Philippa Kaur

USDA, N. Census of Horticultural Specialties (USDA, 2014).
Google Scholar 
USDA, N. Census of Horticultural Specialties (USDA, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Soliman, A. S. & Shanan, N. T. The role of natural exogenous foliar applications in alleviating salinity stress in Lagerstroemia indica L. seedlings. J. Appl. Hortic. 19, 35–45 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chappell, M. R., Braman, S. K., Williams-Woodward, J. & Knox, G. J. J. o. E. H. Optimizing plant health and pest management of Lagerstroemia spp. in commercial production and landscape situations in the southeastern United States: A review. 30, 161–172 (2012).Gu, M., Merchant, M., Robbins, J. & Hopkins, J. Crape Myrtle Bark Scale: A New Exotic Pest. Texas A&M AgriLife Ext. Service. EHT 49 (2014).Kondo, T., Gullan, P. J. & Williams, D. J. Coccidology. The study of scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea). Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria 9, 55–61 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, N. & Xu, H. Observertion on Eriococcus lagerostroemiae Kuwana. J. Anhui Agric. Coll. 25, 142–144 (1998).
Google Scholar 
He, D., Cheng, J., Zhao, H. & Chen, S. Biological characteristic and control efficacy of Eriococcus lagerstroemiae. Chin. Bull. Entomol. 45, 812–814 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Harcourt, D. The development and use of life tables in the study of natural insect populations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 14, 175–196 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leslie, P. H. On the use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika 33, 183–212 (1945).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Birch, L. The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J. Anim. Ecol., 15–26 (1948).Chi, H. Life-table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable development rates among individuals. Environ. Entomol. 17, 26–34 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chi, H. & Liu, H. Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sin 24, 225–240 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Fathipour, Y. & Maleknia, B. in Ecofriendly Pest Management for Food Security (ed Omkar) 329–366 (Academic Press, 2016).Auad, A. et al. The impact of temperature on biological aspects and life table of Rhopalosiphum padi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) fed with signal grass. Fla. Entomol. 569–577 (2009).Qu, Y. et al. Sublethal and hormesis effects of beta-cypermethrin on the biology, life table parameters and reproductive potential of soybean aphid Aphis glycines. Ecotoxicology 26, 1002–1009 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araujo, E. S., Benatto, A., Mogor, A. F., Penteado, S. C. & Zawadneak, M. A. Biological parameters and fertility life table of Aphis forbesi Weed, 1889 (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on strawberry. Braz. J. Biol. 76, 937–941. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.04715 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krishnamoorthy, S. V. & Mahadevan, N. R. Life table studies of sugarcane scale, Melanaspis glomerata G. J. Entomol. Res. 27, 203–212 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Uematsu, H. Studies on life table for an armored scale insect, Aonidiella taxus Leonardi (Homoptera: Diaspididae). J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. (1979).Hill, M. G., Mauchline, N. A., Hall, A. J. & Stannard, K. A. Life table parameters of two armoured scale insect (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) species on resistant and susceptible kiwifruit (Actinidia spp.) germplasm. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 37, 335–343 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yong, C. X. W. Z. C. & Shaoyun, Z. J. Y. S. W. Age-specific life table of chinese white wax scale (Ericerus pela) natural population and analysis of death key factors. Scientia Silvae Sinica 9 (2008).Rosado, J. F. et al. Natural biological control of green scale (Hemiptera: Coccidae): a field life-table study. Biocontrol. Sci. Technol. 24, 190–202 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fand, B. B., Gautam, R. D., Chander, S. & Suroshe, S. S. Life table analysis of the mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Entomol. Res. 34, 175–179 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Vargas-Madríz, H. et al. Life and fertility table of Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae), under different fertilization treatments in the 7705 tomato hybrid. Rev. Chil. entomol. 39 (2014).Huang, Y. B. & Chi, H. Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)(Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age-specific life tables to insect populations. Insect Sci. 19, 263–273 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saska, P. et al. Leaf structural traits rather than drought resistance determine aphid performance on spring wheat. J. Pest. Sci. 94, 423–434 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, K., Tang, Q., Xia, J., Lv, N. & Gao, X. Fitness costs of sulfoxaflor resistance in the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 158, 40–46 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ullah, F. et al. Fitness costs in clothianidin-resistant population of the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii. PLoS ONE 15, e0238707 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Güncan, A. & Gümüş, E. Influence of different hazelnut cultivars on some demographic characteristics of the filbert aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 110, 1856–1862 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bailey, R., Chang, N.-T., Lai, P.-Y. & Hsu, T.-C. Life table of cycad scale, Aulacaspis yasumatsui (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), reared on Cycas in Taiwan. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 13, 183–187 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z., Chen, Y. & Diaz, R. Temperature-dependent development and host range of crapemyrtle bark scale, Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae (Kuwana)(Hemiptera: Eriococcidae). Fla. Entomol. 102, 181–186 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z.-J. et al. A determining factor for insect feeding preference in the silkworm, Bombyx mori. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000162 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z., Chen, Y., Diaz, R. & Laine, R. A. Physiology of crapemyrtle bark scale, Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae (Kuwana), associated with seasonally altered cold tolerance. J. Insect Physiol. 112, 1–8 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Suh, S.-J. Notes on some parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) associated with Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae (Kuwana)(Hemiptera: Eriococcidae) in the Republic of Korea. Insecta mundi 0690, 1–5 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Meindl, G. A., Bain, D. J. & Ashman, T.-L. Edaphic factors and plant–insect interactions: Direct and indirect effects of serpentine soil on florivores and pollinators. Oecologia 173, 1355–1366 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wielgolaski, F. E. Phenological modifications in plants by various edaphic factors. Int. J. Biometeorol. 45, 196–202 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Uchida, R. in Plant nutrient management in Hawaii’s soils (ed Raymond S. Uchida James A. Silva) 31–55 (University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Agriculture & Tropical Resources, 2000).Flanders, S. E. Observations on host plant induced behavior of scale insects and their endoparasites. Can. Entomol. 102, 913–926 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, T.-C. & Chi, H. Life tables and development of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) at different temperatures. J. Econ. Entomol. 99, 691–698 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuan, S. J., Lee, C. C. & Chi, H. Population and damage projection of Spodoptera litura (F.) on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) under different conditions using the age-stage, two-sex life table. Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 805–813 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vafaie, E. et al. Seasonal population patterns of a new scale pest, Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae Kuwana (Hemiptera: Sternorrhynca: Eriococcidae), of Crapemyrtles in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. J. Environ. Hortic. 38, 8–14 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vafaie, E. K. Bark and systemic insecticidal control of Acanthococcus (= Eriococcus) lagerstroemiae (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae) on Potted Crapemyrtles, 2017. Arthropod manag. tests 44, tsy109 (2019).Vafaie, E. K. & Knight, C. M. J. A. M. T. Bark and systemic insecticidal control of Acanthococcus (= Eriococcus) lagerstroemiae (Crapemyrtle Bark Scale) on Landscape Crapemyrtles, 2016. 42, tsx130 (2017).Vafaie, E. & Gu, M. Insecticidal control of crapemyrtle bark scale on potted crapemyrtles, Fall 2018. Arthropod. Manag. Tests 44, tsz061 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D. & Chowdhury, A. J. I. t. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. 2, 1 (2009).Grafton-Cardwell, E. & Vehrs, S. Monitoring for organophosphate-and carbamate-resistant armored scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) in San Joaquin valley citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 88, 495–504 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Almarinez, B. J. M. et al. Biological control: A major component of the pest management program for the invasive coconut scale insect, Aspidiotus rigidus Reyne, in the Philippines. Insects 11, 745 (2020).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grout, T. & Richards, G. Value of pheromone traps for predicting infestations of red scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell)(Hom., Diaspididae), limited by natural enemy activity and insecticides used to control citrus thrips, Scirtothrips aurantii Faure (Thys., Thripidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 111, 20–27 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grafton-Cardwell, E., Millar, J., O’Connell, N. & Hanks, L. Sex pheromone of yellow scale, Aonidiella citrina (Homoptera: Diaspididae): Evaluation as an IPM tactic. J. Agric. Urban. Entomol. 17, 75–88 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jactel, H., Menassieu, P., Lettere, M., Mori, K. & Einhorn, J. Field response of maritime pine scale, Matsucoccus feytaudi Duc. (Homoptera: Margarodidae), to synthetic sex pheromone stereoisomers. J. Chem. Ecol. 20, 2159–2170 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mendel, Z. et al. Outdoor attractancy of males of Matsucoccus josephi (Homoptera: Matsucoccidae) and Elatophilus hebraicus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to synthetic female sex pheromone of Matsucoccus josephi. J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 331–341 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zada, A. et al. Sex pheromone of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri: Synthesis and optimization of trap parameters. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 361–368 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z. & Shi, Y. Studies on the Morphology and Biology of Eriococcus Lagerstroemiae Kuwana. J. Shandong Agri. Univ. 2 (1986).Savopoulou-Soultani, M., Papadopoulos, N. T., Milonas, P. & Moyal, P. Abiotic factors and insect abundance. PSYCHE 2012 (2012).Vandegehuchte, M. L., de la Pena, E. & Bonte, D. Relative importance of biotic and abiotic soil components to plant growth and insect herbivore population dynamics. PLoS ONE 5, e12937 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clavijo McCormick, A. Can plant–natural enemy communication withstand disruption by biotic and abiotic factors?. Ecol. Evol. 6, 8569–8582 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nebapure, S. M. & Sagar, D. Insect-plant interaction: A road map from knowledge to novel technology. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 28, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Murashige, T. & Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15, 473–497 (1962).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hogendorp, B. K., Cloyd, R. A. & Swiader, J. M. Effect of nitrogen fertility on reproduction and development of citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri Risso (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), feeding on two colors of coleus Solenostemon scutellarioides L. Codd. Environ. Entomol. 35, 201–211 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lema, K. & Mahungu, N. in Tropical root crops: Production and uses in Africa: proceedings of the Second Triennial Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops-Africa Branch held in Douala, Cameroon, 14-19 Aug. 1983. (IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA).McClure, M. S. Dispersal of the scale Fiorinia externa (Homoptera: Diaspididae) and effects of edaphic factors on its establishment on hemlock. Environ. Entomol. 6, 539–544 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salama, H., Amin, A. & Hawash, M. Effect of nutrients supplied to citrus seedlings on their susceptibility to infestation with the scale insects Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) and Lepidosaphes beckii (Newman)(Coccoidea). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 71, 395–405 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasmann, S. & Pellissier, L. in Climate Change and Insect Pests Vol. 8 (ed P. Niemelä C. Björkman) 38–53 (Wallingford, UK: CAB Int., 2015).Wang, Z. & Li, S. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on plant growth and nitrate accumulation in vegetables. J. Plant Nutr. 27, 539–556 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Da Costa, P. B. et al. The effects of different fertilization conditions on bacterial plant growth promoting traits: Guidelines for directed bacterial prospection and testing. Plant Soil. 368, 267–280 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dong, H., Kong, X., Li, W., Tang, W. & Zhang, D. Effects of plant density and nitrogen and potassium fertilization on cotton yield and uptake of major nutrients in two fields with varying fertility. Field Crops Res. 119, 106–113 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aulakh, M., Dev, G. & Arora, B. Effect of sulphur fertilization on the nitrogen–sulphur relationships in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. Pers.). Plant Soil. 45, 75–80 (1976).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, G., Tosh, C. R. & Hardie, J. Host plant selection by aphids: Behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51, 309–330 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sauge, M. H., Grechi, I. & Poëssel, J. L. Nitrogen fertilization effects on Myzus persicae aphid dynamics on peach: Vegetative growth allocation or chemical defence?. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 136, 123–133 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y., Serteyn, L., Wang, Z., He, K. & Francis, F. Reduction of plant suitability for corn leaf aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) under elevated carbon dioxide condition. Environ. Entomol. (2019).Miller, D. R. & Kosztarab, M. Recent advances in the study of scale insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 24, 1–27 (1979).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hardy, N. B., Peterson, D. A. & Normark, B. B. Scale insect host ranges are broader in the tropics. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150924 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Q. et al. Age-stage, two-sex life table of Parapoynx crisonalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) at different temperatures. PLoS ONE 12, e0173380 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X. et al. Density-dependent demography and mass-rearing of Carposina sasakii (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae) incorporating life table variability. J. Econ. Entomol. 112, 255–265 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ning, S., Zhang, W., Sun, Y. & Feng, J. Development of insect life tables: comparison of two demographic methods of Delia antiqua (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) on different hosts. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
