Philippa Kaur

NEWS
17 August 2021

Brazilian road proposal threatens famed biodiversity hotspot

Scientists and environmentalists say the road, slated to pass through Iguaçu National Park, could harm research projects and precious ecosystems.

Meghie Rodrigues

Meghie Rodrigues

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Protesters oppose the Caminho do Colono at Iguaçu Falls.Credit: Marcos Labanca

Brazil’s National Congress could soon vote on a bill proposing to construct a road through the country’s Iguaçu National Park. If the proposal moves ahead, researchers fear that it will threaten the park’s lush forest, a biodiversity hotspot that is home to almost 1,600 animal species, including endangered animals such as the purple-winged ground dove.Environmentalists and researchers have fought off construction of the 17.5-kilometre road for years, arguing that it will not only bring pollution to the park, but also poachers, who would threaten animals such as jaguars and tapirs. Even research in the park could be affected. In a portion of the park that dips into Argentina, for example, “poachers often steal our cameras”, says Julia Pardo, a mammal conservation and ecology researcher at the Subtropical Biology Institute in Misiones, Argentina.
‘Apocalyptic’ fires are ravaging the world’s largest tropical wetland
Under the leadership of President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s government has weakened protection of the country’s forests in favour of industries such as mining, logging and ranching. The lower house of Brazil’s Congress, the Chamber of Deputies, put the bill on a fast track in June, allowing it to skip regular debate among its committees and head straight for a vote — a move that has researchers worried.If passed, the legislation would establish a dangerous precedent that could weaken environmental law in Brazil, says Sylvia Torrecilha, a biologist at the Secretariat of Environment, Economic Development, Production and Family Agriculture in Mato Grosso do Sul. In addition to cutting Iguaçu Park in two with a road that will connect towns to its north and south (see ‘Contested route’), the bill seeks to create a new type of protected area — the estrada-parque, or park road — within Brazil’s System of Natural Conservation Units, which regulates environmentally protected areas. Approving the construction of the ‘Caminho do Colono’ (the Settler’s Road) in Iguaçu could literally pave the way for creating through-ways in other parks and conservation areas in Brazil, says Torrecilha.Normally, the idea of a park road is to preserve the green areas along an already-existing scenic route, she says, not to bring commercial or economic advancement to a state — the argument lawmakers have made in favour of the road. The proposal, from its very beginning, is “inappropriate”, she adds.A historical routeEstablished in 1939, Iguaçu National Park is famous for the waterfall — one of the world’s largest — on the border with Argentina along its southwestern tip. But it is also notable because it contains the largest remaining patch of Atlantic Forest in southern Brazil. Although less well-known than the Amazon rainforest, the Atlantic Forest is rich in plant and animal species, and originally stretched along the coast of southeastern Brazil and down to Argentina and Paraguay. However, the forest is rapidly disappearing: it has lost almost 90% of its tree cover, accelerated by deforestation from urbanization, and agricultural and industrial activities in the twentieth century. Because of these attributes, the park was designated as a World Heritage site by the United Nations cultural organization UNESCO in 1986.

If the legislation is successful, it would actually enable the creation of the Caminho do Colono for the second time. The government of Paraná, the state where Iguaçu National Park is located, transformed an existing walking path into an unpaved version of the road during the 1950s. “Nobody cared much at the time because there wasn’t much difference between the inside and the outside of the park, as the Atlantic Forest stretched all over the place,” says former park chief Ivan Baptiston. “With all the deforestation of the last decades, nowadays, the scenario is a lot different.”In 1986 — the same year the park received its UNESCO World Heritage Site designation — Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office filed a civil suit to close the road, and the following year, a federal judge officially closed it. Since then, vegetation has overtaken the route, and some local residents have tried and failed to force it back open, claiming economic hardships associated with not being able to travel efficiently through the area.
‘We are being ignored’: Brazil’s researchers blame anti-science government for devastating COVID surge
The new bill states that re-establishing the road would offer a “solution to a logistical problem in Paraná state”. Sponsored by Nelsi Coguetto Maria, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, the proposal also says it “answers a decades-old outcry of Paraná inhabitants, salvaging the region’s history and its socioeconomic, environmental and tourism relations.”Environmentalists have criticized Coguetto Maria for backing the bill. And local media outlets have reported that his family stands to potentially gain from the Caminho do Colono; two of his sons are partners in construction companies that could pave the road. Coguetto Maria’s office did not respond to Nature’s queries about this, or about researchers’ concerns over the road. When the Chamber of Deputies approved fast-tracking of the bill, he argued that the Brazil of today is “responsible”, and has the “competence and capacity to build an ecologically correct road”, pointing out that the road existed as a walking path before the park was even created.Research interruptedFor many conservationists and researchers, the economic argument to open the road doesn’t hold water. The damage caused to the park’s highly valued Atlantic Forest would far outweigh the potential economic gains for the surrounding towns1, they say. Furthermore, the species protected by the park are irreplaceable, they add. Iguaçu is the only location in the world where the jaguar population is increasing instead of declining. If the road opens, says Pardo, pressure on the animals will skyrocket. “Easy access is the main enabler for poachers,” she says.

