pre-departure stage share dispersion costs with dispersal agents; seems justified because they reap mutual benefits by reducing kin competition inside patches if they promote the migrators. However, can agents remotely pay the dispersion costs? Yes. For instance, some bacterial species can trigger the migration of other species if located in their vicinity, even if the two bacterial colonies are separated by a barrier19,20 or if they are non-motile21. On the other hand, dispersion is an extended process with many factors, including escape from predators, suppression of host defense mechanisms, and production of biosurfactants to reduce surface tension to facilitate motility. Therefore, the agent’s contribution (inside/outside the patches) to support such factors is considered a shared dispersal cost.Finally, cheaters can arise within cooperator patches by mutation or immigration. Therefore, to investigate the efficacy of migration, the mutation rate value should be 0 to cancel its effect in the meta-population dynamics.Second modelThe model is entitled “Evolution, resources, monitoring, and punishment.”22 is a simulation of a population with four types of agents competing for the same resource. It demonstrates many concepts, such as kin selection, cooperation, selfishness, public good, monitoring, punishment, sharing the costs, positive/negative frequency-dependent selection, and multilevel selection. The four agent colors and types: (1) Red: greedy, non-punishing. (2) Orange: greedy, punishing. (3) Turquoise: sustainable, non-punishing. (4) Green: sustainable, punishing.Punishing agents can perceive other agents in their environment to some degree (perception accuracy) and react to their behavior. There are three kinds of punishment: Punishers can kill agents with greedy harvesting behavior, stop them from harvesting in the next iteration, or have them pay a penalty fee to their neighbors.Agents have a cost (energy) to pay for, both detection and punishment, so this behavior is altruistic. Punisher agents of one type share punishment costs equally.Changeable variables

Death rate: the probability that agents die independent of their energy level.

Carrying capacity: the maximum amount of resource units on a patch from 1 to 100.

Growth rate: the rate at which resources on patches regrow. The maximum sustainable yield is calculated based on the carrying capacity and growth rate.

Harvest-sustainable: the number of resource units harvested by sustainable agents.

Harvest-greedy: the number of resource units harvested by sustainable agents.

Perception accuracy: the probability with which punishing agents notice greedy agents.

Costs-perception: the costs in units of energy, punishing agents have to pay for perceiving other agents.

Costs-punishment: the costs as units of energy that punishing agents have to pay in each iteration to punish other agents. All punishing agents of an agent divide the costs of punishment.

Punishment: the kinds of punishing behavior that punishing agents perform.

Fine: if the kind of punishment is “pay fine”, the fine in energy units that punished agents have to pay (shared between all their neighbors).

Living costs and mutation rate: see the first model.

Constant variables

The number of patches: There are 60 × 60 patches in the world.

The initial energy level of agents is set at living costs + 1.

The initial number of resource units on a patch is set to the carrying capacity.

The resources on a patch regrow: see the first model.

Role of randomness* In addition to items in the first model.

Agents take on their traits (harvest preference and ability to notice and punish) randomly based on the probability of percent-sustainable and percent-punishers.

The order in which punishing agents notice greedy agents within one iteration is random.

Greedy agents are noticed by punishing agents with a probability of perception accuracy.

The order in which detected greedy agents are punished within one iteration is random.

Agents produce offspring with a probability of (0.001 × Energy).

Agents die with a probability of (death-rate).

Model processesIn each iteration, each agent attempts to harvest resources from the patches it is on and the eight neighboring patches until the harvest preference level is reached, except for the punished agent with the sanction (suspend harvest once), its harvest amount = 0 in the current iteration. If the amount of resources available is lower than the amount that the unpunished agent attempts to harvest. Then, the agent moves to a neighboring unoccupied patch with the most resources after losing one energy unit as a move cost.Punishers pay the costs of perceiving the greedy agents. The greedy neighbors have been noticed with the probability of perception accuracy. The agent lost an amount of energy as living costs. The agent dies with the likelihood of death rate or if the energy level falls to zero.If there is an unoccupied neighbor patch, the agent can reproduce with a probability of 0.001 of its energy, place the offspring on the unoccupied neighbor patch, and then transfer half of its energy to its offspring that mutate according to the probability of the mutation rate.Resources regrow on all patches. When the resource amount is more than or equal to 0.1, then it regrows. When the resource is less than 0.1, its value is set to 0.1.Output diagrams and monitors

Populations (% of carrying capacity): the state of the resource and the agent population in the world as a percentage of total carrying capacity resulting from resource harvesting behavior and resource regrowth, agent reproduction, and death.