TWOSEX-MSChart: A computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis (2020).Goodman, D. Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value. Am. Nat. 119, 803–823 (1982).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap (CRC Press, 1994).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar  More

Godfray, H. C. Parasitoids: Behavioural and Evolutionary Ecology (Princeton University Press, 1994).Book 

Google Scholar 
Jervis, M. A., Ellers, J. & Harvey, J. A. Resource acquisition, allocation, and utilization in parasitoid reproductive strategies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 53, 361–385 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jervis, M. A. & Kidd, N. A. C. Host-feeding strategies in hymenopteran parasitoids. Biol. Rev. 61, 395–434 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cebolla, R., Vanaclocha, P., Urbaneja, A. & Tena, A. Overstinging by hymenopteran parasitoids causes mutilation and surplus killing of hosts. J. Pest Sci. 91, 327–339 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abram, P. K., Brodeur, J., Urbaneja, A. & Tena, A. Nonreproductive effects of insect parasitoids on their hosts. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 64, 259–276 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Münster-Swendsen, M. Population cycles of the spruce needle miner in Denmark driven by interactions with insect parasitoids. In Population Cycles: The Case for Trophic Interactions (ed. Berryman, A. A.) 29–43 (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Abram, P. K., Brodeur, J., Burte, V. & Boivin, G. Parasitoid-induced host egg abortion: an underappreciated component of biological control services provided by egg parasitoids. Biol. Control 98, 52–60 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vinson, S. B. & Iwantsch, G. F. Host suitability for insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25, 397–419 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heimpel, G. E. & Collier, T. R. The evolution of host-feeding behaviour in insect parasitoids. Biol. Rev. 71, 373–400 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heimpel, G. E., Rosenheim, J. A. & Adams, J. M. Behavioral ecology of host feeding in Aphytis melinus parasitoid. Nor. J. Agric. Sci. 6, 101–115 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Heimpel, G. E. & Rosenheim, J. A. Dynamic host feeding by the parasitoid Aphytis melinus: the balance between current and future reproduction. J. Anim. Ecol. 64, 153–167 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, W. I., Yoon, T. J. & Ryoo, M. I. Host-size-dependent feeding behaviour and progeny sex ratio of Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hym., Pteromalidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 125, 71–77 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burger, J. M. S., Hemerik, L., Leteren, J. C. & Vet, L. E. M. Reproduction now or later: optimal host-handling strategies in the whitefly parasitoid Encasia formosa. Oikos 106, 117–130 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guillemaud, T. et al. The tomato borer, Tuta absoluta, invading the Mediterranean Basin, originates from a single introduction from Central Chile. Sci. Rep. 5, 8371 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Desneux, N., Luna, M. G., Guillemaud, T. & Urbaneja, A. The invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta, continues to spread in Afro-Eurasia and beyond: the new threat to tomato world production. J. Pest Sci. 84, 403–408 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desneux, N. et al. Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control. J. Pest Sci. 83, 197–215 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biondi, A., Guedes, R. N. C., Wan, F. H. & Desneux, N. Ecology, worldwide spread and management of the invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta: past, present and future. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 239–258 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Campos, M. R., Biondi, A., Adiga, A., Guedes, R. N. C. & Desneux, N. From the Western Palaearctic region to beyond: Tuta absoluta 10 years after invading Europe. J. Pest Sci. 90, 787–796 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, P. et al. Are we ready for the invasion of Tuta absoluta? Unanswered key questions for elaborating an integrated pest management package in Xinjiang, China. Entomol. Gen. 38, 125 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Han, P. et al. Tuta absoluta continues to disperse in Asia: damage, ongoing management and future challenges. J. Pest Sci. 92, 1317–1327 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mansour, R. et al. Occurrence, biology, natural enemies and management of Tuta absoluta in Africa. Entomol. Gen. 38, 83–111 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, G. F. et al. Outbreak of the South American tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta, in the Chinese mainland: geographic and potential host range expansion. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 5475–5488 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Desneux, N. et al. Integrated pest management of Tuta absoluta: practical implementations across different world regions. J. Pest Sci. 95, 17–39 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M. H. et al. Polygyny of Tuta absoluta may affect sex pheromone-based control techniques. Entomol. Gen. 41, 357–367 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rostami, E., Madadi, H., Abbasipour, H., Allahyari, H. & Cuthbertson, A. G. S. Pest density influences on tomato pigment contents: the South American tomato pinworm scenario. Entomol. Gen. 40, 195–205 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desneux, N., Decourtye, A. & Delpuech, J. M. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 81–106 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gebiola, M., Bernardo, U., Ribes, A. & Gibson, G. A. P. An integrative study of Necremnus Thomson (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) associated with invasive pests in Europe and North America: taxonomic and ecological implications. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 173, 352–423 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naselli, M. et al. Insights into food webs associated with the South American tomato pinworm. Pest Manag. Sci. 73, 1352–1357 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Campos, M. R. et al. Impact of a shared sugar food source on biological control of Tuta absoluta by the parasitoid Necremnus tutae. J. Pest Sci. 93, 207–218 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. B. et al. Host selection behavior of the host-feeding parasitoid Necremnus tutae on Tuta absoluta. Entomol. Gen. https://doi.org/10.1127/entomologia/2021/1246 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bodino, N., Ferracini, C. & Tavella, L. Is host selection influenced by natal and adult experience in the parasitoid Necremnus tutae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)?. Anim. Behav. 112, 221–228 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biondi, A., Desneux, N., Amiens-Desneux, E., Siscaro, G. & Zappalà, L. Biology and developmental strategies of the Palaearctic parasitoid, Bracon nigricans (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on the Neotropical moth Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 106, 1638–1647 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Foltyn, S. & Gerling, D. The parasitoids of the aleyrodid Bemisia tabaci in Israel. Development, host preference and discrimination of the aphelinid Eretmocerus mundus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 38, 255–260 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. B., Yang, N. W., Sun, L. Y. & Wan, F. H. Host instar suitability in two invasive whiteflies for the naturally occurring parasitoid Eretmocerus hayati in China. J. Pest Sci. 88(2), 1612–1618 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lebreton, S., Darrouzet, E. & Chevrier, C. Could hosts considered as low quality for egg-laying be considered as high quality for host-feeding?. J. Insect Physiol. 55, 694–699 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Calvo, F. J., Soriano, J. D., Bolckmans, K. & Belda, J. E. Host instar suitability and life-history parameters under different temperature regimes of Necremnus artynes on Tuta absoluta. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 23(7), 803–815 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chailleux, A., Desneux, N., Arnó, J. & Gabarra, R. Biology of two key Palaearctic larval ectoparasitoids when parasitizing the invasive pest Tuta absoluta. J. Pest Sci. 87(3), 441–448 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asgari, S. & Rivers, D. B. Venom proteins from endoparasitoid wasps and their role in host-parasite interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56, 313–335 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Abram, P. K., Gariepy, T. D., Boivin, G. & Brodeur, J. An invasive stink bug as an evolutionary trap for an indigenous egg parasitoid. Biol. Invasions 16, 1387–1395 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlaepfer, M. A., Sherman, P. W., Blossey, B. & Runge, M. C. Introduced species as evolutionary traps. Ecol. Lett. 8, 241–246 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Driesche, R. G., Bellotti, A., Herrera, C. J. & Castello, J. A. Host feeding and ovipositor insertion as sources of mortality in the mealybug Phenacoccus herreni caused by two encyrtids, Epidinocarsis diversicornis and Acerophagus coccois. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 44, 97–100 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, B. & Brunner, J. Types of parasitoid-induced mortality, host stage preferences, and sex ratios exhibited by Pnigalio flavipes (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) using Phyllonorycter elmaella (Lepidoptera: Gracillaridae) as a host. Environ. Entomol. 19, 803–807 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y., Loomans, A. J. M., van Lenteren, J. C. & Xu, R. M. Hyperparasitism behavior of the autoparasitoid Encarsia tricolor on two secondary host species. BioControl 54, 411–424 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patel, K. J., Schuster, D. J. & Smerage, G. H. Density dependent parasitism and host-killing of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) by Diglyphus intermedius (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Fla. Entomol. 86, 8–14 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lauziere, I., Perez-Lachaud, G. & Bordeur, J. Influence of host density on the reproductive strategy of Cephalonomia stephanoderis, a parasitoid of the coffee berry borer. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 92, 21–28 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanckenhorn, W. U. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?. Quart. Rev. Biol. 75(4), 385–407 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Idriss, G. E. A., Mohamed, S. A., Khamis, F., Plessis, H. D. & Ekesi, S. Biology and performance of two indigenous larval parasitoids on Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Sudan. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 28(6), 614–628 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanckenhorn, W. U., Preziosi, R. F. & Fairbairn, D. J. Time and energy constraints and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism-to eat or to mate?. Evol. Ecol. 9, 369–381 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blomqvist, D., Johansson, O. C., Unger, U., Larsson, M. & Flodin, L. A. Male aerial display and reversed sexual size dimorphism in the dunlin. Anim. Behav. 54, 1291–1299 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simmons, L. W., Tomkins, J. L. & Hunt, J. Sperm competition games played by dimorphic male beetles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 145–150 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Madsen, T. & Shine, R. Costs of reproduction influence the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in snakes. Evolution 48, 1389–1397 (1994).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanckenhorn, W. U., Morf, C., Mühlhäuser, C. & Reusch, T. Spatiotemporal variation in selection on body size in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. J. Evol. Biol. 9, 369–381 (1999).
