Philippa Kaur

Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Forrest, J. & Miller-Rushing, A. J. Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3101–3112 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change/631/158/2165/2457/631/158/2039/129/141/139 letter. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (2018).Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mushegian, A. A. et al. Ecological mechanism of climate-mediated selection in a rapidly evolving invasive species. Ecol. Lett. 24, 698–707 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Visser, M. E. & Both, C. Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 2561–2569 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Mayor, S. J. et al. Increasing phenological asynchrony between spring green-up and arrival of migratory birds. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beard, K. H., Kelsey, K. C., Leffler, A. J. & Welker, J. M. The missing angle: Ecosystem consequences of phenological mismatch. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 (2019).Youngflesh, C. et al. Migratory strategy drives species-level variation in bird sensitivity to vegetation green-up. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01442-y (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forrest, J. R. Complex responses of insect phenology to climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 17 (2016).Crimmins, T. M. et al. Short-term forecasts of insect phenology inform pest management. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 113 (2020).Brakefield, P. M. Geographical variability in, and temperature effects on, the phenology of Maniola jurtina and Pyronia tithonus (Lepidoptera, Satyrinae) in England and Wales. Ecol. Entomol. 12 (1987).Dell, D., Sparks, T. H. & Dennis, R. L. H. Climate change and the effect of increasing spring temperatures on emergence dates of the butterfly Apatura iris (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 102, 161–167 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Van Der Kolk, H. J., Wallisdevries, M. F. & Van Vliet, A. J. H. Using a phenological network to assess weather influences on first appearance of butterflies in the Netherlands. Ecol. Indic. 69 (2016).Abarca, M. et al. Inclusion of host quality data improves predictions of herbivore phenology. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 166 (2018).Abarca, M. & Lill, J. T. Latitudinal variation in the phenological responses of eastern tent caterpillars and their egg parasitoids. Ecol. Entomol. 44 (2019).Karlsson, B. Extended season for northern butterflies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 58, 691–701 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kharouba, H. M., Paquette, S. R., Kerr, J. T. & Vellend, M. Predicting the sensitivity of butterfly phenology to temperature over the past century. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20 (2014).Diamond, S. E., Frame, A. M., Martin, R. A. & Buckley, L. B. Species’ traits predict phenological responses to climate change in butterflies. Ecology 92 (2011).Diamond, S. E. et al. Unexpected phenological responses of butterflies to the interaction of urbanization and geographic temperature. Ecology 95 (2014).Cayton, H. L., Haddad, N. M., Gross, K., Diamond, S. E. & Ries, L. Do growing degree days predict phenology across butterfly species?. Ecology 96, 1473–1479 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Stewart, J. E., Illán, J. G., Richards, S. A., Gutiérrez, D. & Wilson, R. J. Linking inter-annual variation in environment, phenology, and abundance for a montane butterfly community. Ecology 101 (2020).Roy, D. B. et al. Similarities in butterfly emergence dates among populations suggest local adaptation to climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 (2015).Dennis, R. L. H. et al. Turnover and trends in butterfly communities on two British tidal islands: Stochastic influences and deterministic factors. J. Biogeogr. 37, 2291–2304 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Sparks, T. H. & Yates, T. J. The effect of spring temperature on the appearance dates of British butterflies 1883–1993. Ecography (Cop.). 20 (1997).Michielini, J. P., Dopman, E. B. & Crone, E. E. Changes in flight period predict trends in abundance of Massachusetts butterflies. Ecol. Lett. 24, 249–257 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zografou, K. et al. Species traits affect phenological responses to climate change in a butterfly community. Sci. Rep. 11 (2021).Belitz, M. W., Larsen, E. A., Ries, L. & Guralnick, R. P. The accuracy of phenology estimators for use with sparsely sampled presence-only observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1273–1285 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Van Strien, A. J., Plantenga, W. F., Soldaat, L. L., Van Swaay, C. A. M. & WallisDeVries, M. F. Bias in phenology assessments based on first appearance data of butterflies. Oecologia 156, 227–235 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pollard, E. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 12 (1977).Taron, D. & Ries, L. Butterfly Monitoring for Conservation. in Butterfly Conservation in North America 35–57 (Springer Netherlands, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9852-5_3.Schmucki, R. et al. A regionally informed abundance index for supporting integrative analyses across butterfly monitoring schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 501–510 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Prudic, K., Oliver, J., Brown, B. & Long, E. Comparisons of citizen science data-gathering approaches to evaluate urban butterfly diversity. Insects 9, 186 (2018).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Prudic, K. L. et al. eButterfly: Leveraging massive online citizen science for butterfly conservation. Insects 8 (2017).Barve, V. V. et al. Methods for broad-scale plant phenology assessments using citizen scientists’ photographs. Appl. Plant Sci. 8 (2020).Seltzer, C. Making biodiversity data social, shareable, and scalable: Reflections on iNaturalist & citizen science. Biodivers. Inf. Sci. Stand. 3 (2019).Wittmann, J., Girman, D. & Crocker, D. Using inaturalist in a coverboard protocol to measure data quality: Suggestions for project design. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 4 (2019).Dorazio, R. M. Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence-only data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23 (2014).Ries, L., Zipkin, E. F. & Guralnick, R. P. Tracking trends in monarch abundance over the 20th century is currently impossible using museum records. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 116 (2019).Larsen, E. A. & Shirey, V. Method matters: Pitfalls in analysing phenology from occurrence records. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13602 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
de Keyzer, C. W., Rafferty, N. E., Inouye, D. W. & Thomson, J. D. Confounding effects of spatial variation on shifts in phenology. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23 (2017).Cima, V. et al. A test of six simple indices to display the phenology of butterflies using a large multi-source database. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105885 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zipkin, E. F. et al. Addressing data integration challenges to link ecological processes across scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19 (2021).Polgar, C. A., Primack, R. B., Williams, E. H., Stichter, S. & Hitchcock, C. Climate effects on the flight period of Lycaenid butterflies in Massachusetts. Biol. Conserv. 160 (2013).Brooks, S. J. et al. The influence of life history traits on the phenological response of British butterflies to climate variability since the late-19th century. Ecography (Cop.) 40, 1152–1165 (2017).
Google Scholar 
van Strien, A. J., van Swaay, C. A. M., van Strien-van Liempt, W. T. F. H., Poot, M. J. M. & WallisDeVries, M. F. Over a century of data reveal more than 80% decline in butterflies in the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv. 234 (2019).Boggs, C. L. The fingerprints of global climate change on insect populations. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 17 (2016).Belitz, M. et al. Climate drivers of adult insect activity are conditioned by life history traits. Authorea Prepr. (2021).Kellner, K. F. & Swihart, R. K. Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: A quantitative review. PLoS ONE 9 (2014).Park, D. S., Newman, E. A. & Breckheimer, I. K. Scale gaps in landscape phenology: challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36 (2021).Kerr, J. T., Vincent, R. & Currie, D. J. Lepidopteran richness patterns in North America. Écoscience 5, 448–453 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, S. D., Meiners, J. M., Riemer, K., Orr, M. C. & White, E. P. Comparison of large-scale citizen science data and long-term study data for phenology modeling. Ecology 100 (2019).Isaac, N. J. B. et al. Data integration for large-scale models of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35 (2020).Miller, D. A. W., Pacifici, K., Sanderlin, J. S. & Reich, B. J. The recent past and promising future for data integration methods to estimate species’ distributions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10 (2019).Fletcher, R. J. et al. A practical guide for combining data to model species distributions. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2710 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wepprich, T., Adrion, J. R., Ries, L., Wiedmann, J. & Haddad, N. M. Butterfly abundance declines over 20 years of systematic monitoring in Ohio, USA. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/613786 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Crossley, M. S. et al. Recent climate change is creating hotspots of butterfly increase and decline across North America. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2702–2714 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forister, M. L. et al. Fewer butterflies seen by community scientists across the warming and drying landscapes of the American West. Science (80-) 371, 1042–1045 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Macgregor, C. J. et al. Climate-induced phenology shifts linked to range expansions in species with multiple reproductive cycles per year. Nat. Commun. 10, (2019).Kerr, N. Z. et al. Developmental trap or demographic bonanza? Opposing consequences of earlier phenology in a changing climate for a multivoltine butterfly. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, (2020).Belth, J. E. Butterflies of Indiana: A field guide. Butterflies of Indiana: A Field Guide (2012).Betros, B. A Photographic Field Guide to the Butterflies in the Kansas City Region (Kansas City Star Books, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Bouseman, J. K., Sternburg, J. G. & Wiker, J. R. Field guide to the skipper butterflies of Illinois. (Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 11, 2006).Clark, A. H. The butterflies of the District of Columbia and vicinity. Bull. United States Natl. Museum (1932).Glassberg, J. Butterflies through Binoculars: Boston—New York—Washington Region (Oxford University Press, 1993).