Iguaçu Falls is located along the border of Argentina and Brazil, on the Iguaçu River.Credit: Thiago Trevisan/Alamy

Cars using the road will also cause air, soil, water and even sound pollution, says Victor Prasniewski, a conservation biologist at the Federal University of Mato Grosso in Brazil. Sound pollution, in particular, changes communication patterns among a number of species. “Birds that attract females by singing will be forced to sing louder or longer to get noticed,” says Prasniewski, who published a paper last year2 listing the potential negative impacts of the Caminho do Colono.“These changes can affect the reproduction and even the evolution of some birds,” says Carlos Araújo, a bioacoustics ecologist at Argentina’s Subtropical Biology Institute. “The building of a road would be catastrophic to research in my field,” he says.He works on a large-scale monitoring project looking for the purple-winged ground-dove, the last confirmed sighting of which was more than three decades ago. “It’s a rare animal, and we leave recorders spread over the forest to try and catch her singing. We often capture helicopter noise, which disturbs our work.” Cars and trucks on the road would create similar low-frequency noise, he says. “It will be a lot harder to find birds like this dove.”
Brazil’s lawmakers renew push to weaken environmental rules
For some, the argument that the road will enhance tourism in Paraná doesn’t make sense either. Reopening the road, says Carmel Croukamp Davies, chief executive of Parque das Aves, a private bird sanctuary and shelter near the park, could threaten Iguaçu’s UNESCO World Heritage title if it damages the park’s biodiversity and severs the Atlantic Forest. Visitors come because they want to experience nature, she adds: “Whoever doesn’t understand the impact of a proposal like this doesn’t understand an inch of tourism nor biodiversity.”With Brazil’s Congress having returned from holiday earlier this month, the bill could soon be put to a vote. And when it is, environmentalists worry it will be passed, given how many representatives within the Chamber of Deputies currently align with Bolsonaro. Then it would face the Senate, and finally, Bolsonaro, who is expected to ultimately approve it.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02199-x

References1.Ortiz, R. A. Ambientalia 1, 141–160 (2009).
Google Scholar 
2.Prasniewski, V. M. et al. Ambio 49, 2061–2067 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Download references

Related Articles

‘We are being ignored’: Brazil’s researchers blame anti-science government for devastating COVID surge

‘Apocalyptic’ fires are ravaging the world’s largest tropical wetland

Deforestation spikes in Brazilian Amazon

Brazil’s lawmakers renew push to weaken environmental rules

‘Tropical Trump’ victory in Brazil stuns scientists

Subjects

Policy

Government

Environmental sciences

Conservation biology

Biodiversity

Latest on:

Policy

The WHO is right to call a temporary halt to COVID vaccine boosters
Editorial 17 AUG 21

Has COVID taught us anything about pandemic preparedness?
News Feature 13 AUG 21

What costs half a year’s pay for African scholars? Open access
Correspondence 10 AUG 21

Government

The world must cooperate to avoid a catastrophic space collision
Editorial 11 AUG 21

From the archive
News & Views 10 AUG 21

Call to update US re-entry rules for international researchers
Correspondence 09 AUG 21

Environmental sciences

‘Polluter pays’ policy could speed up emission reductions and removal of atmospheric CO2
News & Views 16 AUG 21

The world’s species are playing musical chairs: how will it end?
News Feature 04 AUG 21

The fraction of the global population at risk of floods is growing
News & Views 04 AUG 21

Jobs

Head of Chemical Biology STP

Francis Crick Institute
London, United Kingdom

Postdoc (f/m/d) – High-throughput RNAi-screening in planarian flatworms –

Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry (MPIBPC)
Göttingen, Germany

Assistenz (m/w/d) der Institutsleitung

Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht – Centre for Materials and Coastal Research (HZG)
Geesthacht, Germany

Postdoctoral Position (f/m/x) “Eukaryotic proteomics of model systems”

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)
Leipzig, Germany

Nature Briefing
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Email address

Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy.