Average harvest per iteration: the average harvested amounts of agents per iteration by trait, resulting from harvested resource units, minus costs for monitoring and punishing (for punishing agents), minus fines (for punished agents in case of punishment “Pay fine”)

The average energy of agents and trait frequencies: see the first model.

How does the model represent a conditional defector strategy?The model aims to highlight the role of kin selection and punishment mechanisms in supporting cooperation evolution against cheats. We did not need to modify the model but just thought about what the conditional defector should do to upside down the game. The answer was to pay for the escape.For instance, if the standard Harvest-greedy of a cheater (greedy, non-punishing) was 13 and the Perception-accuracy of its actual punishers was 75%. Now suppose this cheater faces troubles, and it cannot dominate. However, if it gives up some of its profit to become 12, to escape punishment, and to reduce the perception accuracy to 60%, it could dominate and take over the population.The conditional cheater can pay something and reduce its profit to escape punishment by reducing perception accuracy if there is a positive correlation between these two variables. Therefore, this model is appropriate if it can support/deny such a correlation. More

RESEARCH BRIEFINGS
07 September 2022

A diverse range of marine predators — including tunas, billfishes and sharks — in the North Pacific Ocean cluster together in clockwise-rotating eddies, seemingly to hunt deep-ocean prey, which are unusually abundant there. This suggests that there is a relationship between the foraging opportunities of predators and the energetics of this marine biome. More