Google Scholar  More

Overview of the study areaBased on the actual cultivation of peanuts, the Huang-Huai-Hai region is selected as the study area (Fig. 1). The main body of the study area is the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (North China Plain), which is a typical alluvial plain resulting from extensive sediment deposition carried by the Yellow River, the Huaihe River and the Haihe River and their tributaries, and the hills in central and southern Shandong Peninsula adjacent to it. Administrative zones include 5 provinces, 2 cities, 53 cities and 376 counties (districts). In China, The Huang-Huai-Hai region is an important production and processing centre for agricultural products, with a total land area of 4.10 × 105 square kilometers and cultivated fields of 2.15 × 107 hm2, accounting for 4.3% and 16.3% of the total amount of the country, respectively. It belongs to temperate continental monsoon climate with distinct seasons, accumulated temperature of 3600–4800 degrees above 10 °C, frost-free period of 170–200 days and annual precipitation of 500–950 mm27. The Huang-huai-hai region is the largest peanut growing area, accounting for more than 50% of the country’s peanut production and area28.Figure 1Location of the study areas. The figure was made in the ArcGIS 10.2 platform (https://www.esri.com/en-us/home).Full size imageData sourcesThe data used in the study mainly include meteorological data, geographic information data and crop data. The meteorological data comes from China Meteorological Information Center (http://data.cma.cn), including the daily maximum temperature (℃), daily minimum temperature (℃), daily average temperature (℃), daily precipitation (mm) and daily average wind speed (M/s) observed by 186 ground observation meteorological stations in the Huang-Huai-Hai region from 1960 to 2019 (Fig. 1). Geographic information data include elevation DEM data (resolution of 1 km × 1 km) and land use data in the study area, which are from the resource and environmental science and data center of Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn). Crop data, including peanut sowing area and yield data, are derived from the statistical yearbooks of provinces and cities in the study area and China Agricultural Technology Network (http://www.cast.net.cn).Data processingMeteorological data processingAnusplin software is a tool to interpolate multivariate data based on ordinary thin disks and local thin disk spline functions, enabling the introduction of covariates for simultaneous spatial interpolation of multiple surfaces, suitable for meteorological data time series29. First, the Anusplin software is used to spatially interpolate the meteorological data and suitability data of the peanut growing season (April to September) from 1960 to 2019 based on the elevation data with a resolution of 1 km × 1 km. The Inverse Distance Weight (IDW) interpolation can make the meteorological data after Anusplin interpolation maintain consistency with the original data, and is able to improve the interpolation accuracy. Finally, the meteorological and suitability data set with a resolution of 1 km × 1 km is obtained. ArcGIS and MATLAB software were used to count the median of regional meteorological factors in agricultural fields of different cities (counties), and the meteorological factors and suitability of different periods of peanut growth season in each city (county) were obtained.Yield data processingMany factors affect crop yield formation, which can be generally divided into three main categories: meteorological conditions, agronomic and technological measures, and stochastic factors. Agricultural technical measures reflect the development level of social production in a certain historical period and become time technology trend output, which is referred to as trend output for short, and meteorological production reflects short period yield components that are affected by meteorological elements. Stochastic factors account for a small proportion and are often ignored in actual calculations30. The specific calculation is as follows:$$Y={Y}_{t}+{Y}_{w}$$
(1)

where Y is the actual yield (single production) of the crop, Yt is the trend yield, and Yw is the meteorological yield.In this paper, a straight-line sliding average method is used to simulate the trend yield. The straight-line sliding average method is a very commonly used method to model yield, and it considers the change in the time series of yield within a certain stage as a linear function, showing a straight line, as the stage continuously slides, the straight line continuously changes the position, and the backward slip reflects the continuous change in the evolution trend of the yield history31. The regression models in each stage are obtained in turn, and the mean value of each linear sliding regression simulation value at each time point is taken as its trend yield value. The linear trend equation at some stage is:$${Y}_{i}left(tright)={a}_{i}+{b}_{i}t$$
(2)
where i = n-k + 1, is the number of equations; k is the sliding step; n is the number of sample sequences; t is the time serial number. Yi(t) is the function value of each equation at point t. there are q function values at point t. the number of q is related to n and k. Calculate the average value of each function value at each point:$$overline{{Y }_{i}(t)}=frac{1}{q}sum_{j=1}^{q}{Y}_{i}left(tright)$$
(3)
Connecting the (overline{{Y }_{i}(t)}) value of each point can represent the historical evolution trend of production. Its characteristics depend on the value of k. Only when k is large enough, the trend yield can eliminate the influence of short cycle fluctuation. After comparison and considering the length of yield series, k is taken as 5 in this paper.After the trend yield is obtained, the meteorological yield is calculated using Eq. (1), then the relative meteorological production is$${Y}_{r}=frac{{Y}_{w}}{{Y}_{t}}$$
(4)
The relative meteorological yield shows that the relative variability of yield fluctuation deviating from the trend, that is, the amplitude of yield fluctuation, is not affected by time and space, and is comparable. However, when the value is negative, it indicates that the meteorological conditions are unfavorable to the overall crop production, and the crop yield reduction, that is, the yield reduction rate32.Characteristics of spatial and temporal distribution of climatic resources in the Huang-Huai-Hai regionCollect meteorological resource data from 1960 to 2019. Taking 1960–1989 as the first three decades of the study and 1990–2019 as the last three decades, the climatic resource changes of peanut growth in the Huang-Huai-Hai region are analyzed by interpolation of heat resources (average temperature), water resources (precipitation) and light resources (sunshine hours) in the study area in two periods combined with topographic factors.Establishment of suitability modelAccording to the definition of phenological time and growth period of peanut planting practice in the Huang-Huai-Hai region, the growth season of peanut is divided into three growth periods and five growth stages (Table 1). Temperature, precipitation and sunshine hours are the necessary meteorological factors to determine the normal development of peanut. Therefore, combined with climatic resources in the study area, temperature, precipitation and sunshine suitability model was introduced to quantitatively analyze the suitability of peanut planting.Table 1 Division of peanut growth periods.Full size tableTemperature suitability modelTemperature is a very important factor in the growth period of peanut, and the change of temperature in different growth periods will have a great influence on the yield and quality of peanut. As a warm-loving crop, accumulated temperature plays a decisive role in the budding condition and nutrient growth stage of peanut. Temperature determines the quality of fruit and the final yield of peanut. Beta function33 is used to calculate temperature suitability, which is universal for crop-temperature relationship. The specific calculation is as follows:$${F}_{i}left(tright)=frac{(t-{t}_{1}){({t}_{h}-t)}^{B}}{({t}_{0}-{t}_{1}){({t}_{h}-{t}_{0})}^{B}}$$
(5)
where the value of B is shown in$$B=frac{{t}_{h}-{t}_{0}}{{t}_{0}-{t}_{1}}$$
(6)
where Fi(t) is the temperature suitability of a certain growth period; t is the daily average temperature of peanut at a certain development stage; t1, th and t0 are the lower limit temperature, upper limit temperature and appropriate temperature required for each growth period of peanut. Refer to the corresponding index system and combined with the peanut production practice in Huang-Huai-Hai region34,35,36, determine the three base point temperature of peanut in each growth period, as shown in the Table 2.Table 2 Three fundamental points temperature and crop coefficient of peanut at each growth stage in the study area.Full size tablePrecipitation suitability modelPeanut has a long growth period, which is nearly half a year. Insufficient or excessive water during the growth period has a great impact on the growth and development, pod yield and quality of peanut. Combined with the actual situation of Huang-Huai-Hai region and peanut precipitation / water demand index, the water suitability function is determined and calculated as follows:$${text{F}}_{{text{i}}} left( {text{r}} right) = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}l} {frac{{text{r}}}{{0.9{text{ET}}_{{text{c}}} }}} hfill & {r < 0.9E{text{T}}_{{text{c}}} } hfill \ 1 hfill & {0.9E{text{T}}_{{text{c}}} le r le 1.2E{text{T}}_{{text{c}}} } hfill \ {frac{{1.2{text{ET}}_{{text{c}}} }}{{text{r}}}} hfill & {r > 1.2E{text{T}}_{{text{c}}} } hfill \ end{array} } right.$$
(7)
where Fi(r) is the water suitability of a certain growth period; r is the accumulated precipitation of peanut in a certain development period; ETc is the water demand of peanut in each growth period.$${mathrm{ET}}_{mathrm{c}}={mathrm{K}}_{mathrm{c}}cdot {mathrm{ET}}_{0}$$
(8)
where Kc is the peanut crop coefficient (Table 2) and ET0 is the crop reference evapotranspiration, which is calculated by the Penman Monteith method recommended by the international food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).Sunshine suitability modelSunshine hours are an important condition for photosynthesis. The “light compensation point” and “light saturation point” of peanut are relatively high, and more sunshine hours are required for photosynthesis. Under certain conditions of water, temperature and carbon dioxide, photosynthesis increases or decreases with the increase or decrease of light. Relevant studies show that when the sunshine hours reach more than 55% of the available sunshine hours, the crops reach the appropriate state to reflect the light37. The following formula is used to calculate the sunshine suitability of peanut in each growth period.$${mathrm{F}}_{mathrm{i}}left(mathrm{s}right)=left{begin{array}{l}frac{mathrm{S}}{{mathrm{S}}_{0}} quad S{mathrm{S}}_{0}end{array}right.$$
(9)
where Fi(s) is the sunshine suitability of peanut in a certain development period, S is the actual sunshine hours in a certain growth period, S0 is 55% of the sunshine hours (L0), and the calculation method of L0 refers to the following formula.$${mathrm{L}}_{0}=frac{2mathrm{t}}{15}$$
(10)
$$mathrm{sin}frac{mathrm{t}}{2}=sqrt{frac{mathrm{sin}(45^circ -frac{mathrm{varnothing }-updelta -upgamma }{2})times mathrm{sin}(45^circ +frac{mathrm{varnothing }-updelta -upgamma }{2})}{mathrm{cosvarnothing }times mathrm{cosdelta }}}$$
(11)
where Φ is the geographic latitude, δ is the declination, γ is the astronomical refraction, t is the angle.Comprehensive suitability modelPeanut has different needs for meteorological elements such as temperature, sunshine and precipitation in different growth periods. In order to analyze the impact of meteorological factors in different growth periods on yield, correlation analysis was conducted between the suitability of temperature, precipitation and sunshine in each growth period and the relative meteorological yield of peanut, and the correlation coefficient of each growth period divided by the sum of the correlation coefficients of the whole growth period was used as the weight coefficient of the suitability of temperature, precipitation and sunshine in each growth period (Table 3). The climatic suitability of each single element in peanut growing season is calculated by using formulas (12) and (13):Table 3 The weight coefficients of climatic suitability at each growth stage.Full size table$$left{begin{array}{c}{mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{ti}}=frac{{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{ti}}}{sum_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{ti}}}\ {mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{ri}}=frac{{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{ri}}}{{sum }_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{ri}}}\ {mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{si}}=frac{{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{si}}}{{sum }_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}{mathrm{a}}_{mathrm{si}}}end{array}right.$$
(12)
$$left{begin{array}{c}F(t)={sum }_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}left[{mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{ti}}{mathrm{F}}_{mathrm{i}}(mathrm{t})right]\ F(r)={sum }_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}left[{mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{ri}}{mathrm{F}}_{mathrm{i}}(mathrm{r})right]\ F(s)={sum }_{mathrm{i}=1}^{mathrm{n}}left[{mathrm{b}}_{mathrm{si}}{mathrm{F}}_{mathrm{i}}(mathrm{s})right]end{array}right.$$
(13)
where bti, bri and bsi are the weight coefficients of temperature, precipitation and sunshine suitability in the i growth period respectively, ati, ari and asi are the correlation coefficients between temperature, precipitation and sunshine suitability and meteorological impact index of peanut yield in the i growth period respectively, and F(t), F(r) and F(s) are the temperature, precipitation and sunshine suitability in peanut growth season respectively.Then, the geometric average method is used to obtain the comprehensive suitability of peanut growth season, as shown in formula (14).$$F(S)=sqrt[3]{F(t)times F(r)times F(s)}$$
(14)
Verification of climatic zoning resultsDrought and flood disaster indexOn the basis of previous studies, in view of the different water demand of peanut in different development stages, this paper adds the water demand of peanut in different development stages as an important index to calculate, and constructs a standardized precipitation crop water demand index (SPRI) that can comprehensively characterize the drought and flood situation of peanut, so as to judge and analyze the occurrence of drought and flood disasters of peanut.Step 1: calculate the difference D between precipitation and crop water demand at each development stage$${D}_{i}={P}_{i}-{ET}_{ci}$$
(15)