Sign up More

Restoration response evaluationMulti-criteria response analysis has been a crucial part of restoration evaluation work as a proper practical achievement which always includes multiple objectives defined by diverse stakeholders. In current work, a new framework was designed for restoration response evaluation by assessing three categories, direct management measure (M), environmental desirability (E) and socio-economic feasibility (SE). In total, 9 sub-categories and 22 individual variables were considered for evaluation of the present work41 (Table 6).Table 6 Response evaluation parameters.Full size tableDirect management measure (M) evaluationDuring the starting phase of the work, excessive grazing, uncontrolled tourism and continuous soil erosion were identified as major drivers behind the degradation of Dayara bugyal. Therefore, in the first category of the evaluation work, direct management measures to control the above-mentioned activities were analysed. The disturbances were controlled by managing both anthropogenic (M1) and natural (M2) processes. Under anthropogenic control process, grazing (A1) and tourism (A2) control activities were measured and soil erosion (B1) control activities was considered under natural control sub-category.Livestock carrying capacityLivestock carrying capacity of the pastureland was a measure for proper control of the estimation of grazing capacity. Forage yield of the area was calculated by considering the shoot production of 10 dominant palatable species of the area. Sample plant materials at the end of the growing season, were oven-dried at 80 (^circ)C till it reached at constant weight and then weighed in the laboratory. Thereafter, density of individual plant was measured by laying 30 quadrates of 1 × 1 m randomly placed within 50 × 50 m grid in the herb community (Eq. 1)42. Total 80 grids were sampled for analysis of 40 hectare degraded grazing land of the Dayara alpine pasture from the Papad Gad and Swari Gad area. Thereafter, 10 dominant palatable species covering ~ 33% of the total dry weight of the palatable and unpalatable species were considered for forage production calculation. Peak biomass was calculated by summing up the peak biomass of each individual to get the forage yield (Eq. 2). Finally, standard dry forage yield and proper rangeland carrying capacity was calculated by using Eqs. (3) and (4)43 as follows.$${text{Density }} = frac{{text{Total number of individuals of a species in all quadrates}}}{{text{Total number of quadrates laid}}}$$
(1)
$$Y = Y{text{p}} times A$$
(2)
where, Y = forage yield in a certain area (kg), Yp i = forage yield per unit area (kg/km2), A = land area of rangeland (km2) (i.e., total grazing area of the Dayara occupies 3.235 km2).$$F = mathop sum limits_{i = 1}^{n} Y_{{text{i}}} times {text{ U}}_{{text{i}}} times {text{ C}}_{{text{i}}}$$
(3)
where F = yield of standard dry forage (kg), Yi = forage yield (kg), Ui = utilizable rate (%), Ci = conversion coefficient.Utilization rate 50% and conversion coefficient 1 for meadow was considered for current work43 .$$Cc = frac{{text{F}}}{{{text{I}} times {text{D}}}}$$
(4)
where, Cc = proper livestock numbers that meadow can bear, F = yield of standard dry forage (kg), I = daily intake for an animal unit (7.5 kg/day, Table 7)*, D = Grazing days (May to September, 153 days).Table 7 Animal unit and forage requirement.Full size table*One animal consumes 3% of its body weight as dry forage44. Animal unit conversion was done after Rawat (2020)45.Tourists’ Carrying Capacity (TCC)The general formula of carrying capacity assessment for protected areas was first proposed by Cifuentes (1992), which was further applied in different fields46. The approach is to establish the capacity of an area for maximum visits based on existing physical, biological, and management conditions through the physical carrying capacity (PCC), and real carrying capacity (RCC). TCC is divided into the following levels:Physical Carrying Capacity (PCC)The PCC is the maximum number of tourists that can physically accommodate into or onto a specific area, over a particular time. The PCC (Eq. 5) may be estimated as follows:$${text{PCC }} = {text{ A}}/{text{Au}} times {text{ Rf}}$$
(5)
where, PCC = physical carrying capacity; A = Available area for tourists use ; 15%-18% area of the total geographical area is considered for the present work according to the expert opinion and URDPFI guidelines for hill towns47.Au = Area required per tourist; in general, it is considered 3 m2. However in the present work, 5 m2 area is considered for one person based on nature of the area is relatively more sensitive to degradation.Rf = Daily open period / average time of visit.Average opening time = 6 h (according to the field survey, tourists like timing for a day visit between 9 AM to 3 PM), time required by one tourist to visit the Dayara bugyal = 3 h.Rf = 6 h/3 h = 2.Real Carrying Capacity (RCC) (Eq. 6)Maximum permissible number of tourists to a specific site could be determined once the Correction factors (CF) becomes possible to derive out of the particular characteristics of the site. CF is applied to the PCC as follows.$${text{RCC }} = {text{ PCC }} times , left( {{text{Cf1}} times {text{ Cf2}} times {text{ Cf3}} times {text{ Cf4}} times cdots {text{Cfn}}} right)$$
(6)
where RCC = Real Carrying Capacity, PCC = Physical Carrying Capacity, Cf = Correction factors.Correction factors are calculated using the following formula.$${text{Cfx }} = { 1 }{-}{text{ Lmx }}/{text{ Tmx}}$$where Cfx = Correction factors of variable x, Lmx = Limiting magnitude of variable x, Tmx = Total magnitude of variable x.Tourism is dependent on nature. In the present work, number of days with heavy rain ( > 250 mm per day) and snowfall ( > 8 cm per day) were considered as limiting variables that control tourism for the area. The calculations were done by analyzing the rainfall and snowfall data from 2017 to 2019 considering March to November as rainfall months and December to February as snowfall months. Total numbers of days in the months were considered as total variables (Tmx) and the days with heavy rain/snow fall were considered as limiting variables (Lmx). For example, during 2017 to 2019 total number of days from March to November were 909 days (Tmx) and in 369 heavy rainfall occurred, therefore, Cf1 was 0.59 (1—Lmx/Tmx). Similarly, during this time heavy snowfall occurred for 51 days out of 186 days, and Cf2 was 0.72.Measurement of soil erosion controlEco-friendly bio-degradable coir geo-textile (9000 sq m) purchased from Coir Board of India, locally available pine needle (240 tonne) along with bamboo were roped in, to create a series of check dams and channels to control soil erosion, gully formation and vegetation loss. Prior to commencement, the leveling of uneven surfaces was done before laying the coir geo-textile. The open degraded sites in different patches of the bugyal, the eroded lateral sites of the gullies were then covered with geo-textile to control soil erosion. Total 38 check dams in the Swari Gad area were examined for draining