Google Scholar 
Glassberg, J. Butterflies through Binoculars: The East—A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Eastern North America (Oxford University Press, 1999).
Google Scholar 
Iftner, D. C., Shuey, J. A. & Calhoun, J. V. Butterflies and skippers of Ohio (Ohio State University, 1992).
Google Scholar 
Jeffords, M. R., Post, S. L. & Wiker, J. Butterflies of Illinois: a field guide (Illinois Natural History Survey, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Schlicht, D. W., Downey, J. C. & Nekola, J. C. The butterflies of Iowa (University of Iowa Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Schmucki, R., Harrower, C. A. & Dennis, E. B. rbms: Computing generalised abundance indices for butterfly monitoring count data. R package version 1.1.0. https://github.com/RetoSchmucki/rbms (2021).GBIF. GBIF Occurrence download. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.1erh15 (2019).Thornton, P. E. et al. Daymet: Daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for North America, version 3. ORNL DAAC. (Oak Ridge, TN, 2017).Baskerville, G. L. & Emin, P. Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecology 50, (1969).R Development Core Team, R. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing vol. 1 409 (2011).Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version (2014).Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4 (2013).Kahle, D. & Wickham, H. ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. R J 5 (2013). More

Effect of different organic fertilizers on the growth of Pear-jujubeEffect of different organic fertilizers on the bearing branch length of Pear-jujubeJujube-bearing branch has the dual role of fruiting and photosynthesis32,33. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that different organic fertilizer treatments have a significant impact on the growth of jujube-bearing branches. Among them, the longest jujube-bearing branch in the SC treatment is 20.17 cm, which is significantly higher than that in CK and CF; the jujube-bearing branch length in the SC, SM and BM treatment are increased by 34%, 23% and 25% compared with that in CK, and the difference is significant (P  SM  > SC  > CK. Among them, the density of light of BM is the largest. It reaches 38.06 mol/(m2 d). CF, SC, SM and BM respectively increase by 11.54%, 8.09%, 7.96% and 15.13% compared with CK, and the difference is significant. The canopy transmittance of jujube is BM  CF  > SM  > SC. The highest Tr of BM reaches 8.66 µmol/moL. It may be related to higher LAI, and the instantaneous water use efficiency of SC is highest, which reaches 3.30%. The WUEp of CF, SC, SM and BM treatments increase by 22.4%, 64.2%, 44.3% and 30.8%, respectively, compared with that of CK. It reaches a significant difference level (P  SM  > BM  > CF  > CK. Compared with CK (9.37%), the SC, SM, BM, and CF increased by 3.69, 3.18, 1.11 and 0.40% points, respectively. Organic fertilizer is beneficial to increase the water content of the soil. Among them, soybean cake fertilizer (SC) has the largest increase, which is significantly different from CK (P  SM  > SC  > CF  > CK. The RWC of BM reaches 94.20%, which is significantly different from CK (P  SM  > BM  > CK. The total flavonoid content of SC reaches 14.35 mg/kg, which is 24.57% higher than that of CK. The total flavonoid content of SM and BM increase by 17.01% and 9.2%, respectively, compared with that of CK. Moreover, each treatment is significantly different from CK (P  More

Suding, K. et al. Committing to ecological restoration. Science 348, 638–640 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chazdon, R. L. Landscape restoration, natural regeneration, and the forests of the future. mobt 102, 251–257 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Crouzeilles, R., Lorini, M. L. & Grelle, C. Applying graph theory to design networks of protected areas: using inter-patch distance for regional conservation planning. Natureza Conservaçao Rev. Brasileira de Conservaçao da Natureza 9, 219–224 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Crouzeilles, R., Lorini, M. L. & Grelle, C. E. V. The importance of using sustainable use protected areas for functional connectivity. Biol. Cons. 159, 450–457 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. et al. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1404–1420 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Farrell, P. J. & Anderson, P. M. Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ. Sustain. 2, 59–65 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
César, R. G. et al. It is not just about time: agricultural practices and surrounding forest cover affect secondary forest recovery in agricultural landscapes. Biotropica 53, 496–508 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crouzeilles, R. et al. A new approach to map landscape variation in forest restoration success in tropical and temperate forest biomes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2675–2686 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Villard, M.-A. & Metzger, J. P. Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 309–318 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L. & With, K. A. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. in Connectivity Conservation (eds. Crooks, K. R. & Sanjayan, M.) 29–43 (Cambridge University Press, 2006).Tischendorf, L. & Fahrig, L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90, 7–19 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
McRae, B. H., Hall, S. A., Beier, P. & Theobald, D. M. Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS ONE 7, e52604 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Torrubia, S. et al. Getting the most connectivity per conservation dollar. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 491–497 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crouzeilles, R. et al. A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 7, 11666 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leal-Ramos, D. et al. Forest and connectivity loss drive changes in movement behavior of bird species. Ecography 43, 1203–1214 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Cárdenas, N. et al. Effects of landscape composition and site land-use intensity on secondary succession in a tropical dry forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 482, 118818 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holl, K. D., Reid, J. L., Chaves-Fallas, J. M., Oviedo-Brenes, F. & Zahawi, R. A. Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1091–1099 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holl, K. D., Zahawi, R. A., Cole, R. J., Ostertag, R. & Cordell, S. Planting seedlings in tree islands versus plantations as a large-scale tropical forest restoration strategy. Restor. Ecol. 19, 470–479 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, R. J., Holl, K. D. & Zahawi, R. A. Seed rain under tree islands planted to restore degraded lands in a tropical agricultural landscape. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1255–1269 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zahawi, R. A., Holl, K. D., Cole, R. J. & Reid, J. L. Testing applied nucleation as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 88–96 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, J. L., Kormann, U., Zarrate-Chary, D., Holl, K. D. & Zahawi, R. A. Predicting toucan-mediated seed dispersal in tropical forest restoration. Ecosphere (In press).Zahawi, R. A. et al. Proximity and abundance of mother trees affects recruitment patterns in a long-term tropical forest restoration study. Ecography 44,1826–1837 (2021).Lehouck, V. et al. Habitat disturbance reduces seed dispersal of a forest interior tree in a fragmented African cloud forest. Oikos 118, 1023–1034 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 1–23 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. et al. Is habitat fragmentation bad for biodiversity?. Biol. Cons. 230, 179–186 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schupp, E. W., Jordano, P. & Gómez, J. M. Seed dispersal effectiveness revisited: a conceptual review. New Phytol. 188, 333–353 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, H. S., Donoso, I., Traveset, A. & Fricke, E. C. Cascading impacts of seed disperser loss on plant communities and ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 52, 641–666 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Howe, H. F. & Smallwood, J. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13, 201–228 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holdridge, L. R., Grenke, W. C., Hatheway, W. H., Liang, T. & Tosi, J. A. J. Forest environments in tropical life zones: a pilot study (Pergamon Press, 1971).
