Philippa Kaur

Study sitesThe paired 15N-tracer experiments were conducted in 13 forest sites, of which nine were in China, two in Europe and two in the USA. These sites vary in mean annual precipitation (MAP) from 700 to 2500 mm, in mean annual temperature (MAT) from 3 to > 20 °C, and in soil types (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Table 2). Ambient N deposition (bulk/throughfall NH4+ plus NO3−) at the sites ranged from 6 to 54 kg N ha−1 yr−1. Forest types at the experimental sites include tropical forests in southern China, subtropical forests in central China, and temperate forests in northeastern China, Europe, and the USA. Data from the sites in Europe, the USA, and six of the nine sites in China have been reported previously. Detailed descriptions of these sites and the related data source references are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. Data for forests at the other three sites in China (Xishuangbanna, Wuyishan, and Maoershan) are originally presented here. The Xishuangbanna sites, which is located Xishuangbanna National Forest Reserve in Menglun, Mengla County, Yunnan Province, is a primary mixed forest dominated by the typical tropical forest tree species Terminalia myriocarpa and Pometia tomentosa. The Wuyishan forest, which is located in the Wuyi mountains in Jiangxi Province, is also a mature subtropical forest with Tsuga chinensis var. tchekiangensis as the dominant tree species in the canopy layer. Other common tree species in the forest include Betula luminifera and Cyclobalanopsis multinervis. Maoershan is a relatively young (45 years) larch (Larix gmelinii) plantation located at Laoshan Forest Research Station of Northeast Forestry University, Heilongjiang Province. A few tree species- Juglans mandshurica, Quercus mongolica, and Betula platyphylla- coexist with Larix gmelinii in the canopy. More information about these sites is also presented in Supplementary Table 1.
15N-tracer experimentAt all sites, small amounts of 15NH4+ or 15NO3− tracers (generally  20% in a 1-km pixel was defined as forest. Based on this, we estimated the total global forest area to be ≈42 million km2.Calculation of N-induced C sinkThe N-induced C sink was estimated via the stoichiometric upscaling method19, i.e., by multiplying the N retention in woody tissues of stems, branches, and coarse roots and in the soil with the C/N ratios in these compartments. The C sink due to NHx and or NOy deposition was calculated separately using Eq. (4) as follows:$${{{{{{mathrm{C}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{sink}}}}}}}={{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{dep}}}}}}}times left(,{!}^{15}{{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{org}}}}}}}^{{{{{{mathrm{R}}}}}}}}times frac{{{{{{mathrm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{org}}}}}}}+{{,}^{15}}{{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{min }}}^{{{{{{mathrm{R}}}}}}}}times frac{{{{{{mathrm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{min }}}+{{,}^{15}}{{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{wood}}}}}}}^{{{{{{mathrm{R}}}}}}}}times frac{{{{{{mathrm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{mathrm{wood}}}}}}}times {{{{{mathrm{f}}}}}}right)$$
(4)
where Ndep is NHx or NOy deposition (kg N ha−1 yr−1); ({}^{15}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{org}}}}}}}^{{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}}), ({}^{15}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}_{{{min }}}^{{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}}) and ({}^{15}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{wood}}}}}}}^{{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}}) indicate the fraction of deposited NHx or NOy allocated to organic layer, mineral soil, and woody biomass, respectively; and ({frac{{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{org}}}}}}}), ({frac{{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}}_{{{min }}}), and ({frac{{{{{{rm{C}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{wood}}}}}}}) indicate C/N ratios in the soil organic layer, soil mineral layer and woody plant biomass, respectively. f is the fraction we applied to account for flexible C/N in response to elevated N deposition. At elevated N deposition, wood C/N ratio may decrease, and N accumulates without stimulating additional ecosystem C storage. To account for this scenario, we adopted a flexible stoichiometry51, in which the effects of N deposition on wood C/N ratios are accounted for by multiplying the C/N ratios of wood with a fraction f (from 1 to 0) depending on plant growth response to different rates of N deposition level (kg N ha−1 yr−1). Results of growth responses to experimental N addition and field N gradient studies show plant growth increased with increasing N deposition, flattening near 15–30 kg N ha−1 yr−1 and a reversal toward no enhanced growth response at about 100 kg N ha−1 yr−1 (ref. 36,52). Therefore, for N deposition More

Study areaThe QTP is located in southwestern China (25° ~ 40°N, 75° ~ 103°E), with a total area of 2.5 million km2 and an average elevation above 4000 m (Fig. 7). The QTP is mainly covered with permafrost and grassland, with areas of glacier and desert48. The QTP, also known as the “Asian Water Tower”49, is the source of 13 major Asian rivers (e.g., the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers). The QTP has a clod, arid climate, with an annual average temperature below 0 °C and an annual mean precipitation of 400 mm. The seasonal distribution of precipitation is uneven, with most precipitation concentrated in the period June to September. There is a decreasing trend in precipitation from the southeast to the northwest of the plateau50. Known as the “Roof of the World” and “Third Pole”, the QTP is also an area that is sensitive to global climate change, showing increasing warming and humidification in recent decades51. In addition, the QTP contains a diversity of ecosystems and fosters a historic ecological security barrier, which nurtures the development of animal husbandry and diverse cultures.Figure 7Geographical location of the QTP. The map was created using ArcMap 10.2, URL: http://www.esri.com.Full size imageData sourcesRCP scenarios and climate change datasetThe RCP scenarios released by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report52 supply a forecasting standard for climate change research. RCP values ranging from 2.6 to 8.5 reflect radiation forcing values in 2100 relative to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 175053. Different radiative forcing scenarios represent different future climate scenarios. RCPs consist of one high-emission scenario (8.5 ({text{W}} cdot {text{m}}^{ – 2}), RCP8.5), two medium-emission scenarios (6.0 ({text{W}} cdot {text{m}}^{ – 2}), RCP6.0; 4.5 ({text{W}} cdot {text{m}}^{ – 2}), RCP4.5), and one low-emission scenario (2.6 ({text{W}} cdot {text{m}}^{ – 2}), RCP2.6)54. In this study, we adopted the RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate change scenarios choosing RCP4.5 to represent the medium emission scenario in consideration of increasing activity through global initiatives in response to climate change. Specific descriptions of each scenario are shown in Table 1.Table 1 The characteristics of each RCP scenario.Full size tableWe adopted the climate change dataset outputs from five global circulation models(GCMs) (namely GFDL-ESM2M, HadGEM2-ES, IPSLCM5ALR, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, and NorESM1-M) within the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)55. The dataset outputs from GCMs were downscaled to a resolution of 0.5° and bias-corrected with Water and Global Change (WATCH) data (Integrated Project Water and Global Change, http:/www.eu-watch.org/data_availability)56. The baseline period of the dataset is 1950–2005 and the forecast period is 2006–2099.The climate change dataset included daily precipitation, air pressure, solar radiation, air temperature, maximum air temperature, minimum air temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity.Auxiliary dataThe auxiliary data for our research include the following. (1) The land use and land cover (LULC) map was obtained from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (RESDC), Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn) for 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 at a 1 km resolution. The LULC data have six major classes: cropland, grassland, forestland, water, built-up land and barren land. (2) The spatial distribution of soil type data, digital elevation model (DEM), watershed boundaries and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) data with a