soil holding capacity. After one year of the treatment, total mass of debris stored by each check dams was evaluated using core density method. The core density of bulk soil in each check dam was determined in triplicates, using an iron core of 2.5 cm radius and 30 cm height. The mass of draining soil checked by each check dam was calculated as under48:$${text{Md }} = {text{ V }} times , rho {text{b}}$$where, Md = The mass of debris in each check dam, V = Volume of check dam, ρb = Mean core density of bulk of soil in each check dam.Environmental desirability (E) assessmentIn this part, environmental desirability, the direct ecological outputs of the work were considered under this category, as habitat enhancement is the most crucial component of the activity. The sub-component considered under the category included vegetation structure (vegetation diversity, vegetation cover) and ecological progress (soil chemical properties)20. Vegetation sampling was done by considering 30 randomly placed quadrates of 1 × 1 m inside 9 sample plots of 5-50 m along three different zones of the treated water channel areas using vertical belt transact method49. The zones were: (i) geo-coir treated area, (ii) untreated degraded area, (iii) reference untreated non-degraded area along with both sides of the water channels wherein total vegetation density (Eq. 1) was analysed following the methodology of Misra (1968) and Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg (1974)50,51.Soil samplingSoil samples (30 cm depth) were collected from the experimental site in triplicates using random sampling method from all the three investigation zones, namely, Untreated undegraded zone (R), Geo-coir Treated Zone (GTZ) and Untreated Degraded Zone (UTZ). Fresh samples were taken from each plot (50 random soil cores per replicate per investigation zones) and were mixed thoroughly as one composite sample for further study. Here, it is to mention that utmost care was taken to collect each replicate as composite soil sample to appropriately represent the investigation zones of varied topography. Hence, total 9 soil samples (3 samples per investigation zones) were collected to determine its physico-chemical characteristics. After collection, the soil samples were preserved in a portable storage box and transported to the lab immediately. After air drying and grinding, it was passed through 2-mm sieve, and selected soil properties viz. soil organic carbon (SOC) (%), soil pH, total nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) contents (%), and water holding capacity (WHC) (%) were determined.Soil physico-chemical analysisThe SOC content in soil was determined by wet oxidation method using K2Cr2O752. The soil pH was measured with a suspension of soil in water at a 1:2.5 (soil : water) soil-to-solution ratio using a glass electrode. Calibration of the pH meter was done with the help of two buffer solutions of pH 7.0 and 9.253. The WHC of the soil was determined by measuring the ratio of total water in the wet soil to the weight of the air-dried soil using a Keen– Rackzowski box54. Total N was analysed following the micro Kjeldahl method55. Total phosphorous (TP) was determined using the HClO4-H2SO4 method56 and total potassium (TK) was measured by Flame Photometer (NaOH melting)57.Socio-economic feasibility (SE) assessmentTo investigate the opinion of local residents about the restoration initiative, village survey was conducted in two adjacent villages of the Dayara bugyal, Barsu (2232 m) and Raithal (2258 m). Participants had to indicate the degree of the work in above mentioned three scales (M, E and SE). The questionnaire comprising of questions covered perception about the above discussed six categories (Supplementary S10). Total 60 respondents from different households were randomly selected from each village. The sample consisted of villagers as well as administrative staff. The informants were randomly chosen across 3 different age groups, 20–40, 40–60 and  > 60 year58. Economic feasibility was the first class and parameters considered under this category included cost-effectiveness of the material used, economic efficiency, i.e., benefit–cost ratio and economic impact of the generated income. In addition, social acceptability is the next category, where two sub-parameters were considered, procedural equity (inclusivity and participatory) in response to planning and designing and social preference that covers over current practices, access to resources and services. In the fourth category, technical feasibility was considered which included three subcategories. Adoption lag means waiting period required to adopt the response, replicability of the response and technical sophistication associated with response. In sixth category, cultural acceptability was considered to deal with alignment of the work with cultural, spiritual and aesthetic heritage values, beliefs and social norms and use of traditional (indigenous and local) knowledge and practices. In the last category, political feasibility was considered, where existing policy/legislation and governance mechanism (clarity on roles/responsibilities of stakeholders) was analysed. Each restoration response is ranked using a relative effectiveness or performance rating scale of low (L), moderate (M), or high (H). These effectiveness response ratings for each sub-criterion also reflect no (or minimal), some (or moderate) and major (or substantial) improvement, respectively, relative to the initial condition (pre-response).Index score calculationRestoration success index was calculated, by considering three categories, viz., direct management measure (M), environmental desirability (E), and socio-economic feasibility (SE). In the first scoring part, all the 22 individual variables were evaluated for calculation of “variable index”, by assigning index score between 0 and 3, where 0 rated for ‘not satisfactory’ and 3 rated for ‘satisfactory’. For first two categories, i.e., direct management measure (M), environmental desirability (E), and direct field values were considered. The last category, socio-economic feasibility was indexed depending on village questionnaire survey. The second score “category index” was calculated by adding all variable index and divided by number of independent variables within that category. Finally, the “restoration evaluation index” was evaluated by summing all category scores, dividing by the maximum possible score (16) and multiplying by 10059 (Fig. 8). Ecosystem differences between reference, degraded and restored sites category and ecosystem index scores were determined using unpaired one way ANOVA by using categories viz., direct management measure (M) and environmental desirability (E). To estimate the most affected variable between references, degraded and restored sites, discriminant function analysis (DFA) was carried out, using the field values of all measured independent variables under second category.Figure 8Detailed outline of the scoring process applied for restoration evaluation index calculation for the Dayara bugyal.Full size image More