Google Scholar 
Zahawi, R. A., Duran, G. & Kormann, U. Sixty-seven years of land-use change in Southern Costa Rica. PLoS ONE 10, e0143554 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Holl, K. D. et al. Applied nucleation facilitates tropical forest recovery: Lessons learned from a 15-year study. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2316–2328 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, J. L., Mendenhall, C. D., Rosales, J. A., Zahawi, R. A. & Holl, K. D. Landscape context mediates avian habitat choice in tropical forest restoration. PLoS ONE 9, e90573 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchanan, G. M., Donald, P. F. & Butchart, S. H. M. Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forest-dependent birds. PLoS ONE 6, e29080 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrara, E. et al. Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico. Biol. Conser. 184, 117–126 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chao, A. & Shen, T. J. Program SPADE (Species Prediction and Diversity Estimation). Program and User’s Guide. (http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw, 2010).Chazdon, R. L. et al. A novel statistical method for classifying habitat generalists and specialists. Ecology 92, 1332–1343 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
de Souza, R. P. & Válio, I. F. M. Seed size, seed germination, and seedling survival of Brazilian tropical tree species differing in successional status. Biotropica 33, 447–457 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Werden, L. K., Holl, K. D., Rosales, J. A., Sylvester, J. M. & Zahawi, R. A. Effects of dispersal- and niche-based factors on tree recruitment in tropical wet forest restoration. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02139 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mendenhall, C. D., Shields-Estrada, A., Krishnaswami, A. J. & Daily, G. C. Quantifying and sustaining biodiversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. PNAS 113, 14544–14551 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jesus, F. M., Pivello, V. R., Meirelles, S. T., Franco, G. A. D. C. & Metzger, J. P. The importance of landscape structure for seed dispersal in rain forest fragments. J. Veg. Sci. 23, 1126–1136 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galán-Acedo, C., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Estrada, A. & Ramos-Fernández, G. Drivers of the spatial scale that best predict primate responses to landscape structure. Ecography 41, 2027–2037 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pardini, R., de Souza, S. M., Braga-Neto, R. & Metzger, J. P. The role of forest structure, fragment size and corridors in maintaining small mammal abundance and diversity in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biol. Cons. 124, 253–266 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forman, R. T. T. & Godron, M. Landscape ecology. (Wiley, 1986).QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. (Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 2016).Gillies, C. S. & Clair, C. C. S. Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. PNAS 105, 19774–19779 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, C. A., Tucker, N. I. & Estrada, A. Live fences, isolated trees, and windbreaks: tools for conserving biodiversity in fragmented tropical landscapes. in Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes 261–289 (2004).Harvey, C. A. et al. Contribution of live fences to the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111, 200–230 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saura, S., Bodin, Ö. & Fortin, M.-J. EDITOR’S CHOICE: Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 171–182 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, H. S., DeZonia, B. E. & Mladenoff, D. J. An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 15, 591–601 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Radford, J. Q., Bennett, A. F. & Cheers, G. J. Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol. Cons. 124, 317–337 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pires, A. S., Lira, P. K., Fernandez, F. A. S., Schittini, G. M. & Oliveira, L. C. Frequency of movements of small mammals among Atlantic Coastal Forest fragments in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 108, 229–237 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holbrook, K. M. Home range and movement patterns of toucans: implications for seed dispersal. Biotropica 43, 357–364 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. et al. Tropical countryside riparian corridors provide critical habitat and connectivity for seed-dispersing forest birds in a fragmented landscape. J Ornithol 156, 343–353 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eigenbrod, F., Hecnar, S. J. & Fahrig, L. Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol. Conserv. 144, 298–305 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A. & Ene, E. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (2012).Jackson, H. B. & Fahrig, L. Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale?. Global Ecol. Biogeography 24, 52–63 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, H. B. & Fahrig, L. What size is a biologically relevant landscape?. Landscape Ecol 27, 929–941 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGarigal, K., Wan, H. Y., Zeller, K. A., Timm, B. C. & Cushman, S. A. Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landscape Ecol 31, 1161–1175 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huais, P. Y. multifit: an R function for multi-scale analysis in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 33, 1023–1028 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Crawley, M. J. Statistical modelling in the R book. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2007).Leite, M. de S., Tambosi, L. R., Romitelli, I. & Metzger, J. P. Landscape ecology perspective in restoration projects for biodiversity conservation: a review. Natureza & Conservação 11, 108–118 (2013).Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J. & Wasserman, W. Applied linear statistical models. (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1996).Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. (Springer, 2002).Calcagno, V. & Mazancourt, C. glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J. Stat. Soft. 34, 1–29 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giam, X. & Olden, J. D. Quantifying variable importance in a multimodel inference framework. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 388–397 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andrén, H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71, 355–366 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fagan, M. E., DeFries, R. S., Sesnie, S. E., Arroyo-Mora, J. P. & Chazdon, R. L. Targeted reforestation could reverse declines in connectivity for understory birds in a tropical habitat corridor. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1456–1474 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, J. L. & Holl, K. D. Arrival ≠ survival. Restor. Ecol. 21, 153–155 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pejchar, L. et al. Birds as agents of seed dispersal in a human-dominated landscape in southern Costa Rica. Biol. Cons. 141, 536–544 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Norden, N. et al. Is temporal variation of seedling communities determined by environment or by seed arrival? A test in a neotropical forest. J. Ecol. 95, 507–516 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tabarelli, M., Lopes, A. V. & Peres, C. A. Edge-effects drive tropical forest fragments towards an early-successional system. Biotropica 40, 657–661 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lôbo, D., Leão, T., Melo, F. P. L., Santos, A. M. M. & Tabarelli, M. Forest fragmentation drives Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil to biotic homogenization. Divers. Distrib. 17, 287–296 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Costa, J. B. P., Melo, F. P. L., Santos, B. A. & Tabarelli, M. Reduced availability of large seeds constrains Atlantic forest regeneration. Acta Oecologica 39, 61–66 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Miguet, P., Jackson, H. B., Jackson, N. D., Martin, A. E. & Fahrig, L. What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species?. Landscape Ecol 31, 1177–1194 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Pigliucci, M. Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001).Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aerts, R., Boot, R. G. A. & Van Der Aart, P. J. M. The relation between above- and belowground biomass allocation patterns and competitive ability. Oecologia 87, 551–559 (1991).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashton, I. W., Miller, A. E., Bowman, W. D. & Suding, K. N. Niche complementarity due to plasticity in resource use: plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 91, 3252–3260 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfennig, D. W., Rice, A. M. & Martin, R. A. Ecological opportunity and phenotypic plasticity interact to promote character displacement and species coexistence. Ecology 87, 769–779 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Kleunen, M. & Fischer, M. Adaptive evolution of plastic foraging responses in a clonal plant. Ecology 82, 3309–3319 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Relyea, R. A. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 523–540 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broekman, M. J. E. et al. Signs of stabilisation and stable coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1957–1975 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callaway, R. M., Pennings, S. C. & Richards, C. L. Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84, 1115–1128 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turcotte, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Phenotypic plasticity and species coexistence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 803–813 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. in Unity in Diversity: Reflections on Ecology after the Legacy of Ramon Margalef (eds F. Valladares et al.) 119–164 (Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 2008).Ellner, S. P., Snyder, R. E. & Adler, P. B. How to quantify the temporal storage effect using simulations instead of math. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1333–1342 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vasseur, D. A., Amarasekare, P., Rudolf, V. H. W. & Levine, J. M. Eco-evolutionary dynamics enable coexistence via neighbor-dependent selection. Am. Nat. 178, E96–E109 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hendry, A. P. Key questions on the role of phenotypic plasticity in eco-evolutionary dynamics. J. Hered. 107, 25–41 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S. P., Turcotte, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Effects of rapid evolution on species coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2112–2117 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S. P., Freckleton, R. P. & Levine, J. M. How to quantify competitive ability. J. Ecol. 106, 1902–1909 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grainger, T. N., Levine, J. M. & Gilbert, B. The invasion criterion: a common currency for ecological research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 925–935 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Letten, A. D., Ke, P.-J. & Fukami, T. Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 161–177 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraft, N. J. B., Godoy, O. & Levine, J. M. Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 797–802 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfennig, D. W. & Murphy, P. J. How fluctuating competition and phenotypic plasticity mediate species divergence. Evolution 56, 1217–1228 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adler, P., HilleRisLambers, J. & Levine, J. A niche for neutrality. Ecol. Lett. 10, 95–104 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barabás, G., D’Andrea, R. & Stump Simon, M. Chesson’s coexistence theory. Ecol. Monogr. 88, 277–303 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfennig, D. W. & Pfennig, K. S. Evolution’s Wedge: Competition and the Origins of Diversity (Univ. California Press, 2012).Ayala, F. J. Reversal of dominance in competing species of Drosophila. Am. Nat. 100, 81–83 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pease, C. M. On the evolutionary reversal of competitive dominance. Evolution 38, 1099–1115 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pimentel, D., Feinberg, E. H., Wood, P. W. & Hayes, J. T. Selection, spatial distribution, and the coexistence of competing fly species. Am. Nat. 99, 97–109 (1965).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lankau, R. A. & Strauss, S. Y. Mutual feedbacks maintain both genetic and species diversity in a plant community. Science 317, 1561–1563 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunstler, G. et al. Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature 529, 204–207 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stuart, Y. E. & Losos, J. B. Ecological character displacement: glass half full or half empty? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 402–408 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abrams, P. A. Alternative models of character displacement and niche shift. 2. Displacement when there is competition for a single resource. Am. Nat. 130, 271–282 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chevin, L. M., Lande, R. & Mace, G. M. Adaptation, plasticity, and extinction in a changing environment: towards a predictive theory. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000357 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon, E. A. & Pfennig, D. W. Evolutionary rescue via transgenerational plasticity: evidence and implications for conservation. Evol. Dev. 23, 292–307 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forsman, A. Rethinking phenotypic plasticity and its consequences for individuals, populations and species. Heredity 115, 276–284 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brass, D. P. et al. Phenotypic plasticity as a cause and consequence of population dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2406–2417 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Macarthur, R. H. & Levins, R. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat. 101, 377–385 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beverton, R. J. H. & Holt, S. J. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations (UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1957).Landolt, E. Biosystematic Investigations in the Family of Duckweeds (Lemnaceae), Vol. 2: The Family of Lemnaceae—A Monographic Study, Vol.1 (Geobotanischen Institute, ETH Zürich, 1986).Wang, W. et al. The Spirodela polyrhiza genome reveals insights into its neotenous reduction fast growth and aquatic lifestyle. Nat. Commun. 5, 3311 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoagland, D. R. & Arnon, D. I. The Water-Culture Method for Growing Plants without Soil (College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Univ. California, 1950).Inouye, B. D. Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 82, 2696–2706 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Law, R. & Watkinson, A. R. Response-surface analysis of two-species competition: an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata. J. Ecol. 75, 871–886 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
MATLAB v.9.0 (MathWorks, 2016).Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual, v.2.27 (Stan Development Team, 2021); https://mc-stan.orgVehtari, A., Gelman, A. & Gabry, J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat. Comput. 27, 1413–1432 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bürkner, P.C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 (2017).Vehtari, A. et al. loo: efficient leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for Bayesian models, v.2.4.1 (2020).ImageJ (US NIH, 1997–2016). More

Study designWe used a food systems framing to conceptually position our research to investigate how small-scale fisheries shape two key aspects of food environments – physical access to food via living in proximity to small-scale fisheries (fish as food pathway), and economic access to food via small-scale fisheries livelihoods (fish as income pathway).We examined food system components of supply chains (small-scale fisheries livelihoods related to harvesting, processing and trade), food environments (proximity to small-scale fisheries and livelihoods), income poverty status, and household diets (fish consumption and annual food security) (Supplementary Fig 7)40,41. Small-scale fisheries are notably recognised for their safety net function during times of shocks and extreme events, increasing the ability of households to recover, exit poverty and afford food over the longer-term42.Country selection and household survey dataWe selected Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda, given these countries represent a region where small-scale fisheries provides the main supply of fish and are important for rural inland and coastal livelihoods24,43, and yet substantial data gaps remain in valuing small-scale fisheries in the regional food system. Small-scale fisheries, particularly inland fisheries, in this region are known to be highly productive with a linear increasing trend in catches over the last three decades25,35. On average 70% of the total catches consist of small pelagic species, which are largely driven by climate, and are highly productive, resilient, and under-exploited34. However, challenges do exist in fisheries governance and signs of over-exploitation of some few fish stocks44, as well as high post-harvest fish waste and loss across value-chains undermine the potential benefits from the sector23. We analysed the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Surveys and its Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) from Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda. The LSMS-ISA surveys conducted in these countries collected georeferenced household-level data and had been designed and implemented with a dedicated fishery module39 which contained questions on household fish consumption (frequency, quantity, and form of fresh or dried fish) and small-scale fisheries livelihoods across value chains (harvesting, processing and trading). The fishery module was collected across different years in Malawi (2016–17), Tanzania (2014–15) and Uganda (2010–11), and accordingly these are the years analysed in this study. The LSMS-ISA surveys collects consumption data over a period of 12 months so that the indicator captures the intrinsic variability due to seasonality, such as low and high periods of food consumption.Geospatial data and distance to fishing groundsGeoreferenced household data from LSMS-ISA surveys were matched with geospatial data on the location of inland water bodies and coastlines (Supplementary Table 11) to investigate geographic correlates (e.g., distance to fishing grounds – water bodies where fisheries occur) of poverty and food security. Data on inland water bodies were from the Global Lakes and Wetlands Database (GLWD)45, and the European Space Agency GlobCover databases for coastlines46. Inland water bodies from the GLWD database include permanent, open water bodies (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, rivers) with a surface area ≥0.1 km2 for each country, including cross-border water bodies. We selected water bodies to represent types of water bodies known to support fisheries, based on catch data24,43. We assume the entire coastline of Tanzania was accessible and used for marine small-scale fisheries. We use the term ‘water body’ to mean either freshwater or marine waters.Distance between water bodies and households was calculated as the shortest, straight line, distance from the household location (identified through the GPS coordinates of the households) to any point of the nearest water body. The distance was expressed in km.In our descriptive statistics, a cut-off threshold of 5 km from fishing grounds was used to compare the key indicators presented in this study (e.g., percent of poor and food insecure households, frequency and quantity of fish consumption, etc), for households proximate and distant (≤5 km was considered close and >5 km was considered far) from fished water bodies, as well as between fishing and non-fishing households. The choice of the cut-off threshold used for our descriptive statistics was guided by other studies16,17, in addition to reflecting the distribution of households by quintile of distance to water bodies. Concerning the latter, we found that the average distance from fishing ground of the first quintile was always lower than 5 km in all countries.In the regression analyses, the distance to water bodies was included as a continuous variable (in km). This choice reflects the need to better understand dynamics for households that tend to live more distant from fishing