resolution of 1 km were obtained from the RESDC. (3) Soil physical and chemical property data (available soil water capacity, absolute depth to bedrock, silt content, clay content, sand content and soil organic carbon content) were obtained from the International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC Data Hub) (https://data.isric.org) with a 1 km spatial resolution. (4) During 1986–2005 and 1986–2098 (RCP2.6; RCP4.5; RCP8.5), the permafrost datasets in the Northern Hemisphere (https://doi.org/10.12072/ncdc.CCI.db0032.2020) and the response of the alpine grassland ecosystem to climate change (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5) in the permafrost region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau from 1981 to 2099 (https://doi.org/10.12072/ncdc.CCI.db0006.2020) were provided by the National Cryosphere Desert Data Center (https://www.ncdc.ac.cn).Future land use simulation and validationIn this study, we used the Future Land Use Simulation model (FLUS) to simulate the LULC in 2030, 2050 and 2100 under the three RCP scenarios. This model was developed by57 and is available for download at (www.geosimulation.cn/flus.html). The FLUS model is an efficient land use simulation tool and has been widely used58,59. We selected the DEM, slope, precipitation, temperature, soil type, and permafrost distribution to calculate the suitability probability. Based on the land use transfer from 2010 to 2015, we calculated the total land use in 2030, 2050 and 2100 under three RCP scenarios by the Markov model. To validate the FLUS model, we set 2010 as the starting year and simulated the land use in 2015. The output results were compared with the real 2015 land use data, and we calculated the Kappa coefficient as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {Kappa = frac{{P_{0} – P_{C} }}{{P_{P} – P_{C} }}} \ end{array}$$
(1)
where (P_{0}) is the number of pixels converted correctly,(P_{C}) is the correct number of pixels to be converted in the random case, and (P_{P}) is the correct number of pixels to convert under ideal conditions.Assessment of ecosystem services under different RCP scenariosThis study assessed four ESs namely WY, SR, CS, and RMP, under climate change scenarios in 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2030 (short-term); 2050 (medium-term); and 2100 (long-term). We adopted the Integrated Valuation of Environmental Service and Tradeoffs (InVEST)60 model to assess the WY, SR, and CS ecosystem services. The InVEST model developed by the Natural Capital Project(www.naturalcapitalproject.org) is an effective model to evaluate ESs61 and is widely used in ES research on the QTP22,23,24,25. All spatial data were processed into a 1 km resolution and Albers projection by ArcGIS 10.2 before input into the InVEST model. The data requirements of the InVEST model and its processing are shown in Table S1. We use net primary productivity (NPP) to evaluate the RMP, and NPP can be used to represent the richness of biomass and the supply of organic materials. We adopted the Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA)62 model to estimate NPP.Water yieldWater yield is a key ecosystem service. It refers to the annual quantity of water available for human use, as measured by the supply of surface water per unit area63. We adopted the InVEST 3.9.0 water yield model to estimate WY services in the QTP region. The water yield model is based on the water balance principle64. The biophysical parameter table required by the model is shown in Table S2. The parameters in the biophysical table come from the published literature26,63,65. The annual WY is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{Y_{xj}} = left( {1 – frac{{AE{T_{xj}}}}{{{P_x}}}} right){P_x}} end{array}$$
(2)
where (Y_{xj}) is the annual WY of land cover type j in pixel x; (P_{x}) is the annual average precipitation of pixel x; and (AET_{xj}) is the actual evapotranspiration of land cover type j in pixel x.$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {frac{{AET_{xj} }}{{P_{x} }} = frac{{1 + omega_{x} R_{xj} }}{{1 + omega_{x} R_{xj} + frac{1}{{R_{xj} }}}}} \ end{array}$$
(3)
where (omega_{x}) is a dimensionless nonphysical parameter representing soil properties under natural climate conditions. The calculation method is as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {omega_{x} = Zfrac{{AWC_{x} }}{{P_{x} }}} \ end{array}$$
(4)
where Z is a seasonal rainfall factor representing the regional precipitation distribution and other hydrogeological characteristics. The higher the Z value is, the less the seasonal constant Z affects the model results66. Since the QTP region belongs to the arid and cold climate zone in China, the Z value is set as 9. (AWC_{x}) is the soil effective water content of pixel X, which is determined by the soil depth and physical and chemical properties. (R_{xj}) is the Budyko dryness index, which is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {R_{xj} = frac{{K_{xj} cdot ET_{0} }}{{P_{x} }}} \ end{array}$$
(5)
where, (K_{xj}) is the reference crop evapotranspiration and (ET_{0}) is the reference evapotranspiration in pixel x. We adopted the modified Hargreaves method to calculate (ET_{0}).$$ET_{0} = 0.0013 times 0.408 times RA times (T_{av} + 17) times (TD – 0.0123P)^{0.76}$$
(6)
In the above formula, (T_{av}) represents the average daily maximum temperature and minimum temperature, (TD) represents the difference between the daily maximum temperature and minimum temperature, (RA) represents astronomical radiation (MJm-2d-1) and P represents precipitation (mm/month).Soil retentionSoil retention refers to the ability of various land cover types to prevent soil erosion. The InVEST 3.9.0 sediment delivery ratio (SDR) was employed to estimate SR services in the QTP region. The SDR model is based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)67, and the model is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {SR = R*K*LS – R*K*LS*C*P} \ end{array}$$
(7)
$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {L = left( {frac{gamma }{22.3}} right)^{{frac{beta }{1 + beta }}} } \ end{array}$$
(8)
$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {beta = frac{{sin frac{theta }{0.0896}}}{{left[ {3.0, *,left( {sin theta } right)^{0.8} +, 0.56} right]}}} \ end{array}$$
(9)
$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {S = 65.41*sin^{2} theta + 4.56*sin theta + 0.065} \ end{array}$$
(10)
where SR is the total amount of soil retention (tons ha-1 a-1), LS is the topographic factor, and LS is calculated from the slope length factor (L) and slope steepness factor (S). C is the vegetation and management factor. P is the support practice factor. C and P are shown in Table S2. R is the rainfall erosivity index(MJ mm ha-1 h-1 a-1), which was calculated via monthly precipitation28. K is the soil erodibility, which was calculated from the sand, silt, clay and organic soil moisture contents68. R and K are calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {R = mathop sum limits_{i = 1}^{12} left( { – 1.5527 + 0.179P_{i} } right)} \ end{array}$$
(11)
$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {K = 0.1317*left{ {0.2 + 0.3*exp left[ { – 0.0256*SANleft( {1 – frac{SIL}{{100}}} right)} right]} right}} \ {*left( {frac{SIL}{{CLA – SIL}}} right)^{0.3} *left( {1 – frac{0.25*SOM}{{SOM + exp 3.72 – 2.95*SOM}}} right)} \ {quad quad*left( {1 – frac{{0.7*1 – frac{SAN}{{100}}}}{{begin{array}{*{20}c} {1 – frac{SAN}{{100}} + exp left( { – 5.51 + 22.9*left( {1 – frac{SAN}{{100}}} right)} right)} \ end{array} }}} right)} \ end{array}$$
(12)
where Pi is the precipitation in month i. SAN, SIL, CLA, and SOM are the contents of sand, silt, clay and organic moisture, respectively. Other parameters are shown in Table S1.Carbon storageCarbon storage services refer to the carbon that ecosystems store in vegetation, soil and debris. The InVEST 3.9.0 carbon model uses a simple method to estimate CS based on land use data. The carbon pools in this model include four categories: aboveground carbon, belowground carbon, soil organic carbon and dead organic matter. This model simplifies the carbon cycle, and the change in carbon storage is mainly caused by change in land use69. The carbon pools for land use types were set according to published literature70,71,72. The carbon storage is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{C}}_{{{text{total}}}} = C_{above} + C_{below} + C_{soil} + C_{dead} } \ end{array}$$
(13)
