Philippa Kaur

Cite this articleLeung, B., Hargreaves, A.L., Greenberg, D.A. et al. Reply to: Shifting baselines and biodiversity success stories.
Nature 601, E19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03749-zDownload citationPublished: 26 January 2022Issue Date: 27 January 2022DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03749-zShare this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More

Female plants must not only allocate resources to flowering but also to producing seeds as well as fruits and/or cones. This suggests that the costs of reproduction are higher for female than male plants, or for female function of hermaphrodite plants. Some dioecious plants (i.e. separate male and female plants) are vegetatively very different (i.e. dimorphic) between the sexes, such as females having larger branch and leaf sizes. Differences between male and female resource allocation to reproduction and the possible consequences of this for vegetative dimorphism in dioecious plants, is a central issue in plant evolution but it is a controversial and difficult topic1,2. In the most highly cited paper on this topic, Obeso1 notes it is practically impossible to measure the direct costs of male and female allocation to sexual reproduction. For example, most vascular plant species (about 95%) are hermaphrodites which makes measuring direct allocation by the two sexes, difficult. Thus Paterno et al.3 used an indirect allometric method to measure sexual allocation in hermaphroditic inflorescences and concluded that larger flowers represent greater relative allocation to male function.The problem of shared sexual allocation to inflorescences is avoided in dioecious plants making them important tests for ideas of sexual allocation in plants. However, they are both rare as species and as individuals and are typically large, forest trees. For example, there are relatively few dioecious individual trees in the very large Barro Colorado forest tree data set4. Again, this large size makes direct measurement, such as of allocation to reproductive structures, difficult. The Cape Floral Region is a useful place to investigate sexual allocation in plants and its consequences, because dioecy is relatively common and vegetative dimorphism between the sexes can be extreme. Also, Cape plants are amenable to research being short (about 2–5 m), rapidly mature and short-lived (about 5–20 years). Thus, the large (about 85 spp.) Cape genus Leucadendron (Proteaceae) is probably the most researched genus globally for male and female differences5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14.Even in these dioecious plants it is difficult to directly measure allocation to male and female function because of the difficulty of finding a common currency to compare allocation. For example, comparing allocation differences in attractiveness, nectar, seeds, pollen, cones and fruits and differences in the timing of producing these structures1. In Leucadendron males are generally more visually attractive than females. This is achieved by the loss of photosynthetic capacity in floral leaves and bracts12,15. It would be difficult to directly compare this photosynthetic loss in males, with for instance, female allocation to cones and seeds. Despite the difficulties in directly measuring and comparing allocation to reproduction, the consensus is that female allocation to sexual reproduction typically exceeds male allocation1, including in Leucadendron2,9.Greater female allocation to reproduction is one of the suggested reasons for vegetative dimorphism between the sexes2. The three main hypotheses for sexual vegetative dimorphism are (i) greater female sexual resource allocation requires this to be balanced by having a more efficient physiology (resource use efficiency hypothesis), or (ii) greater female allocation requires females to be in the more optimum habitats (the sexual site dimorphism hypothesis) and this facilitates vegetative differences, such as larger female leaves in the more mesic habitats. Finally, (iii) vegetative dimorphism may be a consequence of selection on reproductive traits (reproductive traits hypothesis). In support of the resource use efficiency hypothesis in Leucadendron, Harris and Pannell9 argue that supplying water to live, closed cones in the canopy of serotinous Leucadendron females is a form of maternal care that non-serotinous species and males do not incur. To keep these cones from opening they need always to be hydrated and therefore serotinous females need to be more efficient in their water use than their males. They argued that fewer and thicker branches in females provides a hydraulic advantage. However, the data in Midgley8 and Roddy et al.14 showed no support for sexual differences in water use efficiency. Clearly, there are opposing views as to whether females allocate more to reproduction than males and whether females are eco-physiologically more efficient than males.The sexual site dimorphism hypothesis has not been tested for Leucadendron presumably because males and females co-occur on a small spatial scale16 but is tested in the present analysis of Aulax umbellata and A. cancellata. In support of the reproductive trait’s hypothesis, it was argued5 that in Leucadendron, vegetative dimorphism is an allometric consequence of selection for smaller male inflorescences. Smaller inflorescences are then associated with more, but narrower, stems and thus smaller leaves via Corners Rules5. Besides the evolutionary relevance for understanding sexual differences in allocation, it may also have conservation implications. For example, Hultine et al.17 argued that dioecious plants are under more threat than hermaphrodites because dioecious females are presumed to allocate more resources to reproduction than males. As global change progresses, females may suffer greater mortality and thus dioecious populations may have lower reproductive potential if they become more male biased.One way around the measurement problem of determining direct allocation to sexual reproduction is to use indirect methods based on trade-offs1 such as the influence of allocation to sexual reproduction, on sex ratios and sizes of co-occurring male and female plants. If for example, males allocated less to reproduction than co-occurring females, they should be relatively larger or live longer and this would impact size and sex ratios, especially as plants age and competition intensifies.
The Cape is uniquely suitable to consider allocation differences between the sexes because populations of dioecious Cape species are often large ( > 1000’s of plants ha−1) and with males and females co-existing at a fine spatial scale. The Cape Proteaceae grow in a stressful summer dry Mediterranean climate with nutrient-poor soils18. This provides strong selection on reproductive allocation to seeds (such as large size and high nutrient concentrations) to produce seedlings large enough to survive their first summer. The Cape Proteaceae are strongly fire-adapted. For example, many species are serotinous (canopy storage of seeds in live, closed cones which mainly open after fire)19. This too requires high female sex allocation to maintaining cones in the canopy. Most Cape Proteaceae species are post-fire re-seeders19 in that all plants die in fire. This results in single-aged populations of single-stemmed non-clonal individuals; adults die in fires and dense patches of seedlings establish in the first winter after the fire and die in the next fire. Co-occurring males and females have the same age and thus differences in size or sex ratios will mostly reflect allocation differences and competition rather than age or habitat. Also, because seedlings in the Cape grow up in an open post-fire environment, woody plants do not need to allocate specifically to height growth, to achieve full light. They are in full light their whole lives and therefore any sexual architectural differences do not reflect differences in habitat shadiness. Here we focused on Aulax umbellata, but also present sex ratios and size metrics for the congeneric A. cancellata. These are two common, single-stemmed strongly serotinous Cape species in the Proteaceae which are highly vegetatively dimorphic. Although both Leucadendron and Aulax are dioecious, a rare trait in the family, this represents independent evolution as the two genera are not close phylogenetically20. We test the hypothesis that vegetative sexual dimorphism in Aulax umbellata and Aulax cancellata can be explained by differences in allocation to growth. We predicted that co-occurring males and females would occur in equal sex ratios and be equal in size due to equal growth, despite vegetative dimorphism. More