grounds. These dynamics were captured by measuring the marginal increase in the probability of being poor or food insecure for a one-unit increase (1 km) from the mean distance to fishing grounds.We acknowledge two limitations behind the calculation of the straight-line distance to water bodies. First, using the straight-line distance to water bodies may introduce biases in the statistical analyses presented, especially for households located in any particular landscapes within the country. The walking or travel time distance over a road network would provide a better alternative, however there is lack of data on road networks. Despite the straight-line distance to water bodies encompasses some limitations, we still believe that this method of calculation provides a good proxy to categorize household in relation to their distance to water bodies, and the results from the analyses should not deviate substantially from other method of calculation. For example, a study51 found that the straight-line distance tends to be highly correlated (R  > 0.91) with both walking and travel time distance.Second, an additional bias in the presented analyses may be introduced due to the modification strategy of the households GPS coordinates. This strategy was implemented before dissemination of household level data to avoid the risk of disclosure of sampled households. In its essence, the modification strategy relies on random offset of cluster center-point within a specified range. For urban areas a range of 0–2 km is used. In rural areas, where risk of disclosure may be higher due to more dispersed communities, a range of 0–5 km offset was used. While we had no control over this modification strategy, we believe that the modification of the GPS coordinates does not affect the way households are classified in relation to their distance to fishing grounds: considering that the modification strategy was applied to both distant and proximate households, we expect that the distribution between households close and distant to water bodies has remained unchanged and, hence, the presented statistics are still valid for the analysis.Variable constructionWe used a range of socio-economic indicators across food system components (Supplementary Table 11). As a measure of physical and economic access to food we used two indicators of small-scale fisheries: proximity to fishing grounds and fishing households. Household livelihoods were assigned according to whether households primarily, but not exclusively, engaged in small-scale fisheries (fishing, harvesting, processing and/or trading which varied by survey), agriculture (e.g., crop or livestock), or neither fisheries or agriculture. For each country survey, households were categorised according to their engagement in fishing and/or agriculture activities in the prior 12 months. Households in which one or more member engaged in fish-related activities were defined as ‘fishing households’. Fish-related livelihood activities were defined as fish harvesting, processing, and trading in Malawi and Tanzania, whilst in Uganda they were defined only as fishing. Households with one or more member engaged in agriculture, but not in fish-related activities, were defined as ‘agriculture households’. Through data exploration of livelihood categories, we found that 96% of all fishing households in our study combine fish-related and agricultural activities, with only 4% engaging exclusively in small-scale fisheries. Examination of diverse livelihood typologies within fishing household category (e.g., fisher-farmer, which is common in the region or exclusive fisher) was deemed out of the scope of this study and not feasible due to the small number of observations of exclusive fishers.Household poverty was measured using the per-capita monthly expenditure (equivalized using the adult equivalent scale). Poor households were defined as those households with a per-capita monthly expenditure below the national poverty line. The national poverty line –which was defined by national authorities in the three countries analysed–is a country-specific monetary threshold below which a household (and its members) cannot meet their basic needs. The poverty metric, as defined above, was used across physical, natural and human capital: asset wealth, distance to markets, access to land and education level of head of household. Since the asset wealth captures the typologies and number of assets owned by the household (durable goods – radio, bicycle, TV; utilities and infrastructure – access to protected water source and electricity), we developed an index for assets using the principal component analysis. This technique reduced the multi-dimensionality of the asset’s variables, and it allowed the data to identify the linear combinations of the assets components that explain the greatest share of the variation in wealth. As the final wealth index was standardised across households, this index allowed providing a ranking of households which reflected their ownership of assets.Food security was measured using two indicators; household-level food consumption profile – using the Food Consumption Score (FCS) index20, and subjective food insecurity defined as the number of months during a year that a household reported not having enough food to feed the household. Together, these indicators provide a more comprehensive understanding of household food security over a longer period than other surveys (e.g. Demographic and Health)47,48,49. The LSMS-ISA surveys collects food consumption data over a 7-day recall period. To capture seasonal variation in the food consumption indicators, sampled households were interviewed over a 12-month period: for each month of the year, a different portion of sampled households was interviewed so that the derived indicators reflect the intrinsic variability in food consumption, which may be due to seasonality. We used the FCS index as a food security indicator as it is akin to the data collected via the LSMS-ISA surveys, and that there was a need for comparison across select countries. The FCS index measures the frequency (number of days) and diversity of food groups consumed over a 7-day recall period, with weights given to groups based on nutritional value. The FCS index is validated as a proxy for energy sufficiency (quantity of food) and food access, and is associated with other household-level diet diversity measures (e.g. household dietary diversity score (HDDS))20,48. The difference between FCS and other indicators such as HDDS is the recall period (7-days versus 24 h), diversity of groups, weights assigned based on nutrition, and use of frequency together with diversity of groups consumed. The FCS with a longer recall period can show more habitual consumption but can also have limitations with people’s recall reliability. Although it has not been validated yet as an indicator for micronutrient intake, it does provide weights to nutrient-rich food groups and accounts for frequency of consumption, which other indicators do not. Fish consumption was described in terms of the (i) quantity (kg of wet weight equivalent per household per week), (ii) form (fresh, dried, smoked, other) and (iii) source (purchased, own consumption, gift) of fish consumed. The share of households reporting consumption of other animal source foods was also calculated to examine the relative role of fish in overall diets.We also examined the prices of foods consumed to investigate the accessibility of fish as food in terms of affordability compared to animal source foods. The LSMS-ISA survey collects data on the value and volume of food that were purchased and consumed. Those two variables were further used to construct the average price for each food item. To control for price level differences between countries, food prices data calculated from the survey were converted from local currency unit to international USD, using the Purchase power parity conversion factor corresponding to the year of the survey (Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank). Moreover, since the surveys were conducted in different years, nominal prices corresponding to the years of the surveys were converted into real, inflation-adjusted prices using the Consumer Price Index (CPI, base year: 2010). This allowed to control for potential inflation patterns within countries and provide a better comparison of food prices per Kg. across the three countries analyzed (Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank).Finally, we drew upon nutritional databases (food composition tables, FishBase and Illuminating Hidden Harvest Initiative) to understand the relative nutritional value of fish; by species, size (small or large) and form (e.g., fresh or dried), compared to other animal source foods (Supplementary Table 12). This enables us to contextualise the nutritional importance of consumption patterns.Descriptive statisticsWe created a harmonized multi-country dataset for Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda with 18,715 nationally representative household-level observations. The sample included in this study represents more than 19 million households corresponding to a population of 93.8 million people across the three countries (Supplementary Information).Descriptive statistics were calculated to compare poverty and food security indicators among households proximate and distant from fished water bodies, and between fishing and non-fishing households (see full details in Supplementary Information). For this analysis, households distant and proximate from fished water bodies were clustered into two groups based on a cut-off threshold of 5 km (distant  > 5 km; proximate ≤5 km). The Welch’s t-test was then used throughout to assess the statistical significance of mean statistics between these two groups.Econometric modelThe estimated probabilities of being poor (household living below the national poverty line) and food insecure (household with a poor food consumption profile) were modelled through two separate probit regression models, where the outcome variable was equal to 1 for poor and food insecure households and 0 otherwise. The independent variables in both models included the household’s distance to water bodies and the distance to food market. Both variables are expressed as continuous variables (in km), reflecting the need to measure the marginal increase in the probability of being poor or food insecure (i.e., the estimated β coefficients) given a one-unit change (1 km) in the distance to fishing ground (or food markets) from its mean. Both models also included an interaction variable which measured the household’s distance to water bodies but restricted to only those