where ({text{C}}_{{{text{total}}}}), (C_{above}), (C_{below}), (C_{soil}) and (C_{dead}) are the total carbon storage, aboveground carbon, belowground carbon, soil organic carbon and dead organic matter, respectively.Raw material provisionRaw material supply refers to the organic matter provided by the ecosystem for human production and life, such as pasture and wood. In this study, RMP was quantified by the annual NPP. The NPP in the QTP region is calculated by the CASA model, which is a light use efficiency model driven by climate and remote sensing data73,74. The CASA model has been widely used to estimate NPP in terrestrial ecosystems75,76. In the CASA model, NPP is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {NPPleft( {x,t} right) = APARleft( {x,t} right) times varepsilon left( {x,t} right)} \ end{array}$$
(14)
where, (APARleft( {x,t} right)) is the photosynthetically active radiation(MJ m-2) absorbed by pixel x in month t, (varepsilon left( {x,t} right)) is the actual light energy utilization rate(gC MJ-1), and the (APARleft( {x,t} right)) calculation method is as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {APARleft( {x,t} right) = SOLleft( {x,t} right) times FPARleft( {x,t} right) times 0.5} \ end{array}$$
(15)
In the formula, (SOLleft( {x,t} right)) is the total solar radiation in pixel x in month t(MJ M-2); (FPARleft( {x,t} right)) is the absorption ratio of photosynthetically active radiation by vegetation, which is determined by the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI); and the constant 0.5 is the proportion of photosynthetically active radiation to the total radiation. (SOLleft( {x,t} right)) can be calculated by the solar shortwave radiation as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {SOLleft( {x,t} right) = a_{s} + b_{s} frac{n}{N}R_{s} } \ end{array}$$
(16)
where, (R_{s}) is the solar shortwave radiation(MJ M-2 d-1), n is the actual sunshine time(hours), N is the time of day(hours), and (frac{n}{N}) is the relative sunshine time; The constants (a_{s} = 0.25) and (b_{s} = 0.5).And the (varepsilon left( {x,t} right)) is calculated as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {varepsilon left( {x,t} right) = T_{varepsilon 1} left( {x,t} right) times T_{varepsilon 2} left( {x,t} right) times W_{varepsilon } left( {x,t} right) times varepsilon_{max} } \ end{array}$$
(17)
where, (T_{varepsilon 1}) and (T_{varepsilon 2}) are the stress factors of cold and heat, respectively; (W_{varepsilon }) is the water stress factor, reflecting the influence of water conditions; (varepsilon_{max}) is the maximum light use efficiency(gC MJ-1) under the optimal conditions, in this study, (varepsilon_{max}) is 0.389.Trend analysisThe Mann–Kendall nonparametric test and Sen’s slope estimator were used to analyze the trend of ESs in the QTP region. The Mann–Kendall method is widely used to analyze climatic and hydrological time series variation trends77. The advantage of the Mann–Kendall test is that it does not require the sample to follow a certain distribution, allows the existence of missing values, is not affected by a small number of outliers, and has strong quantitative ability78. The Mann–Kendall test is as follows:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {S = mathop sum limits_{i}^{n – 1} mathop sum limits_{j = i + 1}^{n} sgnleft( {x_{j} – x_{i} } right)} \ end{array}$$
(18)
For time series data, i.e., {x1, x2, …, xn}, n is the length of the data, and (sgnleft( {x_{j} – x_{i} } right)) is derived as:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {sgnleft( {x_{j} – x_{i} } right) = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}c} { + 1,x_{j} – x_{i} > 0} \ {0,x_{j} – x_{i} = 0} \ { – 1,x_{j} – x_{i} < 0} \ end{array} } right.} \ end{array}$$ (19) In this study, we set the significance level of (alpha = 0.05), when (left| Z right| le Z_{1 - alpha /2}) accepts the null hypothesis. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the trend is statistically significant.$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {Z = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}l} frac{S - 1}{{sqrt {VARleft( S right)} }},&quad S > 0 \ 0,&quad S = 0 \ frac{S + 1}{{sqrt {VARleft( S right)} }},&quad S < 0 \ end{array} } right.} \ end{array}$$ (20) $$begin{array}{*{20}c} {VARleft( S right) = left{ {nleft( {n - 1} right)left( {2n + 5} right) - mathop sum limits_{j = 1}^{p} t_{j} left( {t_{j} - 1} right)left( {2t_{j} + 5} right)} right} div 18} \ end{array}$$ (21) where p is the number of nodes in the dataset and (t_{j}) is the length of the nodes.Sen’s slope estimator is an estimation method based on the median and its insensitivity to outliers78.$$begin{array}{*{20}c} {beta = Medianleft( {frac{{x_{j} - x_{i} }}{j - i}} right)} \ end{array}$$ (22) Trade-offs and synergy analysisSynergies and trade-offs were used to describe the relationships among the ESs. A trade-off analysis was conducted to reflect the difference in ESs and their responses to climate change. Trade-offs are when ESs change in the opposite direction. Synergies are when ESs change in the same direction79. Correlation analysis is often used to evaluate trade-offs and synergies between ESs2. To analyze the trade-offs and synergies of ESs at different administrative and natural scales, we allocated the ES values at the 10 km (pixel), county and watershed scales by the “zonal statistic” module of ArcGIS 10.2, and conducted minimum–maximum normalization in R4.0.3 (www.R-project.com). To analyze the relationship between any two of the four ES types, the R package PerformanceAnalytics was adopted to measure the Spearman correlation matrix at different scales. More

Inventory analysisBefore computing the environmental impacts, we analyzed inventory data and input them into the software program for simulations. With respect to reusable masks, on-site measurements of raw materials, energy requirements for processing (e.g., laying, cutting, sewing, etc.), packaging material configurations, reuse options, cleaning activities and transport distances were provided by the Italian Social District. In particular, requirements for washing the reusable face mask were adapted from Schmutz et al.9 in compliance with the information provided by the producer. Moreover, waste disposal scenario data for both types was collected from the preprint by Allison et al.23 Finally, inventory data for single-use masks were collected from independent producers via certified laboratories. The final set of background and foreground data are provided in “Supplementary Table S1”.Single-use face masks consist of three layers of polypropylene non-wovens. The inner and outer fabric layers are Spunbond and the middle layer is 99% filtering Meltblown24. Reusable face masks (Type IIR) are also composed of three layers: an internal layer of antibacterial quality cotton, a middle layer of Meltblown, and an external layer of Spunbond. Mask quality is determined by the quality of the component parts and is therefore traceable to the component suppliers. Information on the suppliers and product component types (including certifications and features) is provided in “Supplementary Table S2”. Meltblown (supplied by Ramina) makes up the central part of reusable masks. This component guarantees a filtering performance of more than 99%, which—combined with the high-quality water-repellent anti-drop C6 antibacterial cotton (supplied by Olmetex) of the inner layer—resists up to 10 washes per immersion. These materials, forged together using specialized machinery, enhance Type IIR surgical masks above all others, with respect to their superior performance in the overall trade-off between filtering quality, reusability, and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the cotton inner fabric of these masks has the same effectiveness as single-use masks in reducing the transmission of respiratory viruses25.Regarding elastic bands, nose clip material (for single-use masks), and fabric layers, no direct datasets are available in the ecoinvent database. Thus, for the present study, non-allergenic latex-free elastic bands, produced using a “polyurethane, flexible foam” process, were assumed. Nose clip material, which is only used for single-use masks, was assumed to be modelled using a “polyvinyl chloride resin (B-PVC)” process. Finally, we assumed that a “polypropylene, granulate” process was used for the TnT Spunbond and Meltblown layers. Regarding packaging materials, reusable face masks are wrapped in biodegradable plastic bags, while single-use masks are packaged in plastic bags. Both types of masks are packaged in sets of 10 and delivered in recycled cardboard boxes. In the present study, packaging materials were introduced to the software as “polyester-complexed starch biopolymer”, “packaging film, low-density polyethylene”, and “corrugated board boxes: 16.6% primary fiber, 83.4% recycled fiber”. For transportation, a “transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, EURO6” process was