1.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Freeman, L. A., Kleypas, J. A. & Miller, A. J. Coral reef habitat response to climate change scenarios. PLoS One 8, e82404 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Salo, T., Mattila, J. & Eklöf, J. Long-term warming affects ecosystem functioning through species turnover and intraspecific trait variation. Oikos 129, 283–295 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Côte, I. M., Watkinson, A. R. & Gill, J. A. Coral identity underpins architectural complexity on Caribbean reefs. Ecol. Appl. 21, 2223–2231 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Clavel, J., Julliard, R. & Devictor, V. Worldwide decline of specialist species: Toward a global functional homogenization?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 222–228 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Darling, E. S. et al. Social–environmental drivers inform strategic management of coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1341–1350 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Richardson, L. E., Graham, N. A. J. & Hoey, A. S. Coral species composition drives key ecosystem function on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192214 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Ainsworth, C. H. & Mumby, P. J. Coral–algal phase shifts alter fish communities and reduce fisheries production. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 165–172 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.McWilliam, M., Pratchett, M. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Hughes, T. P. Deficits in functional trait diversity following recovery on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192628 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Adjeroud, M. et al. Recovery of coral assemblages despite acute and recurrent disturbances on a South Central Pacific reef. Sci. Rep. 8, 9680 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Bozec, Y.-M. & Mumby, P. J. Synergistic impacts of global warming on the resilience of coral reefs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130267 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Chaves-Fonnegra, A. et al. Bleaching events regulate shifts from corals to excavating sponges in algae-dominated reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 773–785 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Lasker, H., Bramanti, L., Tsounis, G. & Edmunds, P. The rise of octocoral forests on Caribbean reefs. Adv. Mar. Biol. 86, 361–410 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Dixson, D. L., Abrego, D. & Hay, M. E. Chemically mediated behavior of recruiting corals and fishes: A tipping point that may limit reef recovery. Science 345, 892–897 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Rogers, A., Blanchard, J. L. & Mumby, P. J. Vulnerability of coral reef fisheries to a loss of structural complexity. Curr. Biol. 24, 1000–1005 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Ampou, E. E., Ouillon, S., Iovan, C. & Andréfouët, S. Change detection of Bunaken Island coral reefs using 15 years of very high resolution satellite images: A kaleidoscope of habitat trajectories. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 83–95 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Di Martino, E., Jackson, J. B. C., Taylor, P. D. & Johnson, K. G. Differences in extinction rates drove modern biogeographic patterns of tropical marine biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq1508 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Roff, G. & Mumby, P. J. Global disparity in the resilience of coral reefs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 404–413 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Brandl, S. et al. Coral reef ecosystem functioning: Eight core processes and the role of biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 445–454 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Jouffray, J.-B. et al. Identifying multiple coral reef regimes and their drivers across the Hawaiian archipelago. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20130268 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Reverter, M., Jackson, M., Daraghmeh, N., von Mach, C. & Milton, N. 11-yr of coral community dynamics in reefs around Dahab (Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea): The collapse of urchins and rise of macroalgae and cyanobacterial mats. Coral Reefs 39, 1605–1618 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Schläppy, M.-L. et al. Making waves: Marine citizen science for impact. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 146 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.de Bakker, D. M. et al. 40 Years of benthic community change on the Caribbean reefs of Curaçao and Bonaire: The rise of slimy cyanobacterial mats. Coral Reefs 36, 355–367 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.González-Barrios, F. J., Cabral-Tena, R. A. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Recovery disparity between coral cover and the physical functionality of reefs with impaired coral assemblages. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 640–651 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Darling, E. S., Alvarez-Filip, L., Oliver, T. A., McClanahan, T. R. & Côté, I. M. Evaluating life-history strategies of reef corals from species traits. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1378–1386 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A. J., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Bellwood, D. R. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 167–177 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Bellwood, D., Streit, R. P., Brandl, S. J. & Tebbett, S. B. The meaning of the term “function” in ecology: A coral reef perspective. Funct. Ecol. 33, 948–961 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Mouillot, D. et al. Functional over-redundancy and high functional vulnerability in global fish faunas on tropical reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 13757–13762 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Madin, J. S. et al. A trait-based approach to advance coral reef science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 419–428 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Richardson, L. E., Graham, N. A. J., Pratchett, M. S., Eurich, J. G. & Hoey, A. S. Mass coral bleaching causes biotic homogenization of reef fish assemblages. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3117–3129 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Denis, V., Ribas-Deulofeu, L., Sturaro, N., Kuo, C.-Y. & Chen, C. A. A functional approach to the structural complexity of coral assemblages based on colony morphological features. Sci. Rep. 7, 9849 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Kubicek, A., Breckling, B., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Reuter, H. Climate change drives trait-shifts in coral reef communities. Sci. Rep. 9, 3721 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Hoeksema, B. Delineation of the Indo-Malayan Centre of Maximum Marine Biodiversity: The Coral Triangle, Vol. 29 117-178 (2007)35.Ponti, M. et al. Baseline reef health surveys at Bangka Island (North Sulawesi, Indonesia) reveal new threats. PeerJ 4, e2614 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Roff, G. et al. Exposure-driven macroalgal phase shift following catastrophic disturbance on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 34(3), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-015-1305-z (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Doropoulos, C., Roff, G., Visser, M.-S. & Mumby, P. J. Sensitivity of coral recruitment to subtle shifts in early community succession. Ecology 98(2), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.166 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Donovan, M. K. et al. Local conditions magnify coral loss after marine heatwaves. Science 372, 977–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9464 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Otaño-Cruz, A. et al. Caribbean near-shore coral reef benthic community response to changes on sedimentation dynamics and environmental conditions. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00551 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Goatley, C. H. R. & Bellwood, D. R. Ecological consequences of sediment on high-energy coral reefs. PLoS One 8(10), e77737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077737 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Powell, A. et al. Reduced diversity and high sponge abundance on a sedimented Indo-Pacific reef system: Implications for future changes in environmental quality. PLoS One 9(1), e85253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085253 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Lester, S. E. et al. Caribbean reefs of the Anthropocene: Variance in ecosystem metrics indicates bright spots on coral depauperate reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4785–4799 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pombo-Ayora, L., Coker, D. J., Carvalho, S., Short, G. & Berumen, M. L. Morphological and ecological trait diversity reveal sensitivity of herbivorous fish assemblages to coral reef benthic conditions. Mar. Environ. Res. 162, 105102 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Fox, H. E., Pet, J. S., Dahuri, R. & Caldwell, R. L. Recovery in rubble fields: Long-term impacts of blast fishing. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 1024–1031 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Lam, V. Y. Y., Doropoulos, C. & Mumby, P. J. The influence of resilience-based management on coral reef monitoring: A systematic review. PLoS One 12, e0172064 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Donovan, M. K. et al. Combining fish and benthic communities into multiple regimes reveals complex reef dynamics. Sci. Rep. 8, 16943 (2019).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
47.Smith, J. E. et al. Re-evaluating the health of coral reef communities: Baselines and evidence for human impacts across the central Pacific. Proc. R. Soc. Sci. B. 283, 20151985 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Althaus, F. et al. A Standardised vocabulary for identifying benthic biota and substrata from underwater magery: The CATAMI classification scheme. PLoS One 10, e0141039 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Wee, H. B. et al. Zoantharian abundance in coral reef benthic communities at Terengganu Islands, Malaysia. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 12, 58–63 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.McFadden, C. S. et al. Species boundaries in the absence of morphological, ecological or geographical differentiation in the Red Sea octocoral genus Ovabunda (Alcyonacea: Xeniidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 112, 174–184 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Ruiz, C. et al. Descriptions of new sponge species and genus, including aspiculate Plakinidae, overturn the Homoscleromorpha classification. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 179, 707–724 (2017).
Google Scholar 
52.Koido, T., Imahara, Y. & Fukami, H. High species diversity of the soft coral family Xeniidae (Octocorallia, Alcyonacea) in the temperate region of Japan revealed by morphological and molecular analyses. Zookeys 862, 1–22 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Schönberg, C.H.L. & Fromont, J. Sponge functional growth forms as a means for classifying sponges without taxonomy. http://ningaloo-atlas.org.au/AIMS. [02/12/2020]. http://ningaloo-atlas.org.au/content/sponge-functional-growth-forms-means-classifying-spo (2014).54.Atrigenio, M., Aliño, P. & Conaco, C. Influence of the blue coral Heliopora coerulea on scleractinian coral larval recruitment. J. Mar. Biol. 2017, 6015143 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Guzman, C., Atrigenio, M., Shinzato, C., Aliño, P. & Conaco, C. Warm seawater temperature promotes substrate colonization by the blue coral, Heliopora coerulea. PeerJ 7, e7785 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Baum, G., Januar, I., Ferse, S. C. A., Wild, C. & Kunzmann, A. Abundance and physiology of dominant soft corals linked to water quality in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia. PeerJ 4, e2625 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Biggerstaff, A., Jompa, J. & Bell, J. J. Increasing benthic dominance of the phototrophic sponge Lamellodysidea herbacea on a sedimented reef within the Coral Triangle. Mar. Biol. 164, 220 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Tebbett, S. B., Streit, R. P. & Bellwood, D. R. Expansion of a colonial ascidian following consecutive mass coral bleaching at Lizard Island, Australia. Mar. Environ. Res. 144, 125–129 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Vollstedt, S., Xiang, N., Simancas-Giraldo, S. M. & Wild, C. Organic eutrophication increases resistance of the pulsating soft coral Xenia umbellata to warming. PeerJ 8, e9182 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Marlow, J. et al. Spatial variation in the benthic community composition of coral reefs in the Wakatobi Marine National Park, Indonesia: Updated baselines and limited benthic community shifts. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 100, 37–44 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Roth, F., Lange, I., Sánchez Noguera, C., Carvalho, S. & Wild, C. Simulated overfishing and natural eutrophication promote the relative success of a non-indigenous ascidian in coral reefs at the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Aquat. Invasions 12, 435–446 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Plass-Johnson, J. G. et al. Spatio-temporal patterns in the coral reef communities of the Spermonde archipelago, 2012–2014, II: Fish assemblages display structured variation related to benthic condition. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 36 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Russ, G. R., Rizzari, J. R., Abesamis, R. A. & Alcala, A. C. Coral cover a stronger driver of reef fish trophic biomass than fishing. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02224 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Atrigenio, M. P. & Aliño, P. M. Effects of the soft coral Xenia puertogalerae on the recruitment of scleractinian corals. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 203, 179–189 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Maida, M., Sammarco, P. W. & Coll, J. C. Effects of soft corals on scleractinian coral recruitment. II: Allelopathy, spat survivorship and reef community structure. Mar. Ecol. 22, 397–414 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Helber, S. B., Hoeijmakers, D. J. J., Muhando, C. A., Rohde, S. & Schupp, P. J. Sponge chemical defenses are a possible mechanism for increasing sponge abundance on reefs in Zanzibar. PLoS One 13, e0197617 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.de Goeij, J., Lesser, M. P. & Pawlick, J. R. Nutrient fluxes and ecological functions of coral reef sponges in a changing ocean. In Climate Change, Ocean Acidification and Sponges (eds Carballo, J. & Bell, J.) (Springer, 2017).
Google Scholar 
68.Loh, T.-L., McMurray, S. E., Henkel, T. P., Vicente, J. & Pawlik, J. R. Indirect effects of overfishing on Caribbean reefs: Sponges overgrow reef-building corals. PeerJ 3, e901 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Lesser, M. P. & Slattery, M. Will coral reef sponges be winners in the Anthropocene?. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3202–3211 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Pawlik, J. R. & McMurray, S. E. The emerging ecological and biogeochemical importance of sponges on coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 315–337 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.McMurray, S. E., Blum, J. E. & Pawlik, J. R. Redwood of the reef: Growth and age of the giant barrel sponge Xetospongia muta in the Florida Keys. Mar. Biol. 155, 159–171 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Yomogida, M., Mizuyama, M., Kubomura, T. & Davis Reimer, J. Disappearance and return of an outbreak of the coral-killing cyanobacteriosponge Terpios hoshinota in Southern Japan. Zool. Stud. 56, e7 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.McGrath, E. C., Woods, L., Jompa, J., Haris, A. & Bell, J. J. Growth and longevity in giant barrel sponges: Redwoods of the reef or Pines in the Indo-Pacific?. Sci. Rep. 9, 18033 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.De Vantier, L. & Turak, E. Managing marine tourism in Bunaken National Park and adjacent waters, North Sulawesi, Indonesia (NRM III, 2004).75.Kohler, K. & Gill, S. Coral point count with Excel extensions (CPCe): A visual basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Comput. Geosci. 32, 1259–1269 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Froese, R. Cube law, condition factor and weight-length relationships: History, meta-analysis and recommendations. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 22, 241–253 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Froese, R. & Pauly, D. Editors. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org, version (2019).78.MacNeil, M. A. et al. Recovery potential of the world’s coral reef fishes. Nature 520, 341–344 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Bierwagen, S. L., Emslie, M. J., Heupel, M. R., Chin, A. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Reef-scale variability in fish and coral assemblages on the central Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Biol. 165, 144 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.81.Oksanen, J., et al. Package “vegan”: Community ecology package. R package version 2.5-6 (2019).82.White, D. & Gramacy, R. B. Package “maptree”: Mapping, pruning and graphing tree models. R package version 1.4-7 (2015).83.Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Maire, E., Grenouillet, G., Brosse, S. & Villéger, S. How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of functional spaces. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 728–740 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Gower, J. C. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27, 857–871 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Pavoine, S., Vallet, J., Dufour, A.-B., Gachet, S. & Daniel, H. On the challenge of treating various types of variables: Application for improving the measurement of functional diversity. Oikos 118, 391–402 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Bello, F., Carmona, C. P., Mason, N. W. H. & Leps, J. Which trait dissimilarity for functional diversity: Trait means or trait overlap?. J. Sci. Veg. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12008 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Laliberté, E., Legendre, P. & Shipley B. Package “FD”: Measuring functional diversity (FD) from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.-0.12 (2015). More