households who were unable to reach the food market. We tested this interaction as we expected that living in proximity to water bodies could mitigate the negative effects on poverty and food insecurity when households are unable to access food markets. In order to measure the conditional difference in the average probability to be poor and food insecure between households who engaged in fisheries and households who engaged in other non-fishing activities, we constructed a categorical variable that classified households according to their main livelihood activity, namely (1) neither fishing, nor agriculture households (i.e., the reference baseline household category), (2) fishing households and (3) agriculture households. This categorical variable was further restricted to only households living in proximity to water bodies to better measure for which typology of household the proximity to fishing grounds is most beneficial. Both models were controlled for the age, sex and the highest level of education attained by the head of the household, as well as the total number of household members employed (over total household members) and the wealth index of the household.For each model (poverty and food insecurity), we examined associations at the cross-country, national and rural levels (Tables 1 and 2, also available as Supplementary Data 1 and 2). Stata 15 was used for all statistical analyses. Both descriptive statistics and the regression coefficients were estimated using the household probability weight, the latter instrumental to make the derived indicators from the surveys representative of the population of interest thus allowing general inference for the three countries.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Larvae display conserved gene expression response to heat stressLarval gene expression (GE) was quantified to assess if plastic responses in gene expression to heat stress varied depending on site of origin or parental identity. Larval survival under heat stress varied between crosses, with larvae produced from dams sourced from far Northern GBR sites exhibiting higher thermal tolerance (Fig. 1b). The cross with the lowest thermal tolerance (LSxSB) did not have any larvae survive the heat treatment (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Fig. 2). GE was examined in aposymbiotic larvae experiencing ambient conditions prior to the heat treatment (“pre”), larvae after exposure to simulated heat stress (35.5 °C for 56 hours, “post heat”), and a simultaneous control temperature of 27 °C (“post ambient”). Therefore, the “pre” larval treatment provided transcriptomic baselines of GE between genetic crosses while “post heat” and “post ambient” comparisons show a baseline for cross-specific heat responses without the confounding effect of symbiosis found in the post-metamorphic phase. Using a principal coordinates analysis (PCoA), we find that GE patterns in larvae were driven by treatment (“pre”, “post ambient”, “post heat”), explaining 29.2% of the variation in survival (padonis  More

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 599–610 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verdone, M. & Seidl, A. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol. 25, 903–911 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanturf, J. A., Palik, B. J. & Dumroese, R. K. Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function. For. Ecol. Manag. 331, 292–323 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. Use of direct seeding and seedling planting to restore Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis Sieb. Et Zucc.) in secondary forests of Northeast China. For. Ecol. Manag. 493, 119243 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, A. R., Kim, H. J., Jung, J. B. & Park, P. S. Seed germination and initial seedling survival of the subalpine tree species, Picea jezoensis, on different forest floor substrates under elevated temperature. For. Ecol. Manag. 429, 579–588 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, E. et al. Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. For. Ecol. Manag. 333, 66–75 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, B. J., Jones, M. D. & Kranabetter, J. M. Ectomycorrhizae and tree seedling nitrogen nutrition in forest restoration. New For. 46, 747–771 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, D. A., Molina, R. & Amaranthus, M. P. Mycorrhizae, mycorrhizospheres, and reforestation: Current knowledge and research needs. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 929–940 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duñabeitia, M. K. et al. Differential responses of three fungal species to environmental factors and their role in the mycorrhization of Pinus radiata D. Don. Mycorrhiza 14, 11–18 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rincón, A., De Felipe, M. R. & Fernández-Pascual, M. Inoculation of Pinus halepensis Mill. with selected ectomycorrhizal fungi improves seedling establishment 2 years after planting in a degraded gypsum soil. Mycorrhiza 18, 23–32 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanchez-Zabala, J. et al. Physiological aspects underlying the improved outplanting performance of Pinus pinaster Ait. seedlings associated with ectomycorrhizal inoculation. Mycorrhiza 23, 627–640 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sousa, N. R., Franco, A. R., Oliveira, R. S. & Castro, P. M. Reclamation of an abandoned burned forest using ectomycorrhizal inoculated Quercus rubra. For. Ecol. Manag. 320, 50–55 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Policelli, N., Horton, T. R., Hudon, A. T., Patterson, T. & Bhatnagar, J. M. Back to roots: The role of ectomycorrhizal fungi in boreal and temperate forest restoration. Front. For. Glob. Change 3, 97 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. D., Durall, D. M. & Cairney, J. W. G. Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in young forest stands regenerating after clearcut logging. New Phytol. 157, 399–422 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Policelli, N., Bruns, T. D., Vilgalys, R. & Nuñez, M. A. Suilloid fungi as global drivers of pine invasions. New Phytol. 222, 714–725 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Visser, S. Ectomycorrhizal fungal succession in jack pine stands following wildfire. New Phytol. 129, 389–401 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nuñez, M. A., Horton, T. R. & Simberloff, D. Lack of belowground mutualisms hinders pinaceae invasions. Ecology 90, 2352–2359 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pec, G. J., Simard, S. W., Cahill, J. F. & Karst, J. The effects of ectomycorrhizal fungal networks on seedling establishment are contingent on species and severity of overstorey mortality. Mycorrhiza 130, 173–183 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossnickle, S. C. & Reid, C. P. P. The use of ectomycorrhizal conifer seedlings in the revegetation of a high-elevation mine site. Can. J. For. Res. 12, 354–361 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teste, F. P., Schmidt, M. G., Berch, S. M., Bulmer, C. & Egger, K. N. Effects of ectomycorrhizal inoculants on survival and growth of interior Douglas-fir seedlings on reforestation sites and partially rehabilitated landings. Can. J. For. Res. 34, 2074–2088 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trappe, J. M. Selection of fungi for ectomycorrhizal inoculation in nurseries. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15, 203–222 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Linde, S. et al. Environment and host as large-scale controls of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Nature 558, 243–248 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Finlay, R. D., Frostegård, Å. & Sonnerfeldt, A. M. Utilization of organic and inorganic nitrogen sources by ectomycorrhizal fungi in pure culture and in symbiosis with Pinus contorta Dougl ex. Loud. New Phytol. 120, 105–115 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller, G. Utilization of inorganic and organic nitrogen sources by high-subalpine ectomycorrhizal fungi of Pinus cembra in pure culture. Mycol. Res. 100, 989–998 (1996).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hatakeyama, T. & Ohmasa, M. Mycelial growth of strains of the genera Suillus and Boletinus in media with a wide range of concentrations of carbon and nitrogen sources. Mycoscience 45, 169–176 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Itoo, Z. A. & Reshi, Z. A. Effect of different nitrogen and carbon sources and concentrations on the mycelial growth of ectomycorrhizal fungi under in-vitro conditions. Scand. J. For. Res. 29, 619–628 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lazarević, J., Stojičić, D. & Keča, N. Effects of temperature, pH and carbon and nitrogen sources on growth of in vitro cultures of ectomycorrhizal isolates from Pinus heldreichii forest. For. Syst. 25, 3 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Valdés, R. C., Villarreal, R. M., García, F. G., Morales, S. G. & Peña, S. S. Improved parameters of Pinus greggii seedling growth and health after inoculation with ectomycorrhizal fungi. South. For. 81, 23–30 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daza, A. et al. Effect of carbon and nitrogen sources, pH and temperature on in vitro culture of several isolates of Amanita caesarea (Scop.: Fr.) Pers. Mycorrhiza 16, 133–136 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wani, A. A., Joshi, P. K., Singh, O. & Shafi, S. Multi-temporal forest cover dynamics in Kashmir Himalayan region for assessing deforestation and forest degradation in the context of REDD+ policy. J. Mt. Sci. 13, 1431–1441 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chung, H. C., Kim, D. H. & Lee, S. S. Mycorrhizal formations and seedling growth of Pinus desiflora by in vitro synthesis with the inoculation of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Mycobiology 30, 70–75 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barroetaveña, C., Cázares, E. & Rajchenberg, M. Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir: A comparison of species richness in native western North American forests and Patagonian plantations from Argentina. Mycorrhiza 17, 355–373 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ekwebelam, S. A. Effect of mycorrhizal fungi on the growth and yield of Pinus oocarpa and Pinus caribaea var. bahamensis seedlings. E. Afr. Agric. For. J. 45, 290–295 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Kasuya, M. C. M. & Igarashi, T. In vitro ectomycorrhizal formation in Picea glehnii seedlings. Mycorrhiza 6, 451–454 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, E. J., Jeon, S. M., Jang, Y. & Ka, K. H. Mycelial growth of edible ectomycorrhizal fungi according to nitrogen sources. Korean J. Mycol. 44, 166–170 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dar, A. R. & Dar, G. H. Taxonomic appraisal of conifers of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 9, 859–867 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adeleke, R. A., Nunthkumar, B., Roopnarain, A. & Obi, L. Applications of plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecosystems. In Microbiome in Plant Health and Disease 1–34 (Springer, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Yamanaka, T. Utilization of inorganic and organic nitrogen in pure cultures by saprotrophic and ectomycorrhizal fungi producing sporophores on urea-treated forest floor. Mycol. Res. 103, 811–816 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berredjem, A., Garnier, A., Putra, D. P. & Botton, B. Effect of nitrogen and carbon sources on growth and activities of NAD and NADP dependent isocitrate dehydrogenases of Laccaria bicolor. Mycol. Res. 102, 427–434 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cairney, J. W. G. Intra-specific physiological variation: implications for understanding functional diversity in ectomycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza 9, 125–135 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