assumed from the manufacturing facility and nationwide distribution by road, using Euro 6D vans.To calculate the number of face masks used in Italy in 2020, we estimated the Italian population at 60.6 million, based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) statistics26. We assumed one mask per person, per day, for both mask types, according to WHO recommendations27. As reusable face masks can be washed up to 10 times without losing their virus filtration performance (according to the manufacturer’s own specification), we assumed the maximum number of washes for the use phase. Accordingly, the total number of face masks used in Italy was calculated at 2.18 and 22.1 billion for reusable and single-use face masks, respectively. The total amount of waste was calculated in terms of the number of used masks, alongside their packaging materials (i.e., plastic wrap and cardboard boxes) (Table 2). Single-use face masks were found to generate almost 10 times more waste for each waste category, relative to reusable face masks.Table 2 Total waste generated from used face masks in Italy, 2020 (kton/year).Full size tableWith respect to mask use, our basic case scenario was based on WHO recommendations27, which stipulate that reusable face masks should be washed daily with soap/detergent and hot (60 °C) water. We assumed that the entire household (2.3 people for Italian case) masks are washed together with other clothes in a standard 7 kg washing machine, following both the literature9 and producer instructions. Schmutz et al.9 reported that the requirements for a half-full washing machine (a typical situation in Europe) are 84 g detergent, 52.3 L tap water and 1.1 kWh electricity per load. Accordingly, the average washing consumables required for each mask is calculated by normalizing the specified requirements with respect to one mask (i.e., via multiplying a half-full load requirement by 0.2%).It should be noted, however, that user behavior is not easy to predict and the washing machine might not be always considered as the preferred option. Hence, as a further step, we investigated different user behaviors as sensitivity cases. First of all, hand washing was introduced as the main sensitivity scenario9,23,28. In this case, we assumed that the entire household masks will be washed together every day after use, in a bowl of 5 L filled up to 3 L level with water at 60 °C and then rinsed with water without soap/detergent. Approximately 6.24 g of liquid detergent and 6 L of water is required in each manual washing session23. Similar to the machine wash case, the average washing consumables required for each mask is calculated by normalizing the specified requirements with respect to one mask (i.e., the requirements per mask per wash are 2.609 L tap water, 2.713 g detergent, 447.7 kJ energy provided by the gas boiler).Moreover, we also considered other possible user behavior scenarios, assuming that reusable face masks might be washed for more than the recommended lifespan (i.e., 10 washes). Accordingly, a second sensitivity case was modelled for reusable masks washed 15 times prior to disposal. Finally, with reference to single-use masks, we took into consideration a longer period of wearing. Although the recommended face mask use is one mask per day (or 4–8 h), many users wear single-use surgical masks for longer than this recommended period. Thus, in this sensitivity case, we assumed that users would wear the same mask for 2 subsequent days. It should be noted, however, that the latter two sensitivity cases, i.e., concerning longer wearing period of both types, might compromise the protection level of masks and thereby human health.Regarding the packaging and waste disposal activities, the Italian Social District provided some data from their ongoing studies regarding the biodegradability of packaging materials for reusable (Type IIR) face masks. However, the present study could not consider actual waste disposal activities (i.e., recycling, reuse) due to the lack of approved assessments. Thus, waste disposal was based mainly on previous studies indicating incineration and landfilling as viable options23,29. We assumed that contaminated masks and discarded packaging materials would go directly to waste disposal sites, and 43% of mixed waste would be landfilled while 57% of mixed waste would be incinerated23. Regarding alternative disposal activities, we considered two sensitivity cases: one that assumed that all masks from each type would be fully incinerated9,30 and another that assumed that all masks from each type would be fully landfilled31. More

Seed collectionMature seeds of G. officinalis were collected from the natural-growing plant community at the Hezuo alpine meadow and wetland ecosystem research station of Lanzhou University on the southeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (lat. 34°53′ N, long. 101°53′ E, alt. 2900 m) in 2014 and grown in a nursery. Robust seedlings were selected and transplanted to the Haibei Alpine Meadow Ecosystem Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences on the northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (lat. 37°37′N, long. 101°19′ E, alt. 3200 m) and Datong ecological agriculture experimental station of the Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology (lat. 34°53′ N, long. 101°53′ E, alt. 2900 m). Transplantation was also performed in a natural environment (the Hezuo alpine meadow and a wetland ecosystem research station of Lanzhou University).Study plots and transplantingThe naturally studied population is located at the Hezuo alpine meadow and wetland ecosystem research station of Lanzhou University on the southeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (henceforth referred to as the natural environment (NE)), China (lat. 34°53′ N, long. 101°53′ E, alt. 2900 m). The third transplantation site was created in a natural environment and was termed “natural transplant” (NT). The average annual air temperature is 2 °C, with extremes of 11.5 °C (maximum) and –8.9 °C (minimum). The annual precipitation is approximately 550 mm, 80% of which falls in the short summer growing season between May and September. Hezuo station is dominated by Kobresia humilis, Pedicularis kansuensis, Heteropappus altaicus, Stellera chamaejasme, Aconitum gymnandrum and Nepeta pratti, which bloom at the same time as G. officinalis.The higher-elevation transplanted plot was located at the Haibei Alpine Meadow Ecosystem Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences on the northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (henceforth referred to as the high-elevation environment (HE) (lat. 37°37′N, long. 101°19′ E, alt. 3200 m). The average annual air temperature was –1.7 °C, with extremes of 27.6 °C (maximum) and –37.1 °C (minimum). The annual precipitation ranged between 426 and 860 mm, mainly in July and August.The lower-elevation transplanted plot was located at the Datong ecological agriculture experimental station of the Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology on the transition zone between Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and loess plateau (henceforth referred to as the low-elevation environment (LE)) (lat. 34°53′ N, long. 101°53′ E, alt. 2900 m). The average annual air temperature was 7.6 °C, with extremes of 34.6 °C (maximum) and –18.9 °C (minimum). The annual precipitation was approximately 380 mm, mainly in July and August. The study area was dominated by cultivated crops.Robust seedlings with floral buds were selected for transplantation. The density of G. officinalis under the NE was approximately 1.5 plants/m2; therefore, we planted individuals at the same plant density in all transplanted plots. Moreover, more than 300 robust seedlings of G. officinalis were transplanted to each transplanted plot. The total planting area was greater than 200 m2 at each plot. The transplanted seedlings flowered in the summer, and we conducted our experiments during the following 2 years (2016–2017).Flowing phenology and flower durationTo observe flowering phenology, three 1 × 10-m areas were created within each experimental plot in 2016. In each plot, flower opening and duration were monitored and recorded every morning until all flowers withered.At the full anthesis phase of G. officinalis in 2016, 10 plants from each plot were randomly selected. On each plant, two buds at the middle position of the inflorescence were selected, and the floral duration of all the selected buds was monitored and recorded. The pollen (male phase) and stigma (female phase) presentations were monitored and recorded.Floral display and reproductive allocationAt the full-bloom stage, 50 single plants were selected from each plot