In line with the results of present study, we suggest that the exploitation of forage resources by agro-pastoralists occurs in a non-random manner. The use of forage resources is guided by a series of functional characters related to palatability and nutritional value, which determine preferential use due to the better quality of resource. At the same time, we understand that forage uses are complex and multifactorial in nature, and regulated in a substantial way by seasonality and ecological factors (Fig. 5), such as the availability of plant resources and local diversity.Figure 5Diagrammatic representation for the effects of vegetation cover and seasonality on forage resource selection in Dry Forests. Image created with Microsoft Office 2019 PowerPoint (www.office.com).Full size imageThe differences of plant species cited between areas reveal the positive effect of vegetation cover on the use and knowledge of plants by agro-pastoralists. Our findings reveal that the greater number of plant species mentioned by agro-pastoralists in Area II is directly associated with greater availability of resources in this area, as long as we consider vegetation cover as availability of resources, which allows different species to be used throughout the year. On the other hand, in regions with low vegetation cover (Area I), the low availability of resources limits the use and knowledge of plants by residents, which can lead to greater pressure on a small set of available species. Such findings reinforce the importance of vegetation cover for ecosystem provision of goods and services to human populations that depend directly or indirectly on these services.The most represented families found in the present study have also been reported in several other ethnobotanical studies6,16,17,29, with emphasis on Fabaceae and Poaceae, which are recognized for their high forage potential, which derives, above all, from high palatability and nutritional value30. Simultaneously, citations mostly for native species reflect the importance and potential of Caatinga resources as important components of the ruminant diet11, both for the woody and herbaceous strata, corroborating the estimate in the literature that 70% of vegetation has potential use as forage31.The characteristic seasonality of vegetation, on the other hand, represents a limiting factor for forage productivity, culminating in high fluctuations in quality and availability, as well as changes in the dominance of different strata and composition of forage species throughout the seasons11,32. The seasonal distribution of species explains the similarity of seasons between areas, with a higher similarity percentage for the dry seasons, since there is less availability of resources to be exploited compared to the rainy season. In this context, the potentially used species are commonly accessible woody species in both areas. However, during the rainy season, the high availability of herbaceous plants regulates different uses (Fig. 4), but even so, they also exhibit relatively similar patterns, mainly due to the woody component that denotes the common demand by ruminants at the beginning of this season.The effect of climatic variables on vegetation use patterns was documented by16,17, both of which showed greater richness in the use of herbaceous forage during the rainy season, a finding that reflects the seasonal distribution—restriction to that season—and decrease in the qualitative character of annual species33. At the same time, it also reflects the greater number of unique species for the rainy season. However, when compared to woody strata, significant differences in terms of richness are not found because although the diversity of herbaceous species in the Caatinga is greater24, it is much less known than that of the tree-shrub stratum11.Agro-pastoralists even characterize animal preferences for herbaceous stratum, but as its diversity is immense and ephemeral, they claim to have limited ability to identify the species. The high abundance of resources in the rainy season also reduces the concern with forage use, which implies less attention to the species that are consumed. In contrast, woody species, due to multiple uses and greater availability over time, tend to be better known10,34, with a different effect in the dry season making the optimal foraging pattern in this period inherent to the knowledge of agro-pastoralists35.In addition, according to the ecological appearance hypothesis, there is a general tendency for less apparent species to be neglected by populations36. Some studies have corroborated the hypothesis within the context of forage use, with woody species being cited more and having more uses6,15. In addition, people tend to focus on resources whose supply is given continuously10, which may explain why woody species are well represented in both seasons.Security in the provisioning of ecosystem services is an essential component for local populations, and thus woody species are highly valued because they reflect predictability of use15,35. This can be a particularly influential criterion because perennial or late leaf deciduous species, such as Cynophalla flexuosa and Myracrodruon urundeva, had significant amounts of citations and perceptions employing high valuation, as represented by some statements by some interviewees: “É um refrigero na seca” (it is savage in the dry season), “É uma ração boa na seca” (it is a good food in the dry season).In turn, differences in richness of the species cited by the two areas corroborate our first hypothesis that populations inserted in environments with greater vegetation cover tend to cite more species. In line with these findings, considerable floristic dissimilarity was also found between the two areas, given the exclusivity of species. Such dissimilarity may suggest particularities in the vegetation attributes of each area, such as greater floristic diversity7,37,38.Since anthropic processes are irregularly distributed in space, variation in the provisioning of ecosystem services by vegetation also occurs, and influences different collection profiles39. On the other hand, areas with greater species richness have been shown to have greater use patterns6,7. The larger number of species cited as woody and native for Area II is, therefore, associated with greater general richness, as well as herbaceous species present in the rainy season. In contrast, common species are reflected in trends of similar foraging patterns, as well as the presence of common species between areas38. In addition to different levels of disturbance, differences in floristic composition between areas may also be due to edaphic variation40.Our second hypothesis was refuted because the difference in the richness of exotic species between the areas. Plausible explanations for this finding are that, in general, exotic herbaceous species are commonly used for forage in the semi-arid region of Brazil41. Herbaceous species comprise the primary component of the ruminant diet. However, in the midst of their occurrence restricted to the short rainy period, exotic species, mainly of Fabaceae and Poaceae, have been introduced to increase the forage availability, which currently represents an important attribute of forage resources in the Caatinga41,42,43. At the same time, and to also increase the availability of forage resources, the cultivation of species by agro-pastoralists may be common in their properties44, mainly exotics, such as Prosopis juliflora, that have high adaptive potential and governmental incentives45.Regarding use patterns, according to the data presented here it is possible to state that agro-pastoralists ’ experiences with herding activities provide an accumulation of a vast knowledge about forage resources15. This knowledge allows forage resources to be characterized by their potential according to a variety of criteria associated with seasonal variation and qualitative attributes, as commonly found by other studies14,15,16,17,37. Such criteria are often revealed by qualitative approaches that define the valuation perception of resources. Thus, nutritional value and palatability can be implicitly associated with the definitions of “É uma ração boa” (it is a good food), “o bicho gosta muito” (the animals like it very much) and “Rico em proteínas” (rich in protein).It should be added that the establishment of intrinsic relationships with resources allows a particular understanding at a high level of detail15,35, such as changes in palatability throughout development with descriptions including chemical17 and structural changes. Studies confirm that some Caatinga species vary in their chemical composition during leaf maturation, which influences nutritional quality17,46.In addition to revealing the domain of information, this body of knowledge allows maximizing forage use based on nutritional properties weighted by availability14,37. Nunes37 confirmed that the forage species selected by informants and the criteria they adopted coincided with nutritional values measured by the literature, and that, as also found in the present study, younger plants were recognized as highly appreciated by animals. This appreciation is due to the greater palatability of plant organs at this stage47. This is a matter of concern for the sustainability of the Caatinga, since direct or indirect grazing has compromised the regeneration process12 since younger individuals are clearly more sensitive to damage48.Also, considering the potential of Caatinga, we suggest that investment through government actions encourage the cultivation of native species to ensure the production of forage and, consequently, guarantee the sustainability of livestock activity and the ecosystem in question. More