France, R. C. & Reid, C. P. P. Pure culture growth of ectomycorrhizal fungi on inorganic nitrogen sources. Microb. Ecol. 10, 187–195 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kibar, B. & Peksen, A. Nutritional and environmental requirements for vegetative growth of edible ectomycorrhizal mushroom Tricholoma terreum. Zemdirb. Agric. 4, 409–414 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Nygren, C. M. R. et al. Growth on nitrate and occurrence of nitrate reductase encoding genes in a phylogenetically diverse range of ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 180, 875–889 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rangel-Castro, I. J., Danell, E. & Taylor, A. F. Use of different nitrogen sources by the edible ectomycorrhizal mushroom Cantharellus cibarius. Mycorrhiza 12, 131–137 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, M. L., Cripps, C. L. & Gains-Germain, L. Scorched Earth: Suillus colonization of Pinus albicaulis seedlings planted in wildfire-impacted soil affects seedling biomass, foliar nutrient content, and isotope signatures. Plant Soil 425, 113–131 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Taudière, A., Richard, F. & Carcaillet, C. Review on fire effects on ectomycorrhizal symbiosis, an unachieved work for a scalding topic. For. Ecol. Manag. 391, 446–457 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bigelow, H. E. & Smith, A. H. The status of Lepista: A new section of Clitocybe. Brittonia 21, 144–177 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuo, M. Clitocybe Nuda. Retrieved from MushroomExpert.Com. http://www.mushroomexpert.com/clitocybe_nuda.html (2010).Mycobank. www.mycobank.org. Accessed on Jan 28, 2020. (2020).Peck, C. H. Report of the Botanist 1869. Annu. Rep. N.Y. State Mus. Nat. Hist. 23, 27–135 (1873).
Google Scholar 
Kuo, M. Cortinarius Distans. Retrieved from MushroomExpert.Com. http://www.mushroomexpert.com/cortinarius_distans.html (2011).Losinger, W. C. Germination and Growth of Some Ectomycorrhizal Basidiomycetes in Culture. Doctoral dissertation, Kalamazoo College (1980).Norvell, L. L. & Exeter, R. L. Ectomycorrhizal epigeous basidiomycete diversity in Oregon Coast Range Pseudotsuga menziesii forests-preliminary observations. Memoirs 89, 159–190 (2004).
Google Scholar  More

Réale, D., Reader, S. M., Sol, D., McDougall, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 82, 291–318 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, B. R. & Blumstein, D. T. Fitness consequences of personality: A meta-analysis. Behav. Ecol. 19, 448–455 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gasparini, C., Speechley, E. M. & Polverino, G. The bold and the sperm: Positive association between boldness and sperm number in the guppy. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190474 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jokela, M., Alvergne, A., Pollet, T. V. & Lummaa, V. Reproductive behavior and personality traits of the five factor model. Eur. J. Pers. 25, 487–500 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuett, W., Dall, S. R. X. & Royle, N. J. Pairs of zebra finches with similar ‘personalities’ make better parents. Anim. Behav. 81, 609–618 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vetter, S. G. et al. Shy is sometimes better: Personality and juvenile body mass affect adult reproductive success in wild boars, Sus scrofa. Anim. Behav. 115, 193–205 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiss, A. Personality traits: A view from the animal kingdom. J. Pers. 86, 12–22 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bergmüller, R. & Taborsky, M. Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 504–511 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Montiglio, P. O., Wey, T. W., Chang, A. T., Fogarty, S. & Sih, A. Correlational selection on personality and social plasticity: Morphology and social context determine behavioural effects on mating success. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 213–226 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, M. & McNamara, J. M. On the evolution of personalities via frequency-dependent selection. Am. Nat. 179, 679–692 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Munson, A. A., Jones, C., Schraft, H. & Sih, A. You’re just my type: Mate choice and behavioral types. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 823–833 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, H. & Chittka, L. Animal personalities: The advantage of diversity. Curr. Biol. 18, 961–963 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biro, P. A. & Stamps, J. A. Are animal personality traits linked to life-history productivity?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 361–368 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., Drent, P. J. & Tinbergen, J. M. Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 847–852 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boon, A. K., Réale, D. & Boutin, S. The interaction between personality, offspring fitness and food abundance in North American red squirrels. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1094–1104 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nicolaus, M., Tinbergen, J. M., Ubels, R., Both, C. & Dingemanse, N. J. Density fluctuations represent a key process maintaining personality variation in a wild passerine bird. Ecol. Lett. 19, 478–486 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Altschul, D. M. et al. Personality links with lifespan in chimpanzees. eLife 7, e33781 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Réale, D., Martin, J., Coltman, D. W., Poissant, J. & Festa-Bianchet, M. Male personality, life-history strategies and reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1599–1607 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brent, L. J. N. et al. Personality traits in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) are heritable but do not predict reproductive output. Int. J. Primatol. 35, 188–209 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rangassamy, M., Dalmas, M., Féron, C., Gouat, P. & Rödel, H. G. Similarity of personalities speeds up reproduction in pairs of a monogamous rodent. Anim. Behav. 103, 7–15 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuett, W., Tregenza, T. & Dall, S. R. X. Sexual selection and animal personality. Biol. Rev. 85, 217–246 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlstead, K., Fraser, J., Bennett, C. & Kleiman, D. G. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in US zoos: II. Behavior, breeding success, and mortality in relation to housing facilities. Zoo Biol. 18, 35–52 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin-Wintle, M. S. et al. Do opposites attract? Effects of personality matching in breeding pairs of captive giant pandas on reproductive success. Biol. Conserv. 207, 27–37 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, R. A. & Millam, J. R. Personality traits of pair members predict pair compatibility and reproductive success in a socially monogamous parrot breeding in captivity. Zoo Biol. 33, 166–172 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, S., Grocutt, E., Erlandsson, R. & Angerbjörn, A. Parent personality is linked to juvenile mortality and stress behavior in the arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 73, 162 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kappeler, P. M. & van Schaik, C. P. Evolution of primate social systems. Int. J. Primatol. 23, 707–740 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tardif, S. D. et al. Reproduction in captive common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Comp. Med. 53, 364–368 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marini, R., Wachtman, L., Tardif, S., Mansfield, K. & Fox, J. The Common Marmoset in Captivity and Biomedical Research (Academic Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-00861-6.Book 

Google Scholar 