to test the inflorescence traits. Stem length (the distance from the stem base to apex) was measured by a straightedge. The number of sprays on each plant and the average flower numbers (including buds and fruits) on each spray were counted.We selected 100–150 fully open flowers on different plants in each population to test the flower sizes at each plot. To avoid the position effect as much as possible, we did not choose terminal flowers. The length and width (diameter) of the flowers in each plot were measured by Vernier calipers. To test the sexual allocation changes in G. officinalis among the three plots, 30 buds on different plants in each plot were selected randomly. Then, the pollen numbers (PNs) and ovule numbers (ONs) were counted. The pollen/ovule ratios (P/O) were calculated as P/O = pollen numbers in all five anthers/ovule numbers21.Sampling dates corresponded to the height of the flowering season at each site (mid-August in the LE and early September in the NE and HE) before fruiting had occurred. While fresh, the aboveground parts of 30 fully flowering plants per site were dissected into inflorescences, peduncles, leaves, and stems. Plant material was oven-dried at 70 °C for 3 days, and the dry weights were obtained to the nearest 0.1 mg on an analytical balance (Ohaus). The inflorescence and peduncle fractions of each plant were summed to provide a measure of reproductive biomass (R), and the leaf and stem fractions of each plant were summed to provide a measure of vegetative biomass (V). The reproductive allocation (RA) was calculated as RA = R/(R + V).Observation of pollinatorsThe floral visitors to G. officinalis were recorded in the three plots. Ten neighbouring inflorescences on different individual plants were selected at random and labelled. Before observation, we counted all the open flowers on one inflorescence and then recorded the number of flowers visited by pollinators. We observed these flowers between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in each plot during 2016 and 2017. In total, observations were carried out for 65 h in each plot over the 2 years. While carrying out these observations, we stayed 2 m away from the focal flowers to observe all of the floral visitors without disturbing their foraging behaviours. The visitor species, behaviour in the flower, and visiting times of each species were recorded, and the visit frequencies of each visitor species were calculated. The visit frequency was calculated as visit frequency = visit times/visit flower numbers/hour.To identify whether flower visitors were legitimate pollinators of G. officinalis, collected visitors were observed and photographed with a stereomicroscope to identify whether G. officinalis pollen was attached to their bodies. Additionally, each visitor was observed to determine whether the reproductive structures of flowers had been touched. Visitors that were positive for all these factors were considered legitimate pollinators.Seed productionTo test the self-compatibility of G. officinalis, flowers subjected to self-pollination treatment (unopened flowers were isolated with paper bags) in 2017 on the three plots were subjected. To further analyse self-compatibility, we conducted outcrossing pollination. In addition, 30 individual inflorescences on different plants were bagged, and two buds at the same position on each inflorescence were selected. Both buds on each inflorescence were emasculated before the flowers opened. When the stigma opened, one flower was pollinated with fresh pollen from the same inflorescence or different inflorescences on the same plant (selfing), and the other was pollinated with fresh pollen from a plant 5 m away (outcrossing). To test whether facilitated selfing occurred, 30 individual plants in each plot were tagged. On each tagged plant, two individual buds were selected: one was assigned to natural pollination, and the other was assigned to emasculation (removal of all anthers before stigma lobe opening). To test whether agamospermy occurred, the flowers were subjected to emasculation treatment and isolated in three plots. Thirty buds on different plants were randomly selected, and all the anthers were removed before the flowers opened, and then all the buds were isolated with paper bags. At maturity, all fruits were collected, and all of the seeds (including mature and abortive seeds) were counted. Seed-set ratios were used to assess the reproductive success of each treatment, which were calculated by the number of mature seeds divided by the total ovules in each ovary. The facilitated selfing data were calculated as the natural seed-set ratio minus the emasculated seed-set ratio.Similarly, 30 inflorescences were tagged on different plants in each plot, and two buds were then tagged at the same position on each inflorescence; one bud was assigned to natural pollination, and the other was assigned to supplemental hand pollination when stigmas opened. For supplemental hand pollination, pollen was collected randomly from unmarked individuals at a minimum distance of 5 m from the recipient individual. Supplemental hand pollination events were conducted every day until the flower was permanently closed. When mature, all seeds were counted, and seed-set ratios were calculated. For each plot, we calculated an index of pollen limitation (IPL): IPL = 1 − (Po/Ps), where Po is the natural seed-set ratio and Ps is the supplemental hand-pollination seed-set ratio. As the seed-set ratios showed no significant difference between natural and supplemental hand pollination in the natural environment, we considered the IPL at this plot to be 0. The IPL data at the other two plots were compared using an independent-samples t test.Statistical analysisThe normality of the data was tested using one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov (1-K-S) tests, and then one-way ANOVAs (with Tukey’s multiple contrasts) were used to test differences in all traits among the three environments. More

Paine, R. T. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100, 65–75 (1966).
Google Scholar 
McGrady-Steed, J., Harris, P. M. & Morin, P. J. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature 390, 162–165 (1997).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Naeem, S. & Li, S. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390, 507–509 (1997).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Altena, C., Hemerik, L. & de Ruiter, P. C. Food web stability and weighted connectance: the complexity–stability debate revisited. Theor. Ecol. 9, 49–58 (2016).
Google Scholar 
May, R. M. Will a large complex system be stable?. Nature 238, 413–414 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Namba, T. Multi-faceted approaches toward unravelling complex ecological networks. Popul. Ecol. 57, 3–19 (2015).
Google Scholar 
McCann, K. S. The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. & Pimm, S. L. The balance of nature?: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities (University of Chicago Press, 1991).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Landi, P., Minoarivelo, H. O., Brännström, Å., Hui, C. & Dieckmann, U. Complexity and stability of ecological networks: a review of the theory. Popul. Ecol. 60, 319–345 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Baiser, B., Gotelli, N. J., Buckley, H. L., Miller, T. E. & Ellison, A. M. Geographic variation in network structure of a nearctic aquatic food web. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 579–591 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Marczak, L. B. et al. Latitudinal variation in top-down and bottom-up control of a salt marsh food web. Ecology 92, 276–281 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Takemoto, K., Kanamaru, S. & Feng, W. Climatic seasonality may affect ecological network structure: food webs and mutualistic networks. Biosystems 121, 29–37 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Angelis, D. L. Stability and connectance in food web models. Ecology 56, 238–243 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Borrvall, C., Ebenman, B. & Tomas Jonsson, T. J. Biodiversity lessens the risk of cascading extinction in model food webs. Ecol. Lett. 3, 131–136 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Stouffer, D. B. & Bascompte, J. Compartmentalization increases food-web persistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 3648–3652 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol. Lett. 5, 558–567 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Dunne, J. A. & Williams, R. J. Cascading extinctions and community collapse in model food webs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 364, 1711–1723 (2009).