where Pi is the precipitation in the i development period (mm), and ETci is the crop water demand in the i development period (mm).Step 2: normalize the data sequence.Since there are negative values in the original sequence, it is necessary to normalize the data when calculating the standardized precipitation crop water demand index. The normalized value is the SPRI value. The normalization method and drought and flood classification are consistent with SPEI index38,39,40.Chilling injury indexBased on the results of previous studies41, the abnormal percentage of caloric index was selected as the index of low-temperature chilling injury of peanut to judge and analyze the occurrence of chilling injury in different growth stages. The specific calculation process and formula are as follows:Step 1: calculate the caloric index of different development stages.Combined with the growth and development characteristics of peanut and considering the appropriate temperature, lower limit temperature and upper limit temperature at different growth stages of peanut, the caloric index can reflect the response of crops to environmental heat conditions. The average value of daily heat index is taken as the heat index of growth stage to reflect the influence of heat conditions in different growth stages on crop growth and development. Refer to formulas (5) and (6) to calculate the heat index Fi(t) at different development stages.Step 2: calculate the percentage of heat index anomaly$${I}_{ci}=frac{{F}_{i}(t)-overline{{F }_{i}(t)}}{overline{{F }_{i}(t)}}times 100%$$
(16)
where Ici is the Chilling injury index of stage i, Fi(t) is the heat index of stage i, and (overline{{F }_{i}(t)}) is the average value of the heat index of stage i over the years.Heat injury indexBased on the results of previous studies42, taking the average temperature of 26 °C, 30 °C and 28 °C and the daily maximum temperature of 35 °C, 35 °C and 37 °C as the critical temperature index to identify the heat damage of peanut in three growth stages, if this condition is met and lasts for more than 3 days, it will be recorded as a high temperature event.Disaster frequencyDisaster frequency (Pi) is defined as the ratio of the number of years of disaster at a certain station to the total number of years in the study period43, which is calculated by formula (17).$${P}_{i}=frac{n}{N}times 100%$$
(17)
where n is the number of years of disaster events to some extent at a certain growth period at a certain station, and N is the total number of years. More

Population genetic data collection from primary data sourcesFigure 4 describes the overall data collection workflow for the four datasets that comprise CaliPopGen. We first identified literature potentially containing population genetic data for California by querying the Web of Science Core Collection (https://webofknowledge.com/) for relevant literature from 1900 to 2020 with the terms: topic = (California*) AND topic = (genetic* OR genomic*) AND topic = (species OR taxa* OR population*). We included only empirical peer-reviewed literature and excluded unreviewed preprints. In using these search terms, our goal was to broadly identify genetic papers focused on California with population or species-level analyses, while avoiding purely phylogenetic studies or those focused on agricultural or model species. This resulted in 4,942 unique records.Fig. 4Flow chart of the data collection process that generated the CaliPopGen databases.Full size imageWe next screened titles and abstracts to retain articles that: (1) provided data on populations of species which are self-sustaining without anthropogenic involvement; (2) included at least some eukaryote species; (3) included population(s) sampled within California; (4) mentioned measures of genetic diversity or differentiation; and (5) were not reviews (thus restricting our search to only primary literature). We retained 1869 studies after this first pass of literature screening (see Technical Validation for estimate of inter- and intra-screener bias).Our second, more in-depth screening pass involved reading the full text of these 1869 studies. We had two goals. First, we confirmed that retained papers fully met all five of our inclusion criteria (the first screen was very liberal with respect to these criteria, and many papers failed to meet at least one criterion after close reading). Second, we eliminated papers where the data were not presented in a way that allowed us to extract population-level information. For example, many of the more systematics-focused studies pooled samples from large, somewhat ill-defined regions (“Sierra Nevada” or “Southern California”); if such regions were larger than 50 km in a linear dimension, we deemed them unusable for making geographically-informative inferences. Other studies presented summaries of population data, often in the form of phylogenetic networks or trees, but did not include information on actual population genetic parameters and therefore were not relevant to our database. We retained 528 publications after this second pass.From this set of papers, we extracted species, locality, and genetic data for each California population or sampling locality described in each study (Fig. 3A). This included Latin binomial/trinomial, English common name, population identifiers, and geographic coordinates of sampling sites. We also noted population/sampling localities that were interpreted as comprised of interspecific hybrids, and listed both parental species. We collected population genetic diversity and differentiation statistics for each unique genetic marker for each population/sampling locality; as a result, a sampling locality may have multiple entry rows, one for each locus or marker type. Parameters extracted for each population/marker combination include sample size, genetic marker type, gene targets, number of loci, years of sampling, and reported values for effective population size (Ne), expected (HE) and observed (HO,) heterozygosity, nucleotide diversity (π, pi), alleles-per-locus (APL), allelic richness (AR), percent polymorphic loci (PPL), haplotype diversity (HDIV), inbreeding coefficient (e.g. FIS, FIT, GIS), and pairwise population genetic comparison parameters (FST, GST, DST, Nei’s D, Jost’s D, or phi). We note that while there are technical differences between allelic richness and alleles-per-locus, source literature often used the terms interchangeably, and we include the parameters and their values as named in the source. We define marker type as the general category of genetic marker used (e.g., “microsatellite” or “nuclear”), while gene targets are the specific locus/loci (e.g., “COI”). We present these data in two separate datasets, one containing all population-level genetic summary statistics (Dataset 121, see Fig. 3C and detailed description in Table 1) and a second for estimates of pairwise genetic differentiation (Dataset 221, see Fig. 3D and detailed description in Table 2).Table 1 Description of the population genetic data in Dataset 121.Full size tableTable 2 Description of the pairwise genetic distance data in Dataset 221.Full size tableAll genetic data were extracted directly from the source literature. However, we also updated or added to the metadata for these population genetic values in several ways. We included kingdom, phylum, and a lower-level taxonomic grouping for each species (usually class), and updated scientific and common names based on the currently accepted taxonomy of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility22. When geographic coordinates were not provided for a sampling locality, as was frequently the case in the older literature, we used Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps) to georeference localities based on either in-text descriptions or embedded figure maps guided by permanent landmarks like a bend in a river or administrative boundaries. Because this can only yield approximate coordinates, we recorded estimated accuracy as the radius of our best estimate of possible error in kilometers. If coordinates were provided in degree/minute/seconds, we used Google Maps to translate them to decimal degrees. In cases where coordinates were not provided and locality descriptions were too vague to determine coordinates with less than 50 km estimated coordinate error, we did not attempt to extract coordinates but still provide the genetic data. All coordinates are provided in the web Mercator projection (EPSG:3857). We excluded studies that reported genetic parameter values only for samples aggregated regionally (“Southern California” or “Sierra Nevada”). If marker type was not explicitly included, we classified marker type based on the gene targets reported, if provided.Life history trait data collectionTo increase the utility of CaliPopGen, we also assembled data on life history traits for all animal (Dataset 321) and plant (Dataset 421) species contained in Datasets 121 and 221. We assembled trait data that have previously been shown to correlate with genetic diversity, including those related to reproduction, life cycle, and body size, as well as conservation status (e.g.23,24,25,26,). Life history data were compiled by first referencing large online repositories, often specific to taxonomic groups, like the TRY plant trait database27, and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Seed Information Database28. If trait data for species of interest were unavailable from these compilations, we conducted keyword literature searches for each combination of species and life history trait, and extracted data from the primary literature. When data were not available for the subspecies or species for which we had genetic data, we report values for the next closest taxonomic level, up to and including family, as available in the literature.For both animals and plants, we defined habitat types as marine, freshwater, diadromous, amphibious, or terrestrial. Marine species include those that are found in brackish or wetland-marine habitats, as well as bird species that primarily reside in marine habitats. Freshwater species include those that are found in wetland-freshwater habitats, as well as species that primarily reside in freshwater. The diadromous category includes fish species that are catadromous or anadromous. We considered species to be amphibious if they have an obligatory aquatic stage in their life cycle, but also spend a significant portion of their life cycle on land. Terrestrial species were defined as those that spend most of their life cycle on land and are not aquatic for any portion of their life cycle. In a few cases (e.g., waterbirds that are both freshwater and marine, semi-aquatic reptiles), a species could reasonably be placed in more than one category, and we did our best to identify the primary life history category for such taxa. If the taxonomic identity of an entry was hybrid between species or subspecies, this was noted in the speciesID column and no life history data were reported.The CaliPopGen Animal Life History Traits Dataset 321 (description of dataset in Table 3) includes habitat type, lifespan, fecundity, lifetime reproductive success, age at sexual maturity, number of breeding events per year, mode of reproduction, adult length and mass, California native status, listing status under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), listing status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and status as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). For some traits, value ranges were recorded–for example, minimum to maximum lifespan. In other cases, we recorded single values and, when available, a definition of this single value, (for example, minimum, average, or maximum lifespan). We report either the range of the age of sexual maturity (minimum to maximum), or a single value, depending on the available literature. For sexually dimorphic species, we report female adult length and weight when available, because female body size often correlates with fecundity. Across animal taxonomic groups, different measures of body size and length measurements are often used, reflecting community consensus on how to measure size. Given this variation, we report the type of length measurement, if available, as Standard Length (SL), Fork Length (FL), Total Length (TL), Snout-to-Vent Length (SVL), Straight-Line Carapace (SLC), or Wingspan (WS).Table 3 Description of the animal life-history data in Dataset 321.Full size tableThe CaliPopGen Plant Life History Traits Dataset 421 (description of dataset in Table 4) includes habitat type, lifespan, life cycle, adult height, self-compatibility, monoecious or dioecious, mode of reproduction, pollination and seed dispersal modes, mass per seed, California native status, NatureServe29 element ranks (global and state ranks, see Table 5 for definitions), listing status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and listing status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In contrast to most animal species, plant lifespan was typically reported as a single value. We define life cycles as the following: Annual: completes full life cycle in one year; Biennial: completes full life cycle in two years; Perennial: completes full life cycle in more than two years; Perennial-Evergreen: perennial and retains functional leaves throughout the year; Perennial-Deciduous: perennial and loses all leaves synchronously for part of the year. Some species are variable (for example, have annual and biennial individuals), and in those cases we attempted to characterize the most common modality.Table 4 Description of the plant life-history data in Dataset 421.Full size tableTable 5 Description of the Conservation status (Heritage Rank) from California Natural Diversity Database29.Full size tableBecause of the paucity of data available for chromists and fungi, we did not extract life history trait data for the relatively few species in these taxonomic groups.Data visualization and summaryWe used the R-package raster (v3.1–5) to visualize the spatial extent of the data in CaliPopGen in Fig. 3. Panel (A) shows a summary plot of all unique populations of both the Population Genetic Diversity in Dataset 121 and the Pairwise Population Differentiation in Dataset 221. Panel (B) shows the total number of unique populations in each California terrestrial ecoregion. Panel (C) depicts all data entries of Population Genetic Diversity Dataset 121, summed for each 20×20 km grid cell. Panel (D) shows the density of pairwise straight lines drawn between pairs of localities in the Pairwise Population Differentiation Dataset 221, depicted as the total number of lines per 20×20 km grid cell. The number of populations and species of both Datasets 121 & 221 are summarized for each marine and terrestrial ecoregion in Table 6.Table 6 Summary of total numbers of populations and species per California ecoregion, separately for population genetic and pairwise datasets.Full size table More