Murray, N. J. et al. The global distribution and trajectory of tidal flats. Nature 565, 222–225, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0805-8 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bishop, M. J., Murray, N. J., Swearer, S. & Keith, D. A. In The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: Descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem functional groups (eds D. A. Keith, J. R. Ferrer-Paris, E. Nicholson, & R. T. Kingsford) (IUCN, 2020).Keith, D. A. et al. Earth’s ecosystems: a function-based typology for conservation and sustainability. Nature (In review).Murray, N. J., Phinn, S. R., Clemens, R. S., Roelfsema, C. M. & Fuller, R. A. Continental scale mapping of tidal flats across East Asia using the Landsat Archive. Remote Sensing 4, 3417–3426, https://doi.org/10.3390/Rs4113417 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, N. J., Clemens, R. S., Phinn, S. R., Possingham, H. P. & Fuller, R. A. Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Fron. Ecol. Environ. 12, 267–272, https://doi.org/10.1890/130260 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, N. J., Ma, Z. & Fuller, R. A. Tidal flats of the Yellow Sea: A review of ecosystem status and anthropogenic threats. Austral Ecol. 40, 472–481, https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12211 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dhanjal-Adams, K. et al. Distribution and protection of intertidal habitats in Australia. Emu 116, 208–214 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, N. J. et al. High-resolution mapping of losses and gains of Earth’s tidal wetlands. Science 376, 744–749, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm9583 (2022).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gong, P. et al. Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: first mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 34, 2607–2654 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, W. et al. Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 182, 173–176 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, N. J. et al. The role of satellite remote sensing in structured ecosystem risk assessments. Sci Total Environ 619–620, 249–257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.034 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ying, Q. et al. Global bare ground gain from 2000 to 2012 using Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 194, 161–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.022 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, X.-P. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Noble, S. et al. A new 30 meter resolution global shoreline vector and associated global islands database for the development of standardized ecological coastal units AU – Sayre, Roger. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2018.1529714 (2018).Sayre, R. et al. A global ecological classification of coastal segment units to complement marine biodiversity observation network assessments. Oceanography 34, 120–129 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Margono, B. A., Potapov, P. V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F. & Hansen, M. C. Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nature Climate Change 4, 730–735, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2277 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pekel, J. F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20584 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pickens, A. H. et al. Mapping and sampling to characterize global inland water dynamics from 1999 to 2018 with full Landsat time-series. Remote Sens. Environ. 243, 111792, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111792 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamazaki, D., Trigg, M. A. & Ikeshima, D. Development of a global ~ 90 m water body map using multi-temporal Landsat images. Remote Sens. Environ. 171, 337–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.10.014 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fluet-Chouinard, E., Lehner, B., Rebelo, L.-M., Papa, F. & Hamilton, S. K. Development of a global inundation map at high spatial resolution from topographic downscaling of coarse-scale remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 158, 348–361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.10.015 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bunting, P. et al. The Global Mangrove Watch—A new 2010 global baseline of mangrove extent. Remote Sensing 10, 1669 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Worthington, T. A. et al. Harnessing Big Data to Support the Conservation and Rehabilitation of Mangrove Forests Globally. One Earth 2, 429–443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.018 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Worthington, T. A. et al. A global typology of mangroves and its relevance for ecosystem services and deforestation. Scientific reports (2020).Thomas, N. et al. Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996–2010. PLOS ONE 12, e0179302, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179302 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Simard, M. et al. Mangrove canopy height globally related to precipitation, temperature and cyclone frequency. Nature Geoscience 12, 40–45, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0279-1 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, G. H. & Pavelsky, T. M. Global extent of rivers and streams. Science 361, 585–588, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat0636 (2018).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Lyons, M. et al. Mapping the world’s coral reefs using a global multiscale earth observation framework. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation (2020).Li, J. et al. A global coral reef probability map generated using convolutional neural networks. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-02005-6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X., Pavelsky, T. M. & Allen, G. H. The past and future of global river ice. Nature 577, 69–73, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1848-1 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2201 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lee, C. K. F., Nicholson, E., Duncan, C. & Murray, N. J. Estimating changes and trends in ecosystem extent with dense time-series satellite remote sensing. Conserv Biol 35, 325–335, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13520 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deegan, L. A. et al. Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss. Nature 490, 388–392 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N. & Fatoyinbo, T. Global declines in human-driven mangrove loss. Glob Chang Biol 26, 5844–5855, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15275 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brown, A. C. & McLachlan, A. Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facing them: some predictions for the year 2025. Environ. Conserv. 29, 62–77, https://doi.org/10.1017/s037689290200005x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krumhansl, K. A. et al. Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13785–13790, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606102113 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hill, N. K., Woodworth, B. K., Phinn, S. R., Murray, N. J. & Fuller, R. A. Global protected-area coverage and human pressure on tidal flats. Conserv Biol, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13638 (2021).Murray, N. J. et al. Myanmar’s terrestrial ecosystems: Status, threats and conservation opportunities. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108834 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, M. V. et al. Dual threat of tidal flat loss and invasive Spartina alterniflora endanger important shorebird habitat in coastal mainland China. J Environ Manage 278, 111549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111549 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, N. C. & Finlayson, C. M. Updating global coastal wetland areas presented in Davidson and Finlayson (2018). Marine and Freshwater Research 70, 1195–1200, https://doi.org/10.1071/MF19010 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duan, H. et al. Identifying new sites of significance to waterbirds conservation and their habitat modification in the Yellow and Bohai Seas in China. Global Ecology and Conservation, e01031 (2020).Jung, M. et al. A global map of terrestrial habitat types. Scientific Data 7, 256, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00599-8 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Keith, D. et al. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology v2.0: Descriptive profiles for Biomes and Ecosystem Functional Groups. (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, 2020).Fink, D. et al. Modeling avian full annual cycle distribution and population trends with citizen science data. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02056, https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2056 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Convention on Biological Diversity. Indicators for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Murray, NJ. et al. High-resolution global maps of tidal flat ecosystems from 1984 to 2019, Figshare, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5884598.v1 (2022).Amante, C. & Eakins, B. W. ETOPO1 1 arc-minute global relief model: procedures, data sources and analysis. (US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Geophysical Data Center, Marine Geology and Geophysics Division, 2009).Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, Rg200410.1029/2005rg000183 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mcowen, C. et al. A global map of saltmarshes. Biodiversity Data Journal 5, https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.5.e11764 (2017).Giri, C. et al. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20, 154–159, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
US Geological Survey. Product Guide: Landsat 4–7 Surface Reflectance (LEDAPS) Product (2018).US Geological Survey. Product Guide: Landsat 8 Surface Reflectance Code (LASRC) Product (2018).Foga, S. et al. Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sens. Environ. 194, 379–390 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Machine learning 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, N. J. et al. Code and data supplement to “High-resolution global maps of tidal flat ecosystems from 1984 to 2019”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6332960 (2020).Congalton, R. G. & Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices. (CRC press, 2008).Lyons, M. B., Keith, D. A., Phinn, S. R., Mason, T. J. & Elith, J. A comparison of resampling methods for remote sensing classification and accuracy assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 208, 145–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.026 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sagar, S., Roberts, D., Bala, B. & Lymburner, L. Extracting the intertidal extent and topography of the Australian coastline from a 28 year time series of Landsat observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 195, 153–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.04.009 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, J. et al. The first national scale evaluation of organic carbon stocks and sequestration rates of coastal sediments along the West Sea, South Sea, and East Sea of South Korea. Sci Total Environ 793, 148568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148568 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z., Xu, N., Li, Y. & Li, Y. Sub-continental-scale mapping of tidal wetland composition for East Asia: A novel algorithm integrating satellite tide-level and phenological features. Remote Sens. Environ. 269, 112799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112799 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hooijer, A. & Vernimmen, R. Global LiDAR land elevation data reveal greatest sea-level rise vulnerability in the tropics. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–7 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, J. P. et al. A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 370, 20140003, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0003 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keith, D. A. et al. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Motivations, Challenges, and Applications. Conservation Letters 8, 214–226, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12167 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spencer, T. et al. Global coastal wetland change under sea-level rise and related stresses: The DIVA Wetland Change Model. Global and Planetary Change 139, 15–30 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bunting, P., Rosenqvist, A., Hilarides, L., Lucas, R. M. & Thomas, N. Global Mangrove Watch: Updated 2010 Mangrove Forest Extent (v2.5). Remote Sensing 14, 1034 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
US Geological Survey. Landsat 4–7 Collection 1 (C1) Surface Reflectance (LEDAPS) Product Guide. Version 3.0. (USGS, 2020).Xu, C. & Liu, W. Mapping and analyzing the annual dynamics of tidal flats in the conterminous United States from 1984 to 2020 using Google Earth Engine. Environmental Advances 7, 100147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2021.100147 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. X. et al. Rebound in China’s coastal wetlands following conservation and restoration. Nature Sustainability 4, 1076-+, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00793-5 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitton, J. M., Rennie, A. F., Hansom, J. D. & Muir, F. M. E. Remotely sensed mapping of the intertidal zone: a Sentinel-2 and Google Earth Engine methodology. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 100499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100499 (2021).Murray, N. J., Kennedy, E., Álvarez-Romero, J. G. & Lyons, M. B. Data freshness in ecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36, 485–487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.03.005 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More