Arruda, M. D. F., Yamamoto, M. E., Pessoa, D. M. A. & Araujo, A. Taxonomy and Natural History. In The Common Marmoset in Captivity and Biomedical Research (eds Marini, R. et al.) 3–15 (Academic Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811829-0.00001-7.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Buchanan-Smith, H. M. Marmosets and tamarins. In The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals (eds Hubrecht, R. & Kirkwood, J.) (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318777.ch36.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Smucny, D. A. et al. Reproductive output, maternal age, and survivorship in captive common marmoset females (Callithrix jacchus). Am. J. Primatol. 64, 107–121 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ash, H. & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. Long-term data on reproductive output and longevity in captive female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am. J. Primatol. 76, 1062–1073 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frye, B. M. et al. After short interbirth intervals, captive callitrichine monkeys have higher infant mortality. iScience 25, 103724 (2022).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCoy, D. E. et al. A comparative study of litter size and sex composition in a large dataset of callitrichine monkeys. Am. J. Primatol. 81, e23038 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaquish, C. E., Tardif, S. D. & Cheverud, J. M. Interactions between infant growth and survival: Evidence for selection on age-specific body weight in captive common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am. J. Primatol. 42, 269–280 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tardif, S. D. & Jaquish, C. E. Number of ovulations in the marmoset monkey (Callithrix jacchus): Relation to body weight, age and repeatability. Am. J. Primatol. 42, 323–329 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Poole, T. B. & Evans, R. G. Reproduction, infant survival and productivity of a colony of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus jacchus). Lab. Anim. 16, 88–97 (1982).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tardif, S. D., Richter, C. B. & Carson, R. L. Effects of sibling-rearing experience on future reproductive success in two species of callitrichidae. Am. J. Primatol. 6, 377–380 (1984).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rothe, H., Koenig, A. & Darms, K. Infant survival and number of helpers in captive groups of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am. J. Primatol. 30, 131–137 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koski, S. E., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., Burkart, J. M., Bugnyar, T. & Weiss, A. Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) personality. J. Comp. Psychol. 131, 326–336 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Šlipogor, V., Burkart, J. M., Martin, J. S., Bugnyar, T. & Koski, S. E. Personality method validation in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): Getting the best of both worlds. J. Comp. Psychol. 134, 52–70 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiss, A., Yokoyama, C., Hayashi, T. & Inoue-Murayama, M. Personality, subjective well-being, and the serotonin 1a receptor gene in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). PLoS ONE 16, e0238663 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, H., Gosling, S. D. & Schapiro, S. J. Comparison of methods for assessing personality in nonhuman primates. In Personality and Temperament in Nonhuman Primates (eds Weiss, A. et al.) 17–40 (Springer, 2011).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Finkenwirth, C. & Burkart, J. M. Why help? Relationship quality, not strategic grooming predicts infant-care in group-living marmosets. Physiol. Behav. 193, 108–116 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haines, J. A. et al. Sex- and context-specific associations between personality and a measure of fitness but no link with life history traits. Anim. Behav. 167, 23–39 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlstead, K., Mellen, J. & Kleiman, D. G. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in US zoos: I. Individual behavior profiles and their relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biol. 18, 17–34 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, V., Lummaa, V., Lahdenperä, M., Rotkirch, A. & Jokela, M. Personality and long-term reproductive success measured by the number of grandchildren. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 533–539 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, H. P. A. & Sousa, M. B. C. The pair-bond formation and its role in the stimulation of reproductive function in female common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Int. J. Primatol. 18, 387–400 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cavanaugh, J., Mustoe, A. C., Taylor, J. H. & French, J. A. Oxytocin facilitates fidelity in well-established marmoset pairs by reducing sociosexual behavior toward opposite-sex strangers. Psychoneuroendocrinology 49, 1–10 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, I. L., Nævdal, E. & Bøe, K. E. Maternal investment, sibling competition, and offspring survival with increasing litter size and parity in pigs (Sus scrofa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 1159–1167 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnstone-Yellin, T. L., Shipley, L. A., Myers, W. L. & Robinson, H. S. To twin or not to twin? Trade-offs in litter size and fawn survival in mule deer. J. Mammal. 90, 453–460 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ariyomo, T. O. & Watt, P. J. The effect of variation in boldness and aggressiveness on the reproductive success of zebrafish. Anim. Behav. 83, 41–46 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patterson, L. D. & Schulte-Hostedde, A. I. Behavioural correlates of parasitism and reproductive success in male eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus. Anim. Behav. 81, 1129–1137 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mutzel, A., Dingemanse, N. J., Araya-Ajoy, Y. G. & Kempenaers, B. Parental provisioning behaviour plays a key role in linking personality with reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131019 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Costa, T. S. O. et al. Individual behavioral differences and health of golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Am. J. Primatol. 82, e23118 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, P. M. et al. Personality-dependent spatial ecology occurs independently from dispersal in wild burbot (Lota lota). Behav. Ecol. 26, 483–492 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tardif, S. D., Power, M., Oftedal, O. T., Power, R. A. & Layne, D. G. Lactation, maternal behavior and infant growth in common marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus): Effects of maternal size and litter size. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 51, 17–25 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, D. A., Windle, C. P., Baker, H. F. & Ridley, R. M. Analysis of infant carrying in large, well-established family groups of captive marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Primates 45, 259–265 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leutenegger, W. Maternal-fetal weight relationships in primates. Folia Primatol. 20, 280–293 (1973).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schultz-Darken, N., Ace, L. & Ash, H. Behavior and behavioral management. In The Common Marmoset in Captivity and Biomedical Research (eds Marini, R. et al.) 109–117 (Academic Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811829-0.00007-8.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Bardi, M. & Petto, A. J. Parental failure in captive common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): A comparison with tamarins. Folia Primatol. 73, 46–48 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbosa, M. N. & da Silva Mota, M. T. Alloparental responsiveness to newborns by nonreproductive, adult male, common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Am. J. Primatol. 75, 145–152 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rutherford, J. N. et al. Womb to womb: Maternal litter size and birth weight but not adult characteristics predict early neonatal death of offspring in the common marmoset monkey. PLoS ONE 16, e0252093 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Finkenwirth, C., Martins, E., Deschner, T. & Burkart, J. M. Oxytocin is associated with infant-care behavior and motivation in cooperatively breeding marmoset monkeys. Horm. Behav. 80, 10–18 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, H. A., Dugdale, H. L., Richardson, D. S., Komdeur, J. & Burke, T. Extra-pair parentage and personality in a cooperatively breeding bird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 37 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schürch, R. & Heg, D. Variation in helper type affects group stability and reproductive decisions in a cooperative breeder. Ethology 116, 257–269 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Class, B. & Dingemanse, N. J. A variance partitioning perspective of assortative mating: Proximate mechanisms and evolutionary implications. J. Evol. Biol. 35, 483–490 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scherer, U., Godin, J. G. J. & Schuett, W. Do female rainbow kribs choose males on the basis of their apparent aggression and boldness? A non-correlational mate choice study. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 74, 34 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuett, W., Godin, J.-G.J. & Dall, S. R. X. Do female zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata, choose their mates based on their ‘personality’?. Ethology 117, 908–917 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ophir, A. G., Crino, O. L., Wilkerson, Q. C., Wolff, J. O. & Phelps, S. M. Female-directed aggression predicts paternal behavior, but female prairie voles prefer affiliative males to paternal males. Brain. Behav. Evol. 71, 32–40 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lazaro-Perea, C. Intergroup interactions in wild common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: Territorial defence and assessment of neighbours. Anim. Behav. 62, 11–21 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koski, S. E. & Burkart, J. M. Common marmosets show social plasticity and group-level similarity in personality. Sci. Rep. 5, 8878 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Norman, M., Rowden, L. J. & Cowlishaw, G. Potential applications of personality assessments to the management of non-human primates: A review of 10 years of study. PeerJ 9, e12044 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gorsuch, R. L. Factor Analysis 2nd edn. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983).MATH 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2020).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, R. H. B. Ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.4-25. (2019).Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer-Verlag, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Bartoń, K. Mu-MIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 2019 1.43.6. (2019).Grueber, C. E., Nakagawa, S., Laws, R. J. & Jamieson, I. G. Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: Challenges and solutions. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 699–711 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richards, S. A. Dealing with overdispersed count data in applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 218–227 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.2.7 (2020).Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. R package version 2.8.2 (2020)du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More