Systematic reviewA systematic review (PROSPERO Registered: CRD42020165355) of all cluster-randomised control trials currently published on ITNs [including conventional nets (CTNs), pyrethroid-only long-lasting nets (pyrethroid-nets), and pyrethroid-piperonyl butoxide synergist nets (pyrethroid-PBO ITNs)], IRS or a combination of both interventions was completed to validate an established transmission model for Plasmodium falciparum malaria parameterised using entomological assessment of the interventions. Three search platforms, Web of Knowledge, PubMed and Google Scholar were used and further studies were included from three recent Cochrane reviews that have focused on individual- or cluster- randomised control trials testing either ITNs, IRS or both26,27,28. Our search criteria focused on studies within Africa, and those reporting an epidemiological outcome such as parasite prevalence or clinical incidence in a defined age-cohort. A total of 138 studies were initially identified for further assessment (Supplementary Fig. S2).Those papers identified through the systematic review went through another round of screening to ensure they fell within the scope of the work and were compatible with existing modelling parameterisation. These criteria included (i) the intervention falls within an existing World Health Organization recommendation (so trials, or arms of trials, investigating pyrethroid-pyriproxyfen ITNs29 or insecticide-treated curtains30 were excluded), (ii) the entomological impact of the product had been previously statistically characterised as part of the modelling framework (trials investigating DDT31 or propoxur IRS32 were excluded), (iii) the study was within the Africa continent, (iv) the study randomised interventions in the intervention arm across the community (i.e., interventions were not targeted to individuals or risk groups within the community)33,34,35, and (v) the study was not reporting a cluster-randomised design36. A full description of why studies and arms were excluded is provided in Data S1.1.RCTs can assess the public health impact of interventions using different epidemiological endpoints. The two most common metrics used in malaria RCTs is infection prevalence (generally assessing parasitemia in a particular age group using microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests) or clinical incidence (typically assessed using active case detection in a cohort, which had previously been cleared of infection). These metrics are both equally valid though may give different results. For example, it may be harder to change malaria parasite prevalence with a partially effective intervention in a high-transmission setting (where people have a high chance of being reinfected) compared to a low-transmission setting (where reinfection is less common). Similarly, estimates of clinical incidence will vary depending on the study design and regularity of follow-up. For example, there are practical constraints on the number of times people within an active cohort can be tested. In areas of higher transmission incidence estimates will be greater the more regularly the cohort is tested as people infected multiple times between screening will be less common. This information on the regularity of screening is not always reported making it difficult to adjust models accordingly. It is also important to account for cluster-level effects when interpreting trial results, and this cluster-level data is also mostly unavailable37. The systematic review identified more studies that evaluated interventions in their ability to change malaria prevalence, with 13 out of 14 RCTs showing how the intervention changed parasite prevalence between the study arms compared with 8 RCTs, which reported changes in clinical incidence. Therefore, we focus on prevalence as our metric for epidemiology impact in this framework though note this should be repeated with clinical incidence estimates should more data become available. The final dataset had 73 cross-sectional surveys of prevalence in a defined age-cohort, 37 trial arms from 13 different RCTs.Characterising the entomological impact of ITNs and IRSExperimental hut trials (EHTs) measure the outcome of wild, free-flying, mosquito attempting to feed on volunteers resting indoors in the presence of an indoor intervention38. This includes (i) whether or not a mosquito is deterred away from a hut, which has the intervention (calculated by the number of mosquitoes found in the control hut relative to the intervention hut), (ii) whether the mosquito exits without feeding (repellence, measured as the percentage of alive unfed mosquitoes inside the intervention hut), (iii) the percentage entering the hut that successfully blood-feed, or (iv) the percentage of mosquitoes which die. Intervention efficacy is typically summarised for the intervention huts relative to a no-intervention (or untreated net) control huts, be it induced mortality (the increase in the percentage of mosquitoes dying over a 24-h period) or blood-feeding inhibition (the reduction in the percentage of mosquitoes receiving a blood-meal).EHTs use specially built structures that follow a defined floor-plan and set of specifications. There are multiple designs of experimental hut as they were originally intended to replicate the predominant type of housing found in the local area. We recently conducted a systematic review to capture the average behaviours of mosquitoes across different hut designs19. The two most used huts in Africa are the West African design and East Africa hut39 (a third hut—the Ifakara hut—is not considered here39). The meta-analyses showed that the associations describing the probable outcome of a mosquito feeding attempt (deterrence, repellence, successful feeding, or death) varies according to hut design. It is unclear that hut design best predicts epidemiological impact.Meta-analyses of EHT data have shown how the entomological efficacy of pyrethroid-nets has diminished over time, probably due to the rise of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes16,19,40, though there may be some manufacturing changes41. EHTs are conducted throughout Africa but are limited to the sites where the huts are built and cannot directly inform estimates of ITN efficacy outside of these areas. The most widely used quantitative measure for approximating the phenotypic level of resistance in the local mosquito population is the discriminating-dose bioassay. There are two main types of discriminating assays, the WHO susceptibility bioassay and the CDC bottle bioassay42,43. Both these assays measure the proportion of local Anopheline mosquitoes that survive 24-h following exposure to a discriminatory dose of pyrethroid for 60 min. Results from these bioassays are highly variable44 though collating data from multiple tests has shown clear trends over time45. The relationship between the level of resistance in the local mosquito population (as measured in a discriminating-dose bioassay) and the mortality induced by ITNs in EHTs can be used to extrapolate the results from hut trials to other geographical regions16.Modelling rationaleThe two main metrics recorded in EHTs do not capture all entomological impacts of ITNs and IRS. Though useful, induced mortality does not consider the sub-lethal impact of interventions whilst blood-feeding inhibition fails to differentiate between preventing blood-meals and killing mosquitoes, which are likely to have very different epidemiological impacts. Killing mosquitoes reduces the force of infection for users and non-users (through a community effect) so the overall effectiveness of treated nets and IRS will vary according to how abundantly and regularly they are used by the local human population. In addition, the impact of ITNs and IRS is likely to vary between sites because of factors such as the disease endemicity itself driven by societal behaviours, seasonality of transmission and the use of other malaria control interventions, amongst others. This means that raw EHT data is unlikely to directly correlate with the results of RCTs.EHTs are widely used to parameterise malaria transmission dynamics mathematical models46,47,48. These models rigorously quantify the outcome of each mosquito feeding attempt and, by making a limited number of assumptions, can estimate an overall entomological efficacy by combining the impact of the level of personal protection elicited by the intervention to the user and the indirect community effect provided to both users and non-users. Transmission dynamics mathematical models are designed to mechanistically capture the underlying processes governing malaria transmission and so can account for known non-linear processes such as the acquisition of human immunity49,50,51. This enables these models to translate the entomological efficacy quantified in an EHT into predictions of epidemiological impact given the characteristics of the site. Unfortunately, to date, there are no published EHTs that have been conducted alongside RCT evaluation of ITNs or IRS products (and therefore evaluated against the same mosquito population). To overcome this issue we parameterise the models using a meta-analyses of 136 EHT results16,19 collated from across Africa, which quantifies how mosquito deterrence, repellence, successful feeding, or death varies with time since the intervention is deployed and according to the level of pyrethroid resistance in the local mosquito population (as measured by the discriminating-dose bioassay). This approach has been able to recreate the epidemiological impact observed in RCTs evaluating a small number of ITNs15 or IRS products9, but this is the first attempt at using this method to validate the modelling framework against all trials evaluating nets and IRS.There is considerable uncertainty in how the entomological efficacy of treated ITNs varies with the level of resistance in the local population. This is a key relationship determining how field discriminating-dose bioassay data should be interpreted yet it is highly uncertain, with a recent meta-analyses indicating that it is equally well explained by two different functional forms (the logistic or log-logistic functions)19. Similarly, it is unclear whether the epidemiological impact of ITNs or IRS is best captured by all experimental hut data combined (Supplementary Fig. S14C, D)19 or if the meta-analyses should be restricted to just West or East African hut design data alone. To rigorously differentiate between these options six different models are run for each trial arm (n = 37), varying both the relationship between discriminating-dose bioassay and EHT mosquito mortality (either the logistic or log-logistic function) and the data used in the EHT meta-analyses (all data, East or West African design huts). The ability of these models to recreate the observed results is statistically compared and the most accurate selected for the main analyses.Transmission dynamics modelThe malaria transmission model that we use here incorporates the transmission dynamics of Plasmodium falciparum between human hosts and Anopheles mosquito vectors. The differential equations and associated assumptions of the original transmission model52 have been comprehensively reported in the Supplementary Material from Griffin et al.53, Walker et al.54 and Winskill et al.55. The model has been extensively fitted to data on the relationship between vector density, entomological inoculation rate, parasite prevalence, uncomplicated malaria, severe disease and death49,52,53,56,57. Model equations and assumptions are provided in the Supplementary Methods and https://github.com/jamiegriffin/Malaria_simulation. Unless stated (Supplementary Data S1), default parameters are taken from these papers.Data requirements for model simulationThe transmission model can be parameterised to describe the specific ecology of each RCT location using data on the mosquito bionomics, seasonal transmission patterns, historic use of various interventions—principally insecticide-treated ITNs or the residual spraying of insecticides (IRS)—and baseline endemicity. These data are recorded within the research articles reporting the trials at the trial arm level (Supplementary Data S1.2 notes where data are available and which resources were used; Supplementary Data S1.3 lists the key data identified for model parameterisation) and Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a diagram of how they are combined to inform the model.Briefly, the Anopheles mosquito species composition at baseline is used to determine the proportion of mosquitoes with bespoke behaviours that could alter exposure risk to mosquito bites and thus transmission risk. Species-specific mosquito behaviours are parameterised from systematic reviews on anthropophagy, using the human blood index47,58,59, and the proportion of mosquito bites that are received indoors or in bed because this impacts the efficacy estimate for indoor interventions60.Other information that are specific to each trial also help interpret our success at predicting, or not, the observed results of an intervention tested in an RCT; the diagnostic used to measure prevalence or incidence is useful because different tests have different sensitivities61, which can be included in the model framework54. The baseline burden of infection is particularly important to enable the model to be calibrated to the endemicity of the study site by varying the number of mosquitoes per person (the human:mosquito ratio). This is determined by a cross-sectional estimate of parasite prevalence in a defined age-cohort at a particular time of year of the baseline survey.For any location, the current level of endemicity is determined by the historic interventions already operating at the site. Therefore, wherever possible, ITN use and the historic use of sprayed insecticides, as well as the estimated proportion of clinical cases that are drug-treated, are included as baseline parameters.In addition to the waning potency of insecticide active ingredient outlined above, the impact of nets can also wane because of changes in the proportion of people using them. This can be driven by the quality of the product, seasonal patterns in humidity or other social patterns of use62,63,64. Where data are available, this waning adherence to net use is captured by fitting an exponential decay function to the proportion of people using nets measured at cross-sectional surveys throughout the trials:$${{{{{{{mathrm{U}}}}}}{{{{{mathrm{sage}}}}}}}}_{i}={e}^{-{sigma }_{i}t}$$
(1)