Google Scholar 
McCann, K., Hastings, A. & Huxel, G. R. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395, 794–798 (1998).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J. & Allesina, S. Self-regulation and the stability of large ecological networks. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1870–1875 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Winemiller, K. O. Spatial and temporal variation in tropical fish trophic networks. Ecol. Monogr. 60, 331–367 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Paine, R. T. Food-web analysis through field measurement of per capita interaction strength. Nature 355, 73–75 (1992).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wootton, J. T. Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength: diet, abundance, and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 45–64 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Gellner, G. & McCann, K. S. Consistent role of weak and strong interactions in high-and low-diversity trophic food webs. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–7 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Mougi, A. & Kondoh, M. Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science (80-.) 337, 349–351 (2012).MathSciNet 
CAS 
MATH 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kondoh, M. & Mougi, A. Interaction-type diversity hypothesis and interaction strength: the condition for the positive complexity–stability effect to arise. Popul. Ecol. 57, 21–27 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Mougi, A. & Kondoh, M. Stability of competition–antagonism–mutualism hybrid community and the role of community network structure. J. Theor. Biol. 360, 54–58 (2014).PubMed 
MATH 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mougi, A. & Kondoh, M. Food-web complexity, meta-community complexity and community stability. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–5 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Brose, U., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1228–1236 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kondoh, M. Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. Science (80-.) 299, 1388–1391 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kawatsu, K. & Kondoh, M. Density-dependent interspecific interactions and the complexity-stability relationship. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20180698 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Oaten, A. & Murdoch, W. W. Functional response and stability in predator-prey systems. Am. Nat. 109, 289–298 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Nunney, L. The stability of complex model ecosystems. Am. Nat. 115, 639–649 (1980).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Kartascheff, B., Guill, C. & Drossel, B. Positive complexity–stability relations in food web models without foraging adaptation. J. Theor. Biol. 259, 12–23 (2009).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 350–355 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kéfi, S. et al. More than a meal… integrating non-feeding interactions into food webs. Ecol. Lett. 15, 291–300 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Terry, J. C. D., Morris, R. J. & Bonsall, M. B. Trophic interaction modifications: an empirical and theoretical framework. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1219–1230 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wootton, J. T. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 443–466 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Werner, E. E. & Peacor, S. D. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84, 1083–1100 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Bolker, B., Holyoak, M., Křivan, V., Rowe, L. & Schmitz, O. Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84, 1101–1114 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Schmitz, O. J. Predator diversity and trophic interactions. Ecology 88, 2415–2426 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Feng, J., Dakos, V. & van Nes, E. H. Does predator interference cause alternative stable states in multispecies communities?. Theor. Popul. Biol. 82, 170–176 (2012).PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Arditi, R., Callois, J.-M., Tyutyunov, Y. & Jost, C. Does mutual interference always stabilize predator–prey dynamics? A comparison of models. C. R. Biol. 327, 1037–1057 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeAngelis, D. L., Goldstein, R. A. & O’Neill, R. V. A model for tropic interaction. Ecology 56, 881–892 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Rall, B. C., Guill, C. & Brose, U. Food-web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 117, 202–213 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Neutel, A.-M., Heesterbeek, J. A. P. & de Ruiter, P. C. Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science (80-.) 296, 1120–1123 (2002).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Havens, K. Scale and structure in natural food webs. Science (80-.) 257, 1107–1109 (1992).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martinez, N. D. Constant connectance in community food webs. Am. Nat. 139, 1208–1218 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Food-web structure and network theory: the role of connectance and size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 12917–12922 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1, 1–11 (1970).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Langkilde, T. & Shine, R. Competing for crevices: interspecific conflict influences retreat-site selection in montane lizards. Oecologia 140, 684–691 (2004).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Elliott, J. M. Interspecific interference and the functional response of four species of carnivorous stoneflies. Freshw. Biol. 48, 1527–1539 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Franke, H. D. & Janke, M. Mechanisms and consequences of intra- and interspecific interference competition in Idotea baltica (Pallas) and Idotea emarginata (Fabricius) (Crustacea: Isopoda): a laboratory study of possible proximate causes of habitat segregation. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 227, 1–21 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Peckarsky, B. L. Mechanisms of intra-and interspecific interference between larval stoneflies. Oecologia 85, 521–529 (1991).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kimura, K. & Chiba, S. Interspecific interference competition alters habitat use patterns in two species of land snails. Evol. Ecol. 24, 815–825 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Franke, H.-D. & Janke, M. Mechanisms and consequences of intra-and interspecific interference competition in Idotea baltica (Pallas) and Idotea emarginata (Fabricius)(Crustacea: Isopoda): a laboratory study of possible proximate causes of habitat segregation. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 227, 1–21 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Pasch, B., Bolker, B. M. & Phelps, S. M. Interspecific dominance via vocal interactions mediates altitudinal zonation in neotropical singing mice. Am. Nat. 182, E161–E173 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bolger, D. T. & Case, T. J. Intra-and interspecific interference behaviour among sexual and asexual geckos. Anim. Behav. 44, 21–30 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Wolff, J. O. The effects of density, food, and interspecific interference on home range size in Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus. Can. J. Zool. 63, 2657–2662 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Hasegawa, K. & Maekawa, K. Role of visual barriers on mitigation of interspecific interference competition between native and non-native salmonid species. Can. J. Zool. 87, 781–786 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Denno, R. F., McClure, M. S. & Ott, J. R. Interactions in resurrected. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40, 297–331 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grether, G. F., Losin, N., Anderson, C. N. & Okamoto, K. The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biol. Rev. 84, 617–635 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carothers, J. H., Jaksić, F. M. & Jaksic, F. M. Time as a Niche difference: the role of interference competition. Oikos 42, 403 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Grether, G. F., Peiman, K. S., Tobias, J. A. & Robinson, B. W. Causes and consequences of behavioral interference between species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 760–772 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stouffer, D. B. & Novak, M. Hidden layers of density dependence in consumer feeding rates. Ecol. Lett. 24, 520–532 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Beddington, J. R. Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J. Anim. Ecol. 44, 331–340 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Cervantes-Loreto, A., Ayers, C. A., Dobbs, E. K., Brosi, B. J. & Stouffer, D. B. The context dependency of pollinator interference: how environmental conditions and co-foraging species impact floral visitation. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1443–1454 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. & Cohen, J. E. Transient dynamics and food–web complexity in the Lotka-Volterra cascade model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 268, 869–877 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thébault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science (80-.) 329, 853–856 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Guill, C. & Drossel, B. Emergence of complexity in evolving niche-model food webs. J. Theor. Biol. 251, 108–120 (2008).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