1.Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M. & Peterson, T. Living Planet Report 2020—Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (World Wildlife Fund, 2020).2.Harrison, I. et al. The freshwater biodiversity crisis. Science 362, 1369–1369 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.He, F. et al. The global decline of freshwater megafauna. Global Change Biol. 25, 3883–3892 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Loh, J. et al. The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 289–295 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Caughley, G. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 215–244 (1994).8.Watson, J. E., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Loreau, M. et al. Do not downplay biodiversity loss. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04179-7 (2022).2.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Antão, L. H. et al. Temperature-related biodiversity change across temperate marine and terrestrial systems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 927–933 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Leung, B., Greenberg, D. A. & Green, D. M. Trends in mean growth and stability in temperate vertebrate populations. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1372–1380 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Murali, G. et al. Emphasizing declining populations in the Living Planet Report. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04165-z (2022).7.Leung, B., et al. Reply to: Emphasizing declining populations in the Living Planet Report. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04166-y (2022).8.Dornelas, M., et al. A balance of winners and losers in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Lett. 22, 847–854 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hilborn, R. Faith based fisheries. Fisheries 31, 554–555 (2006).
Google Scholar  More

Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaBrian Leung & Anna L. HargreavesBieler School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaBrian LeungDepartment of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, CanadaDan A. GreenbergSchool of Biology and Ecology and Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USABrian McGillCentre for Biological Diversity, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UKMaria DornelasIndicators and Assessments Unit, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UKRobin FreemanB.L. wrote the response. A.C.H. and D.A.G. helped with writing, editing and discussing ideas. B.M. and M.D. discussed ideas with some editing. R.F. contributed discussions to the original manuscript2. More

1.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted Living Planet Index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLoS ONE 12, e0169156 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102, 828–844 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity in decline or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Inger, R. et al. Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol. Lett. 18, 28–36 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Scholes, R. J. et al. Toward a global biodiversity observing system. Science 321, 1044–1045 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M. & Petersen, T. (eds) Living Planet Report 2020 – Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (WWF, 2020).2.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Buckland, S. T., Studeny, A. C., Magurran, A. E., Illian, J. B. & Newson, S. E. The geometric mean of relative abundance indices: a biodiversity measure with a difference. Ecosphere 2, 1–15 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.McRae, L., Deinet, S. & Freeman, R. The diversity-weighted living planet index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLoS ONE 12, e0169156 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Leung, B., Greenberg, D. A. & Green, D. M. Trends in mean growth and stability in temperate vertebrate populations. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1372–1380 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Marconi, V., McRae, L., Deinet, S., Ledger, S. & Freeman, F. in Living Planet Report 2020 – Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (eds Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M. & Petersen, T.) (WWF, 2020).7.Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Daskalova, G. N. et al. Landscape-scale forest loss as a catalyst of population and biodiversity change. Science 368, 1341–1347 (2020).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
9.IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).10.van Strien, A. J., Soldaat, L. L. & Gregory, R. D. Desirable mathematical properties of indicators for biodiversity change. Ecol. Indic. 14, 202–208 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M. & Petersen, T. (eds) Living Planet Report 2020 – Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (WWF, 2020).2.Leung, B. et al. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines. Nature 588, 267–271 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Deinet, S. et al. Wildlife Comeback in Europe: The Recovery of Selected Mammal and Bird Species (final report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, BirdLife International and the European Bird Census Council) (2013).4.Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Setiawan, R. et al. Preventing global extinction of the Javan rhino: tsunami risk and future conservation direction. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12366 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Mondol, S., Bruford, M. W. & Ramakrishnan, U. Demographic loss, genetic structure and the conservation implications for Indian tigers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 280, 20130496 (2013).
Google Scholar 
9.Milner-Gulland, E. J. & Beddington, J. R. The exploitation of elephants for the ivory trade: An historical perspective. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 252, 29–37 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Casas-Marce, M. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of genetic variation in the iberian lynx along its path to extinction reconstructed with ancient DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2893–2907 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Chase, M. J. et al. Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants. PeerJ 4, e2354 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Jhala, Y. V, Qureshi, Q. & Nayak, A. K. (eds) Status of Tigers, Co-Predators and Prey in India 2018. Summary Report (National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi & Wildlife Institute of India, 2019).13.Sanderson, E. W. et al. The ecological future of the North American bison: conceiving long-term, large-scale conservation of wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 22, 252–266 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar  More