where σ is a parameter determining how rapidly people stop using nets in an intervention arm i of the trial and t is time in years. Parameter estimates for pyrethroid-only and pyrethroid-PBO ITNs are provided for different levels of resistance for the 6 potential methods of associating bioassays and using data (Supplementary Data S1.4).The IRS product used is equally important as the entomological impact of different products vary, particularly for pyrethroid-based IRS in the presence of resistant mosquitoes9. Supplementary Data S1.5 show the parameter estimates for products included in the analysis.The seasonality of transmission has been defined previously for each RCT site (at the administration subunit 1 level) using normalised rainfall patterns obtained from the US Climate Prediction Center65. The daily time series are aggregated to 64 points per year for years 2002 to 2009. A Fourier function is fitted to these data to capture seasonality by reconstructing annual rainfall patterns54,66. We deliberately do not match rainfall data from the respective RCTs, which would likely improve the model estimates because we are ultimately testing whether this framework has predictive power across future years or alternative ecologies, where we will not know how rainfall will exactly impact mosquito densities and hence malaria transmission.Statistical analysisThe mean simulated malaria prevalence (matching the age-cohort of the trial) is recorded for all RCT surveys timepoints. This equates to a total of 73 cross-sectional surveys post-implementation. The process was repeated using the 6 different entomological parameter sets (the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality and the hut design used to summarise treated net entomological impact). An illustration of the different models and their fit to data is demonstrated in Supplementary Fig. S17 for a recent study trialling pyrethroid-only nets, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs alone or in combination with a long-lasting IRS product in Tanzania5. The difference between the observed and predicted prevalence at each timepoint is shown for all RCTs in Supplementary Fig. S18. A simple linear regression is conducted comparing observed and predicted results are summarised in Supplementary Table 3. Let Xi denote the malaria prevalence predicted by the model at timepoint i while Yi is the observed prevalence. The regression,$${Y}_{i}=m{X}_{i}$$
(2)
for i = 1,…,c + n, where m is the gradient between the observed and predicted result (consistent across studies), c is the number of post-intervention datapoints in the control arms and n is the number of post-intervention datapoints in the intervention arms (c + n = 73 for analyses of all RCTs). Better fitting models have a higher adjusted R2 (adjusted R2 values of one indicate the model is perfectly predicting the trial result) whilst the gradient of the regression m indicates any bias (with value of one reporting the model can predict prevalence equally well across the endemicity range). Results are presented for all ITNs and IRS RCTs and separately for RCTs of different types of (pyrethroid-only ITNs, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs and IRS, Supplementary Table 3). The log-logistic model (results 4–6 in Supplementary Table 3) describing the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality consistently fits the data better, with models fit using either all hut trial data or East African design huts having a similar accuracy (adjusted R2 = 0.95). This parameter combination also had the least bias, with the best fit regression line being closer to one.The average efficacy of the different ITNs and IRS combinations was calculated by comparing malaria prevalence for the different trial arms to the respective control arms at matched timepoints following the introduction of interventions. Let ({E}_{{jk}}^{l}) be the relative reduction in the malaria prevalence between the control (k = 0) to intervention (k = 1) arms at matched timepoint j in the same trial for either the predicted (l = Xjk) or observed (l = Yjk) malaria prevalence,$${E}_{j}^{X}=({{X}_{j0}-{X}}_{j1})/{X}_{j0},{{{{{rm{ and }}}}}},{E}_{j}^{Y}=({Y}_{j0}-{Y}_{j1})/{Y}_{j0}$$
(3)
for j = 1,…,n. The goodness of fit for the efficacy estimates is calculated in a similar manner to the prevalence estimates by substituting in ({E}_{j}^{X}) and ({E}_{j}^{Y}) into Xi and Yi in E2, respectively. Models are on average able to estimate the efficacy of the interventions at different timepoints (Supplementary Table 3). Estimates for some timepoints diverge substantially (for example, the study testing conventional nets in the Gambia relative to untreated nets67 measured negative effect in one setting; the treated net arm having more infected children whereas the model predicted a 12.5% reduction due to the CTN (with parameters derived from all EHT data and the log-logistic function, 4 in Supplementary Table 3), Supplementary Data S1.8), but in most studies the trial average (averaged across all timepoints) is remarkably consistent. Accuracy is lower than estimates of absolute prevalence, in part because the difference between the percentage of people slide positive in low-endemicity settings may be relatively modest in absolute terms but might represent a substantial difference as a percentage. It is also important to note that when the models do systematically miss some timepoints, this is consistent across the control and treated arms. For example, in the Protopopoff et al. study in Tanzania5 (Figs. S14 and S17) efficacy is over-estimated in all arms 18 months after the start of the trial, but the relative difference between the arms (in terms of ordering, and the efficacy estimate) is relatively consistent. This indicates that unmeasured factors, such as differences in the timing and duration of the rainy season, may have occurred across all trial arms. As previously, the log-logistic functional form describing the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality consistently fits the data better (Supplementary Table 3, options 4 to 6). The models fit describing the entomological efficacy of any net using all EHT data predicts efficacy data better with East African design hut data providing similar accuracy (adjusted R2 = 0.64 vs. 0.62, respectively). Following this we select the log-logistic functional form to describe the relationship between mortality in the discriminating-dose bioassay and EHT and characterise the entomological efficacy of treated ITNs using data from both East and West African design huts for the main analyses (Fig. 2B, C).The ability of the best-performing model (Supplementary Table 3, column 4: log-logistic function and all EHT data) to capture the relative drop in prevalence over time compared to the baseline (pre-intervention) estimate is shown in Supplementary Fig. S19. This value is denoted as ({dot{E}}_{t}^{l}) and is calculated as,$${dot{E}}_{t}^{X}=({X}_{0}-{X}_{t}),{{{{{rm{and}}}}}},{dot{E}}_{t}^{Y}=({X}_{0}-{Y}_{t})$$
(4)
where ({X}_{0}) is the malaria prevalence at baseline (prior to intervention deployment with the exception of Chaccour et al.68) observed from the RCT and the model is calibrated to this endemicity. Xt is then the subsequent cross-sectional survey observed for each study, and RCTs have different numbers of surveys ranging from 1 to 4 in the published literature. The corresponding model estimate is represented by Yt. Estimates are calculated for all post-intervention timepoints in both control and intervention arms and are shown in Fig. S19A. The difference between ({dot{E}}_{t}^{X}) and ({dot{E}}_{t}^{Y}) can be used to explore how closely the model is able to predict this absolute difference observed in the trials (a value of 0 indicates exact match, high predictive ability). The model overestimates the performance of IRS only, deployed in 1995 using the pyrethroid IRS ICON CS 10% (Syngenta), but otherwise there is no difference in the models’ ability to estimate different ITN interventions or combination net and IRS interventions, be it the absence of an intervention, conventional dipped-nets, pyrethroid-only nets, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs with or without IRS (Fig. S19B). All code is available69.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Riley M, Gordon D. The ecological role of bacteriocins in bacterial competition. Trends Microbiol. 1999;7:129–33.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin A, West S, Buckling A. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature. 2004;430:1024–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Velicer G, Vos M. Sociobiology of the myxobacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2009;63:599–623.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brockhurst M, Habets M, Libberton B, Buckling A, Gardner A. Ecological drivers of the evolution of public-goods cooperation in bacteria. Ecology. 2010;91:334–40.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drescher K, Nadell CD, Stone HA, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL. Solutions to the public goods dilemma in bacterial biofilms. Curr Biol. 2014;24:50–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Weissing FJ, Kuipers OP, Kovács ÁT. Density of founder cells affects spatial pattern formation and cooperation in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. ISME J. 2014;8:2069–79.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Henrichsen J. Bacterial surface translocation: a survey and a classification. Bacteriol Rev. 1972;36:478–503.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Vlamakis H, Kolter R. From cell differentiation to cell collectives: Bacillus subtilis uses division of labor to migrate. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002141.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hölscher T, Kovács ÁT. Sliding on the surface: bacterial spreading without an active motor. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:2537–45.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearns D. A field guide to bacterial swarming motility. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:634–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nogales J, Bernabéu-Roda L, Cuéllar V, Soto M. ExpR is not required for swarming but promotes sliding in Sinorhizobium meliloti. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:2027–35.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray T, Kazmierczak B. Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibits sliding motility in the absence of type IV pili and flagella. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:2700–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kinsinger R, Shirk M, Fall R. Rapid surface motility in Bacillus subtilis is dependent on extracellular surfactin and potassium ion. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:5627–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grau RR, De Oña P, Kunert M, Leñini C, Gallegos-Monterrosa R, Mhatre E, et al. A duo of potassium-responsive histidine kinases govern the multicellular destiny of Bacillus subtilis. MBio. 2015;6:e00581–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kobayashi K, Iwano M. BslA(YuaB) forms a hydrophobic layer on the surface of Bacillus subtilis biofilms. Mol Microbiol. 2012;85:51–66.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobley L, Ostrowski A, Rao FV, Bromley KM, Porter M, Prescott AR, et al. BslA is a self-assembling bacterial hydrophobin that coats the Bacillus subtilis biofilm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:13600–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seminara A, Angelini T, Wilking J, Vlamakis H, Ebrahim S, Kolter R, et al. Osmotic spreading of Bacillus subtilis biofilms driven by an extracellular matrix. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:1116–21.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kafri M, Metzl-Raz E, Jona G, Barkai N. The cost of protein production. Cell Rep. 2016;14:22–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexton D, Schuster M. Nutrient limitation determines the fitness of cheaters in bacterial siderophore cooperation. Nat Commun. 2017;8:230.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xavier J, Kim W, Foster K. A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secretions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol. 2011;79:166–79.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tai JSB, Mukherjee S, Nero T, Olson R, Tithof J, Nadell CD, et al. Social evolution of shared biofilm matrix components. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119:e2123469119.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Branda SS, Chu F, Kearns DB, Losick R, Kolter R. A major protein component of the Bacillus subtilis biofilm matrix. Mol Microbiol. 2006;59:1229–38.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin M, Dragoš A, Hölscher T, Maróti G, Bálint B, Westermann M, et al. De novo evolved interference competition promotes the spread of biofilm defectors. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15127.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Kiesewalter H, Martin M, Hsu C-Y, Hartmann R, Wechsler T, et al. Division of labor during biofilm matrix production. Curr Biol. 2018;28:1903–13.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin M, Dragoš A, Schäfer D, Maróti G, Kovács ÁT. Cheaters shape the evolution of phenotypic heterogeneity in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. ISME J. 2020;14:2302–12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Otto SB, Martin M, Schäfer D, Hartmann R, Drescher K, Brix S, et al. Privatization of biofilm matrix in structurally heterogeneous biofilms. mSystems. 2020;5:e00425–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arnaouteli S, Bamford NC, Stanley-Wall NR, Kovács ÁT. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:600–14.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kovács ÁT, Dragoš A. Evolved Biofilm: review on the experimental evolution studies of Bacillus subtilis pellicles. J Mol Biol. 2019;431:4749–59.Dragos A, Lakshmanan N, Martin M, Horvath B, Maroti G, Falcon Garcia C, et al. Evolution of exploitative interactions during diversification in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fix155.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Martin M, Garcia CF, Kricks L, Pausch P, Heimerl T, et al. Collapse of genetic division of labour and evolution of autonomy in pellicle biofilms. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:1451–60.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Bareia T, Tenennbaum B, Dal Co A, Guler P, Aframian N, et al. Short-range quorum sensing controls horizontal gene transfer at micron scale in bacterial communities. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2324.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gore J, Youk H, Van Oudenaarden A. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature. 2009;459:253–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Konkol MA, Blair KM, Kearns DB. Plasmid-encoded comI inhibits competence in the ancestral 3610 strain of Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 2013;195:4085–93.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hölscher T, Dragoš A, Gallegos-Monterrosa R, Martin M, Mhatre E, Richter A, et al. Monitoring spatial segregation in surface colonizing microbial populations. J Vis Exp. 2016;2016:e54752.