Lewison, R. L., Crowder, L. B., Read, A. J. & Freeman, S. A. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19.11, 598–604 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewison, R. L. et al. Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch reveal taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111.14, 5271–5276 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, R. W. D., Cripps, S. J., Nickson, A. & Porter, G. Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch. Mar. Policy 33.4, 661–672 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S. J. & Harvey, E. S. Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Mar. Policy 54, 86–97 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortuño Crespo, G. & Dunn, D. C. A review of the impacts of fisheries on open-ocean ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74.9, 2283–2297 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wallace, B. P., Heppell, S. S., Lewison, R. L., Kelez, S. & Crowder, L. B. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on loggerhead turtles worldwide inferred from reproductive value analyses. J. Appl. Ecol. 45.4, 1076–1085 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 3, 2–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K., Mills Flemming, J. & Magera, A. M. Critical factors for the recovery of marine mammals. Conserv. Biol. 31.6, 1301–1311 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carpentieri, P., Nastasi, A., Sessa, M. & Srour, A. Incidental catch of vulnerable species in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries – A review. Studies and Reviews No. 101 (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). Rome, FAO, 2021.European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Council Regulation No. 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 60/1, 5.3.2008, 1–12 (European Council, 2008).Savoca, M. S. et al. Comprehensive bycatch assessment in US fisheries for prioritizing management. Nat. Sustain. 3.6, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bearzi, G. Interactions between cetacean and fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: state of knowledge and conservation strategies. (ACCOBAMS Secretariat, Monaco, 2002).Casale, P. Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean. Fish Fish. 12.3, 299–316 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferretti, F., Myers, R. A., Serena, F. & Lotze, H. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 22.4, 952–964 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K., Allen, D. J., Ralph, G. M. & Walls, R. H. L. The conservation status of sharks, rays and chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN, Malaga, Spain, 2016).FAO. Monitoring the incidental catch of vulnerable species in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries: Methodology for data collection. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 640. (Rome, FAO, 2019).Mazzoldi, C., Sambo, A. & Riginella, E. The Clodia database: a long time series of fishery data from the Adriatic Sea. Sci. Data 1.1, 1–8 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Fortibuoni, T. et al. Fish and fishery historical data since the 19th century in the Adriatic Sea, Mediterranean. Sci. Data 4.1, 1–13 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Mancusi, C. et al. MEDLEM database, a data collection on large Elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean and Black seas. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 21.2, 276–288 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pulcinella, J. et al. Institute for Biological Resources and Marine Biotechnologies (IRBIM), Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA). Monitored bycatch of Mustelus mustelus, Squalus acanthias, Myliobatis aquila, Pteroplatytrygon violacea and Caretta caretta in mid-water pair trawl fishery in the northern Adriatic Sea, from 2006-2017 (2020).Cardinale, M., Osio, G. C. & Scarcella, G. Mediterranean Sea: a failure of the European fisheries management system. Front. Mar. Sci 4, 72 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K., Coll, M. & Dunne, J. Historical changes in marine resources, food-web structure and ecosystem functioning in the Adriatic Sea. Ecosystems 14.2, 198–222 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giani, M. et al. Recent changes in the marine ecosystems of the northern Adriatic Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 115, 1–13 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Romano, B. & Zullo, F. The urban transformation of Italy’s Adriatic coastal strip: Fifty years of unsustainability. Land Use Policy 38, 26–36 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holcer, D. & Fortuna, C.M. Status and conservation of cetaceans the Adriatic Sea. (UNEP-MAP-RAC-SPA. Malaga, 2014).Ferretti, M. Technological evolution of pelagic trawl fishery in the Adriatic, Italy. (FAO Fisheries Reports FAO, 1981).Fortuna, C. M. et al. Bycatch of cetaceans and other species of conservation concern during pair trawl fishing operations in the Adriatic Sea (Italy). Chem. Ecol. 26.S1, 65–76 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
La Mesa, G., Annunziatellis, A., Filidei, E. Jr & Fortuna, C. M. Bycatch of myliobatid rays in the central Mediterranean Sea: the influence of spatiotemporal, environmental, and operational factors as determined by generalized additive modelling. Mar. Coast. Fish 8.1, 382–394 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonanomi, S., Pulcinella, J., Fortuna, C. M., Moro, F. & Sala, A. Elasmobranch bycatch in the Italian Adriatic pelagic trawl fishery. PLoS One 13.1, e0191647 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pulcinella, J. et al. Bycatch of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the Italian Adriatic midwater pair trawl fishery. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 365 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2016).James, D. A., DebRoy, S. & Horner, M. J. Package ‘RMySQL’. R documentation. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/RMySQL/RMySQL.Pdf (2012).Bonanomi, S. et al. Bycatch of marine megafauna collected on board midwater pair trawlers in the Adriatic Sea between 2006 and 2019. Marine Data Archive https://doi.org/10.14284/483 (2021).Open Geospatial Consortium OGC, 2017. GeoPackage Implementations [WWW Document]. OGC implementations. URL https://www.GeoPackage.org/implementations.html.Ferretti, F., Crowder, L. B. & Micheli, F. Marine Historical Ecology in Conservation: Applying the Past to Manage for the Future Vol. (ed. Kittinger, J. N., McClenachan, L., Gedan, K. B. & Blight L. K.) Ch. 4 (California Univ. Press, 2014).Brodziak, J. & Walsh, W. A. Model selection and multimodel inference for standardizing catch rates of bycatch species: a case study of oceanic whitetip shark in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 70.12, 1723–1740 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orio, A. et al. Modelling indices of abundance and size-based indicators of cod and flounder stocks in the Baltic Sea using newly standardized trawl survey data. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74.5, 1322–1333 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClenachan, L., Ferretti, F. & Baum, J. K. From archives to conservation: why historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 5.5, 349–359 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. The tidyverse. R package ver, 1(1), 1 (2017).Bivand, R. et al. rgdal: bindings for the geospatial data abstraction library 2017. R package version 0.8-13 (2018).Pebesma, E. J. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10(1), 439 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer (2016).Hijmans, R. J., Williams, E. & Vennes, C. The” geosphere” package (Version 1.2. 1) 2010. More

Schwartz, J. J. & Bee, M. A. in Animal communication and noise (ed Henrik Brumm) 91–132 (Springer, 2013).Wollerman, L. Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim. Behav. 57, 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.1013 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gerhardt, H. C. & Schwartz, J. J. Interspecific interactions in anuran courtship. Amphib. Biol. 2, 603–632 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Gröning, J. & Hochkirch, A. Reproductive interference between animal species. Q. Rev. Biol. 83, 257–282 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popp, J. W., Ficken, R. W. & Reinartz, J. A. Short-term temporal avoidance of interspecific acoustic interference among forest birds. Auk 102, 744–748. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/102.4.744 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luther, D. A. Signaller: Receiver coordination and the timing of communication in Amazonian birds. Biol. Let. 4, 651–654 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brumm, H. Signalling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 192, 1279–1285 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farina, A. Soundscape ecology: principles, patterns, methods and applications. (Springer, 2013).Krause, B. L. The niche hypothesis: a virtual symphony of animal sounds, the origins of musical expression and the health of habitats. Soundscape Newsl. 6, 6–10 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Littlejohn, M. & Martin, A. Acoustic interaction between two species of leptodactylid frogs. Anim. Behav. 17, 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(69)80027-8 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ficken, R. W., Ficken, M. S. & Hailman, J. P. Temporal pattern shifts to avoid acoustic interference in singing birds. Science 183, 762–763. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.183.4126.762 (1974).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sinsch, U., Lümkemann, K., Rosar, K., Schwarz, C. & Dehling, M. Acoustic niche partitioning in an anuran community inhabiting an Afromontane wetland (Butare, Rwanda). Afr. Zool. 47, 60–73 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima, M., Pederassi, J., Pineschi, R. & Barbosa, D. Acoustic niche partitioning in an anuran community from the municipality of Floriano, Piauí Brazil. Brazil. J. Biol. 79, 566–576 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gottsberger, B. & Gruber, E. Temporal partitioning of reproductive activity in a neotropical anuran community. J. Trop. Ecol. 1, 271–280 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Villanueva-Rivera, L. J. Eleutherodactylus frogs show frequency but no temporal partitioning: Implications for the acoustic niche hypothesis. PeerJ 2, e496 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bignotte-Giró, I. & López-Iborra, G. M. Acoustic niche partitioning in five Cuban frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus. Amphibia-Reptilia 40, 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hödl, W. Call differences and calling site segregation in anuran species from Central Amazonian floating meadows. Oecologia 28, 351–363 (1977).