Google Scholar 
Morris R, Schor M, Gillespie R, Ferreira A, Baldauf L, Earl C, et al. Natural variations in the biofilm-associated protein BslA from the genus Bacillus. Sci Rep. 2017;7:6730.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dogsa I, Brloznik M, Stopar D, Mandic-Mulec I. Exopolymer diversity and the role of levan in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62044.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Branda SS, González-Pastor JE, Ben-Yehuda S, Losick R, Kolter R. Fruiting body formation by Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:11621–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenski RE, Rose M, Simpson S, Tadler S. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat. 1991;138:1315–41.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hallatschek O, Hersen P, Ramanathan S, Nelson DR. Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:19926–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Slatkin M, Excoffier L. Serial founder effects during range expansion: a spatial analog of genetic drift. Genetics. 2012;191:171–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
MacLean R, Fuentes-Hernandez A, Greig D, Hurst L, Gudelj I. A mixture of ‘cheats’ and ‘co-operators’ can enable maximal group benefit. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000486.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kearns DB. Division of labour during Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol. 2008;67:229–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiesewalter HT, Lozano-Andrade CN, Wibowo M, Strube ML, Maróti G, Snyder D, et al. Genomic and chemical diversity of Bacillus subtilis secondary metabolites against plant pathogenic fungi. mSystems. 2021;6:e00770–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stefanic P, Mandic-Mulec I. Social interactions and distribution of Bacillus subtilis pherotypes at microscale. J Bacteriol. 2009;191:1756–64.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Even-Tov E, Omer Bendori S, Valastyan J, Ke X, Pollak S, Bareia T, et al. Social evolution selects for redundancy in bacterial quorum sensing. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002386.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalamara M, Spacapan M, Mandic-Mulec I, Stanley-Wall N. Social behaviours by Bacillus subtilis: quorum sensing, kin discrimination and beyond. Mol Microbiol. 2018;110:863–78.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aframian N, Eldar A. A bacterial tower of Babel: Quorum-Sensing signaling diversity and its evolution. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2020;74:587–606.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiesewalter HT, Lozano-Andrade CN, Strube ML, Kovács ÁT. Secondary metabolites of Bacillus subtilis impact the assembly of soil-derived semisynthetic bacterial communities. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2020;16:2983–98.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Kovács ÁT. The peculiar functions of the bacterial extracellular matrix. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:257–66.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kovács ÁT. Impact of spatial distribution on the development of mutualism in microbes. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:649.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang F, Kwan A, Xu A, Süel G. A synthetic quorum sensing system reveals a potential private benefit for public good production in a biofilm. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132948.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bruce J, West S, Griffin A. Functional amyloids promote retention of public goods in bacteria. Proc Biol Sci. 2019;286:20190709.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ma L, Conover M, Lu H, Parsek M, Bayles K, Wozniak D. Assembly and development of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm matrix. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5:e1000354.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hartmann R, Jeckel H, Jelli E, Singh PK, Vaidya S, Bayer M, et al. Quantitative image analysis of microbial communities with BiofilmQ. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:151–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dar D, Dar N, Cai L, Newman DK. Spatial transcriptomics of planktonic and sessile bacterial populations at single-cell resolution. Science. 2021;373:eabi4882.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lozano-Andrade CN, Nogueira CG, Wibowo M, Kovács ÁT. Establishment of a transparent soil system to study Bacillus subtilis chemical ecology. bioRxiv. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.10.475645.Article 

Google Scholar  More

Testing H1 and H2 at community composition levelAs noted above, the simple fact that fungi grow more slowly than bacteria is the basis of the hypotheses that (H1) fungal communities should be more resistant than bacterial communities to drought stress, and (H2) that fungal communities should be less resilient than bacterial communities when the stress is relieved by rewetting18. In addition to growth rate, these two hypotheses may be related to differences in the form of growth between fungi and bacteria. For example, multicellular hyphal growth versus unicellular division or the greater thickness of fungal cell walls as compared to those of bacteria47,48. We tested H1 and H2 at the community composition level by blending the fungal and bacterial datasets generated from the same leaf, root, rhizosphere and soil samples collected from field-grown sorghum that had been either irrigated as a control, or subjected to preflowering drought followed by regular wetting beginning at flowering10,11.We followed the approach of Shade et al.17 to detect resistance and resilience, which had been developed for univariate variables, e.g., richness. For multivariate data, e.g., community composition, we modified it by calculating pairwise community dissimilarity for two groups: within-group (control-control pairs, drought-drought pairs, or rewetting-rewetting pairs), and between-group (control-drought pairs, or control-rewetting pairs). Ecological resistance to drought stress is detected by comparing compositional dissimilarity of between-group pairs (control-drought pairs) against within-group pairs (control-control pairs and drought-drought pairs) for each of the droughted weeks (weeks 3–8). Ecological resilience to rewetting is detected by assessing, from before to after rewetting, the change in the difference of compositional dissimilarity between within-group pairs and between-group pairs. Here, the point just before rewetting was week 8 and the points after rewetting were weeks 9–17. A t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the differences in resistance or resilience between bacterial and fungal communities at each time point for each compartment.To account for the different resolutions of ITS and 16 S, we compared bacterial 16 S OTUs against both fungal ITS, species-level OTUs as well the fungal family level (Supplementary Fig. 1). The results of analyses using either fungal families or OTUs are consistent. Out of 36 comparisons (15 roots, 15 rhizospheres and 6 soils), different family and OTUs results were detected in four instances. In two of these, significances detected by OTUs were not detected by family (root, weeks 4 and 17) and, in the other two cases, significances detected by family were not detected by OTUs (rhizosphere, weeks 7 and 8). (Fig. 1). We report only results that are consistent at both the species and family levels (Fig. 1).In line with our first hypothesis, H1, we found that the resistance to drought stress for fungal mycobiomes was consistently stronger than that for bacterial microbiomes for weeks 5 in root, weeks 4–6 in rhizosphere, and weeks 4 and 6–8 in soil (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2). In support of our second hypothesis, H2, when the stress of pre-flowering drought was relieved by rewetting, we found that the resilience of the bacterial communities was consistently higher than that for the fungi in weeks 9–16 in root, and weeks 11–17 in rhizosphere (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2).Surprisingly, we found that resilience was stronger for fungal than bacterial communities in the first week (week 9) of rewetting in the rhizosphere (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2). This high resilience of fungi may be associated with the quick growth of sorghum roots when rewetted. The rhizosphere zone around these newly formed roots may be quickly colonized by soil fungi, a community that was weakly affected by drought. This result suggests that re-assembly of the rhizosphere microbial community is more complex than previously expected.The finding that fungal community composition in the soil is not shaped by drought prevented us from further detecting resilience (Fig. 1). Note fungal community in early leaves was excluded from analysis due to the high proportion of non-fungal reads in sequencing11.Testing H1 and H2 at all-correlation levelNext, we moved from the comparison of whole communities to correlation among individual bacterial and fungal taxa to test the hypotheses about resistance, H1, and resilience, H2. As noted above, previous research provided the foundation for the stress gradient hypothesis, which predicts an increase in positive associations in stress32,33,34,35,36,37. Further, ecological modeling predicts that negative associations promote stability40. Concerning specific associations, studies of Arabidopsis and associated microbes reported that positive associations are favored within kingdoms, i.e., within bacteria or within fungi, while negative associations predominate between kingdoms38,39. Given these foundations, concerning H1, we expected an increase in the proportion of positive correlation by drought stress that would be strongest for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F; for H2 we expected rewetting to cause a decrease in the proportion of positive correlation, again most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F.Overall, at the all-correlation level, we found no consistent support for the differences postulated for bacterial and fungal responses in H1. For example, strong increases in the proportion of positive correlations under drought could be found in all microbial pairings for some compartments (B-B in leaf and root, F-F in rhizosphere and soil, and B-F in root and rhizosphere) (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Neither did we find consistent support for the differences ascribed to bacteria and fungi in H2 as the strongest decreases in the proportion of positive correlations during rewetting occurred at F-F in rhizosphere and soil, and B-B in leaf and root (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).Fig. 2: Correlations of microbes in drought stress and drought relief.Estimates of combined correlations (row a) show an increase in positive correlations under drought stress across the four compartments (root, black; rhizosphere, blue; soil, red; leaf, green). Data points underlying the lines in the figure are provided in the alternative version in Supplementary Fig. 2. This result is in line with the stress gradient hypothesis which posits that stressful environments favor positive associations because competition will be less intense than in benign environments32,33,36,37. Note that positive trends in combined correlations can arise in two ways. First, from an increase of positive correlations (row b) that exceeds the rise in negative correlations (row c), e.g., Leaf bacterial-bacterial (Bac-Bac) correlations or rhizosphere fungal-fungal (Fun-Fun) correlations in the drought period (Negative correlations in row C values are multiplied by −1 to facilitate comparison). Second, from a decrease in negative correlations that exceeds a decrease in positive correlations, e.g., root bacterial-bacterial correlations or root bacterial-fungal (Bac-Fun) correlations in drought. Combined (a), positive (b) and negative (c) estimates of correlation (Spearman’s rho, ρ) are given for four compartments (root, rhizosphere, soil and leaf), and three types of correlations (Bacterium-Bacterium, Fungus-Fungus, Bacterium-Fungus). T-tests (two sided) were carried out for linear mixed effect modelling that incorporates link type and compartments as random factors. Detailed distribution densities of correlations are presented in Supplementary Fig. 3. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageWe found support for the stress gradient hypothesis because drought increased the relative frequency of positive correlations among microbial taxa (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). The increases were due, largely, to B-B correlations in leaf and F-F correlations in the rhizosphere during drought, when the relative frequency of positive correlations was increased (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3) and the frequencies of negative correlations were decreased or weakly increased (Fig. 2c, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Less obvious increases in the relative frequency of positive correlations (such as B-B in root, F-F in soil, and B-F in root and rhizosphere) occurred where drought reduced both positive and negative correlations, but the losses of negative correlations exceeded those of positive correlations (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).In support of the expectation that correlations would be more negative between taxonomic groups than within taxonomic groups, we found that the relative frequency of positive correlations was generally lower for B-F than B-B and F-F correlations (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Moreover, as ecological modeling has indicated that negative associations should promote stability of communities40, we hypothesize that B-F correlations would be more stable than B-B and F-F networks in response to drought stress. However, we found no support for this hypothesis, as B-F correlations (for example in root) did not always show the least response to drought stress (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).Testing H1 and H2 at species co-occurrence levelFor our final test of H1 (resistance) and H2 (resilience) we focused on co-occurrence networks based on significant, positive correlations. These networks have been reported to be destabilized for bacteria but not for fungi in mesocosms subject to drought stress19, and shown to be disrupted for bacteria in natural vegetation studied over gradients of increasing aridity41,42. Using these results as guides, for H1 we expected that drought stress should disrupt co-occurrence networks most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F. For H2 we expected that relief of stress by rewetting should strengthen microbial co-occurrence networks most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F.For this test we constructed microbial co-occurrence networks using significant positive pairwise correlations between microbial taxa, B-B, F-F and B-F, and compared the network complexity between fully irrigated control and drought, and between control and rewetting following drought. In general, we found no consistent support for the difference between bacteria and fungi inherent in H1. Rhizosphere was the one compartment where B-B vertices dropped and F-F vertices rose in response to drought, as expected, but this result was offset in root and soil, where vertices dropped in all networks, B-B, F-F and B-F (Figs. 3, 4; Supplementary Figs. 4, 5). Analysis by co-occurrence networks highlighted the differences between plant compartments. In root drought strongly disrupted networks of B-B, B-F and F-F, but in the other three compartments, network disruption was weaker, and networks were even enhanced by drought for F-F in rhizosphere and B-B in leaf (Figs. 3, 4).Fig. 3: Networks of significant positive cross-taxonomic group correlations (bacteria and fungi).a Fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) (blue) and bacterial OTUs (black) are graphed as nodes. Significant positive Spearman correlations are graphed as edges (ρ  > 0.6, false discovery rate adjusted P  More

Sampling of coastal communitiesHere, we integrated data from five different projects that had surveyed coastal communities across five countries47,48,49,50. Between 2009 and 2015, we conducted socioeconomic surveys in 72 sites from Indonesia (n = 25), Madagascar (n = 6), Papua New Guinea (n = 10), the Philippines (n = 25), and Tanzania (Zanzibar) (n = 6). Site selection was for broadly similar purposes- to evaluate the effects of various coastal resource management initiatives (collaborative management, integrated conservation and development projects, recreational fishing projects) on people’s livelihoods in rural and peri-urban villages. Within each project, sites were purposively selected to be representative of the broad range of socioeconomic conditions (e.g., population size, levels of development, integration to markets) experienced within the region. We did not survey strictly urban locations (i.e., major cities). Because our sampling was not strictly random, care should be taken when attempting to make inferences beyond our specific study sites.We surveyed between 13 and 150 households per site, depending on the population of the communities and the available time to conduct interviews per site. All projects employed a comparable sampling design: households were either systematically (e.g., every third house), randomly sampled, or in the case of three villages, every household was surveyed (a census) (see Supplementary Data file). Respondents were generally the household head, but could have been other household members if the household head was not available during the study period (i.e. was away). In the Philippines, sampling protocol meant that each village had an even number of male and female respondents. Respondents gave verbal consent to be interviewed.The following standard methodology was employed to assess material style of life, a metric of material assets-based wealth48,51. Interviewers recorded the presence or absence of 16 material items in the household (e.g., electricity, type of walls, type of ceiling, type of floor). We used a Principal Component Analysis on these items and kept the first axis (which explained 34.2% of the variance) as a material wealth score. Thus, each community received a mean material style of life score, based on the degree to which surveyed households had these material items, which we then scaled from 0 to 1. We also conducted an exploratory analysis of how material style of life has changed in two sites in Papua New Guinea (Muluk and Ahus villages) over fifteen and sixteen-year time span across four and five-time periods (2001, 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2002, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018), respectively, that have been surveyed since 2001/200252. These surveys were semi-panel data (i.e. the community was surveyed repeatedly, but we did not track individuals over each sampling interval) and sometimes occurred in different seasons. For illustrative purposes, we plotted how these villages changed over time along the first two principal components.SensitivityWe asked each respondent to list all livelihood activities that bring in food or income to the household and rank them in order of importance. Occupations were grouped into the following categories: farming, cash crop, fishing, mariculture, gleaning, fish trading, salaried employment, informal, tourism, and other. We considered fishing, mariculture, gleaning, fish trading together as the ‘fisheries’ sector, farming and cash crop as the ‘agriculture’ sector and all other categories into an ‘off-sector’.We then developed three distinct metrics of sensitivity based on the level of dependence on agriculture, fisheries, and both sectors together. Each metric incorporates the proportion of households engaged in a given sector (e.g., fisheries), whether these households also engage in occupations outside of this sector (agriculture and salaried/formal employment; referred to as ‘linkages’ between sectors), and the directionality of these linkages (e.g., whether respondents ranked fisheries as more important than other agriculture and salaried/formal employment) (Eqs. 1–3)$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NA}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NA}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{na}}}}}}}+1}$$
(1)
$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NF}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NF}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{nf}}}}}}}+1}$$
(2)
$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NAF}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NAF}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{naf}}}}}}}+1}$$
(3)
where ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}) are a community’s sensitivity in the context of agriculture, fisheries and both sectors, respectively. A, F and AF are the number of households relying on agriculture-related occupations within that community, fishery-related and agriculture- and fisheries-related occupations within the community, respectively. NA, NF and NAF are the number of households relying on non-agriculture-related, non-fisheries-related, and non-agriculture-or-fisheries-related occupations within the community, respectively. N is the number of households within the community. ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}) are the number of times agriculture-related, fisheries-related and agriculture-and-fisheries-related occupations were ranked higher than their counterpart, respectively. ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{na}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{nf}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{naf}}}}}}}) are the number of times non-agriculture, non-fisheries, and non-agriculture-and-fisheries-related occupations were ranked higher than their counterparts. As with the material style of life, we also conducted an exploratory analysis of how joint agriculture-fisheries sensitivity has changed over time in a subset of sites (Muluk and Ahus villages in Papua New Guinea) that have been sampled since 2001/200252. Although our survey methodology has the potential for bias (e.g. people might provide different rankings based on the season, or there might be gendered differences in how people rank the importance of different occupations53), our time-series analysis suggest that seasonal and potential respondent variation do not dramatically alter our community-scale sensitivity metric.ExposureTo evaluate the exposure of communities to the impact of future climates on their agriculture and fisheries sectors, we used projections of production potential from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) Fast Track phase 3 experiment dataset of global simulations. Production potential of agriculture and fisheries for each of the 72 community sites and 4746 randomly selected sites from our study countries with coastal populations >25 people/km2 were projected to the mid-century (2046–2056) under two emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6, and SSP5-8.5) and compared with values from a reference historical period (1983–2013).For fisheries exposure (EF), we considered relative change in simulated total consumer biomass (all modelled vertebrates and invertebrates with a trophic level >1). For each site, the twenty nearest ocean grid cells were determined using the Haversine formula (Supplementary Fig. 5). We selected twenty grid cells after a sensitivity analysis to determine changes in model agreement based on different numbers of cells used (1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100; Supplementary Figs. 6–7), which we balanced off with the degree to which larger numbers of cells would reduce the inter-site variability (Supplementary Fig. 8). We also report 25th and 75th percentiles for the change in marine animal biomass across the model ensemble. Projections of the change in total consumer biomass for the 72 sites were extracted from simulations conducted by the Fisheries and marine ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP3,54). FishMIP simulations were conducted under historical, SSP1-2.6 (low emissions) and SSP5-8.5 (high emissions) scenarios forced by two Earth System Models from the most recent generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison project (CMIP6);55 GFDL-ESM456 and IPSL-CM6A-LR57. The historical scenario spanned 1950–2014, and the SSP scenarios spanned 2015–2100. Nine FishMIP models provided simulations: APECOSM58,59, BOATS60,61, DBEM2,62, DBPM63, EcoOcean64,65, EcoTroph66,67, FEISTY68, Macroecological69, and ZooMSS11. Simulations using only IPSL-CM6A-LR were available for APECOSM and DBPM, while the remaining 7 FishMIP models used both Earth System Model forcings. This resulted in 16 potential model runs for our examination of model agreement, albeit with some of these runs being the same model forced with two different ESMs. Thus, the range of model agreement could range from 8 (half model runs indicating one direction of change, and half indicating the other) to 16 (all models agree in direction of change). Model outputs were saved with a standardised 1° spatial grid, at either a monthly or annual temporal resolution.For agriculture exposure (EA), we used crop model projections from the Global Gridded Crop model Intercomparison Project (GGCMI) Phase 314, which also represents the agriculture sector in ISIMIP. We used a window of 11×11 cells centred on the site and removed non-land cells (Supplementary Fig. 5). The crop models use climate inputs from 5 CMIP6 ESMs (GFDL-ESM4, IPSL-CM6A-LR, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MRI-ESM2-0, and UKESM1-0-LL), downscaled and bias-adjusted by ISIMIP and use the same simulation time periods. We considered relative yield change in three rain-fed and locally relevant crops: rice, maize, and cassava, using outputs from 4 global crop models (EPIC-IIASA, LPJmL, pDSSAT, and PEPIC), run at 0.5° resolution. These 4 models with 5 forcings generate 20 potential model runs for our examination of model agreement. Yield simulations for cassava were only available from the LPJmL crop model. All crop model simulations assumed no adaptation in growing season and fertilizer input remained at current levels. Details on model inputs, climate data, and simulation protocol are provided in ref. 14. At each site, and for each crop, we calculated the average change (%) between projected vs. historical yield within 11×11 cell window. We then averaged changes in rice, maize and cassava to obtain a single metric of agriculture exposure (EA).We also obtained a composite metric of exposure (EAF) by calculating each community’s average change in both agriculture and fisheries:$${{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}}{2}$$
(4)
Potential ImpactWe calculated relative potential impact as the Euclidian distance from the origin (0) of sensitivity and exposure.Sensitivity testTo determine whether our sites displayed a particular exposure bias, we compared the distributions of our sites and 4746 sites that were randomly selected from 47,460 grid cells within 1 km of the coast of the 5 countries we studied which had population densities >25 people/km2, based on the SEDAC gridded populating density of the world dataset (https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-density-rev11/data-download).We used Cohen’s D to determine the size of the difference between our sites and the randomly selected sites.Validating ensemble modelsWe attempted a two-stage validation of the ensemble model projections. First, we reviewed the literature on downscaling of ensemble models to examine whether downscaling validation had been done for the ecoregions containing our study sites.While no fisheries ensemble model downscaling had been done specific to our study regions, most of the models of the ensemble have been independently evaluated against separate datasets aggregated at scales down to Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) (see11). For example, the DBEM was created with the objective of understanding the effects of climate change on exploited marine fish and invertebrate species2,70. This model roughly predicts species’ habitat suitability; and simulates spatial population dynamics of fish stocks to output biomass and maximum catch potential (MCP), a proxy of maximum sustainable yield2,62,71. Compared with spatially-explicit catch data from the Sea Around Us Project (SAUP; www.seaaroundus.org)70 there were strong similarities in the responses to warming extremes for several EEZs in our current paper (Indonesia and Philippines) and weaker for the EEZs of Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, and Tanzania. At the LME level, DBEM MCP simulations explained about 79% of the variation in the SAUP catch data across LMEs72. The four LMEs analyzed in this paper (Agulhas Current; Bay of Bengal; Indonesian Sea; and Sulu-Celebes Sea) fall within the 95% confidence interval of the linear regression relationship62. Another example, BOATS, is a dynamic biomass size-spectrum model parameterised to reproduce historical peak catch at the LME scale and observed catch to biomass ratios estimated from the RAM legacy stock assessment database (in 8 LMEs with sufficient data). It explained about 59% of the variability of SAUP peak catch observation at the LME level with the Agulhas Current, Bay of Bengal, and Indonesian Sea catches reproduced within +/-50% of observations61. The EcoOcean model validation found that all four LMEs included in this study fit very close to the 1:1 line for overserved and predicted catches in 200064,65. DBPM, FEISTY, and APECOSM have also been independently validated by comparing observed and predicted catches. While the models of this ensemble have used different climate forcings when evaluated independently, when taken together the ensemble multi-model mean reproduces global historical trends in relative biomass, that are consistent with the long term trends and year-on-year variation in relative biomass change (R2 of 0.96) and maximum yield estimated from stock assessment models (R2 of 0.44) with and without fishing respectively11.Crop yield estimates simulated by GGCMI crop models have been evaluated against FAOSTAT national yield statistics14,73,74. These studies show that the models, and especially the multi-model mean, capture large parts of the observed inter-annual yield variability across most main producer countries, even though some important management factors that affect observed yield variability (e.g., changes in planting dates, harvest dates, cultivar choices, etc.) are not considered in the models. While GCM-based crop model results are difficult to validate against observations, Jägermeyr et al14. show that the CMIP6-based crop model ensemble reproduces the variability of observed yield anomalies much better than CMIP5-based GGCMI simulations. In an earlier crop model ensemble of GGCMI, Müller et al.74 show that most crop models and the ensemble mean are capable of reproducing the weather-induced yield variability in countries with intensely managed agriculture. In countries where management introduces strong variability to observed data, which cannot be considered by models for lack of management data time series, the weather-induced signal is often low75, but crop models can reproduce large shares of the weather-induced variability, building trust in their capacity to project climate change impacts74.We then attempted to validate the models in our study regions. For the crop models, we examined production-weighted agricultural projections weighted by current yields/production area (Supplementary Fig. 1). We used an observational yield map (SPAM2005) and multiplied it with fractional yield time series simulated by the models to calculate changes in crop production over time, which integrates results in line with observational spatial patterns. The weighted estimates were not significantly different to the unweighted ones (t = 0.17, df = 5, p = 0.87). For the fisheries models, our study regions were data-poor and lacked adequate stock assessment data to extend the observed global agreement of the sensitivity of fish biomass to climate during our reference period (1983-2013). Instead, we provide the degree of model run agreement about the direction of change in the ensemble models to ensure transparency about the uncertainty in this downscaled application.AnalysesTo account for the fact that communities were from five different countries we used linear mixed-effects models (with country as a random effect) for all analyses. All averages reported (i.e. exposure, sensitivity, and model agreement) are estimates from these models. In both our comparison of fisheries and agriculture exposure and test of differences between production-weighted and unweighted agriculture exposure we wanted to maintain the paired nature of the data while also accounting for country. To accomplish this we used the differences between the exposure metrics as the response variable (e.g. fisheries exposure minus agriculture exposure), testing whether these differences are different from zero. We also used linear mixed-effects models to quantify relationships between the material style of life and potential impacts under different mitigation scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and 8.5), estimating standard errors from 1000 bootstrap replications. To further explore whether these relationships between the material style of life and potential impacts were driven by exposure or sensitivity, we conducted an additional analysis to quantify relationships between the material style of life and: 1) joint fisheries and agricultural sensitivity; 2) joint fisheries and agricultural exposure under different mitigation scenarios. We present both the conditional R2 (i.e., variance explained by both fixed and random effects) and the marginal R2 (i.e., variance explained by only the fixed effects) to help readers compare among the material style of life relationships.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More