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, A. K., Römer, H. & Riede, K. Spectral niche segregation and community organization in a tropical cricket assemblage. Behav. Ecol. 24, 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars187 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. & Graves, G. R. Null models in ecology. (1996).Chek, A. A., Bogart, J. P. & Lougheed, S. C. Mating signal partitioning in multi-species assemblages: A null model test using frogs. Ecol. Lett. 6, 235–247 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tobias, J. A., Planqué, R., Cram, D. L. & Seddon, N. Species interactions and the structure of complex communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 1020–1025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314337111 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sugai, L. S., Llusia, D., Siqueira, T. & Silva, T. S. Revisiting the drivers of acoustic similarities in tropical anuran assemblages. Ecology, e03380 (2021).Hart, P. J. et al. Acoustic niche partitioning in two tropical wet forest bird communities. bioRxiv (2020).Duellman, W. E. & Trueb, L. Biology of amphibians. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986).Wells, K. D. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Anim. Behav. 25, 666–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(77)90118-X (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woinarski, J., Fisher, A. & Milne, D. Distribution patterns of vertebrates in relation to an extensive rainfall gradient and variation in soil texture in the tropical savannas of the Northern Territory, Australia. J. Trop. Ecol. 1, 381–398 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen-Ankins, S. & Schwarzkopf, L. Spectral overlap and temporal avoidance in a tropical savannah frog community. Anim. Behav. 180, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.07.024 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerhardt, H. C. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1, 293–324 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rowley, J. J. & Callaghan, C. T. The FrogID dataset: expert-validated occurrence records of Australia’s frogs collected by citizen scientists. ZooKeys 912, 139 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zelick, R. & Narins, P. M. Characterization of the advertisement call oscillator in the frogEleutherodactylus coqui. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 156, 223–229 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwartz, J. J. & Wells, K. D. An experimental study of acoustic interference between two species of neotropical treefrogs. Anim. Behav. 31, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80187-0 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, M. J. & Hunter, D. Temporal and geographic variation in the advertisement call of the booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis: Anura: Hylidae). Ethology 111, 1103–1115 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baraquet, M., Grenat, P. R., Salas, N. E. & Martino, A. L. Geographic variation in the advertisement call of Hypsiboas cordobae (Anura, Hylidae). Acta ethologica 18, 79–86 (2015).Ziegler, L., Arim, M. & Bozinovic, F. Intraspecific scaling in frog calls: The interplay of temperature, body size and metabolic condition. Oecologia 181, 673–681 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Navas, C. A. & Bevier, C. R. Thermal dependency of calling performance in the eurythermic frog Colostethus subpunctatus. Herpetologica, 384–395 (2001).Lougheed, S. C., Austin, J. D., Bogart, J. P., Boag, P. T. & Chek, A. A. Multi-character perspectives on the evolution of intraspecific differentiation in a neotropical hylid frog. BMC Evol. Biol. 6, 1–16 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Littlejohn, M. Premating isolation in the Hyla ewingi complex (Anura: Hylidae). Evolution, 234–243 (1965).Lemmon, E. M. Diversification of conspecific signals in sympatry: geographic overlap drives multidimensional reproductive character displacement in frogs. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution 63, 1155–1170 (2009).Jansen, M., Plath, M., Brusquetti, F. & Ryan, M. J. Asymmetric frequency shift in advertisement calls of sympatric frogs. Amphibia-Reptilia 37, 137–152 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jang, Y. & Gerhardt, H. Divergence in the calling songs between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J. Evol. Biol. 19, 459–472 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Both, C. & Grant, T. Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: The effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol. Let. 8, 714–716 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hopkins, J. M., Edwards, W., Laguna, J. M. & Schwarzkopf, L. An endangered bird calls less when invasive birds are calling. J. Avian Biol. 52, 1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Medeiros, C. I., Both, C., Grant, T. & Hartz, S. M. Invasion of the acoustic niche: variable responses by native species to invasive American bullfrog calls. Biol. Invasions 19, 675–690 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilczynski, W. & Ryan, M. J. in Geographic Variation in Behavior (eds S. A. Foster & J. A. Endler) 234–261 (Oxford University Press, 1999).Schwartz, J. J. & Gerhardt, H. C. Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 166, 37–41 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
da Silveira Vasconcelos, T. & de Cerqueira Rossa-Feres, D. Habitat heterogeneity and use of physical and acoustic space in anuran communities in Southeastern Brazil. Phyllomedusa J. Herpetol. 7, 127–142 (2008).Herrick, S. Z., Wells, K. D., Farkas, T. E. & Schultz, E. T. Noisy neighbors: Acoustic interference and vocal interactions between two syntopic species of Ranid frogs, Rana clamitans and Rana catesbeiana. J. Herpetol. 52, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1670/17-049 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rowley, J. J. et al. FrogID: citizen scientists provide validated biodiversity data on frogs of Australia. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 14, 155–170 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Koehler, J. et al. The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice. Zootaxa 4251, 1–124 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tonini, J. F. R. et al. Allometric escape from acoustic constraints is rare for frog calls. Ecol. Evol. 10, 3686–3695. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6155 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anstis, M. et al. Revision of the water-holding frogs, Cyclorana platycephala (Anura: Hylidae), from arid Australia, including a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4126, 451–479 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cardoso, G. C. Using frequency ratios to study vocal communication. Anim. Behav. 85, 1529–1532 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Narins, P. & Zelick, R. in The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (eds B Fritzsch et al.) 511–536 (John Wiley and Sons, 1988).Amézquita, A., Flechas, S. V., Lima, A. P., Gasser, H. & Hödl, W. Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 17058–17063 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. factoextra: extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.7 (2020). More

Dietzel, A., Bode, M., Connolly, S. R. & Hughes, T. P. The population sizes and global extinction risk of reef-building coral species at biogeographic scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 663–669 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richards, Z. T., van Oppen, M. J., Wallace, C. C., Willis, B. L. & Miller, D. J. Some rare Indo-Pacific coral species are probable hybrids. PLoS ONE 3, e3240 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, K. E. et al. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321, 560–563 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richards, Z. T., Syms, C., Wallace, C. C., Muir, P. R. & Willis, B. L. Multiple occupancy–abundance patterns in staghorn coral communities. Divers. Distrib. 19, 84–895 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoeksema, B. W. & Cairns, S. World List of Scleractinia (accessed 6 May 2021); http://www.marinespecies.org/scleractiniaHughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 493–496 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thurba, R. V. et al. Deciphering coral disease dynamics: integrating host, microbiome, and the changing environment. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 575927 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muir, P. R., Marshall, P. A., Abdulla, A. & Aguirre, J. D. Species identity and depth predict bleaching severity in reef building corals: shall the deep inherit the reef? Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171551 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Woesik, R., Sakai, K., Ganase, A. & Loya, Y. Revisiting the winners and the losers a decade after coral bleaching. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 434, 67–76 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y.-H., Shertzer, K. W. & Viehman, T. S. Spatio-temporal dynamics of the threatened elkhorn coral Acropora palmata: implications for conservation. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1582–1597 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheppard, C., Sheppard, A. & Fenner, D. Coral mass mortalities in the Chagos Archipelago over 40 years: regional species and assemblage extinctions and indications of positive feedbacks. Mar. Poll. Bull. 154, 111075 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DeVantier, L. & Turak, E. Species richness and relative abundance of reef-building corals in the Indo-West Pacific. Diversity 9, 25 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wallace, C. C. Staghorn Corals of the World (CSIRO, 1999).Benzoni, F., Stefani, F., Pichon, M. & Galli, P. The name game: morpho-molecular species boundaries in the genus Psammocora (Cnidaria, Scleractinia). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 160, 421–456 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richards, Z. T., Berry, O. & van Oppen, M. J. H. Cryptic genetic divergence within threatened species of Acropora coral from the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Conserv. Genet. 17, 577–591 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheets, E. A., Warner, P. A. & Palumbi, S. R. Accurate population genetic measurements require cryptic species identification in corals. Coral Reefs 37, 549–563 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bongaerts, P. et al. Morphological stasis masks ecologically divergent coral species on tropical reefs. Curr. Biol. 31, 2286–2298 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet. Res. 89, 491–503 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar  More