1.Gould, S. J. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41, 587–638 (1966).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Brown, J. H. & Maurer, B. A. Body size, ecological dominance and Cope’s rule. Nature 324, 248–250 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Brown, J. H., Marquet, P. A. & Taper, M. L. Evolution of body size: consequences of an energetic definition of fitness. Am. Nat. 142, 573–584 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Peters, R. H. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press. (1983).5.White, E. P., Ernest, S. K. M., Kerkhoff, A. J. & Enquist, B. J. Relationship between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evo 22, 323–330 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Yom-Tov, Y. & Geffen, E. Recent spatial and temporal changes in body size of terrestrial vertebrates: probable causes and pitfalls. Biol. Rev. 86, 531–541 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Bergmann, C. About the relationships between heat conservation and body size of animals. Goett. Stud. (original Ger.) 1, 595–708 (1847).
Google Scholar 
8.Ashton, K. G., Tracy, M. C. & de Queiroz, A. Is Bergmann’s rule valid for mammals? Am. Nat. 156, 390–415 (2000).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Meiri, S. & Dayan, T. On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. J. Biogeogr. 30, 331–351 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Riemer, K., Guralnick, R. P. & White, E. P. No general relationship between mass and temperature in endothermic species. elife 7, e27166 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Alroy, J. A multispecies overkill simulation of the end- Pleistocene megafaunal mass extinction. Science 292, 1893–1896 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Pineda-Munoz, S., Evans, A. & Alroy, J. The relationship between diet and body mass in terrestrial mammals. Paleobiology 42, 659–669 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Tomassini, A., Colangelo, P., Agnelli, P., Jones, G. & Russo, D. Cranial size has increased over 133 years in a common bat, Pipistrellus kuhlii: a response to changing climate or urbanization? J. Biogeogr. 41, 944–953 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Fischer, J. D., Cleeton, S. H., Lyons, T. P. & Miller, J. R. Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. Bioscience 62, 809–818 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Ives, C. D. et al. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 117–126 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Oke, T. R. The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 108, 1–24 (1882).
Google Scholar 
17.Blackburn, T. M. & Hawkins, B. A. Bergmann’s rule and the mammal fauna of northern North America. Ecography 27, 715–724 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 285–291 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Rapacciuolo, G. et al. The signature of human pressure history on the biogeography of body mass in tetrapods. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1022–1034 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Weeks, B. C. et al. Shared morphological consequences of global warming in North American migratory birds. Ecol. Lett. 23, 316–325 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Merckx, T. et al. Body‐size shifts in aquatic and terrestrial urban communities. Nature 558, 113–116 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Magura, T., Ferrante, M. & Lövei, G. L. Only habitat specialists become smaller with advancing urbanization. Glob. Ecol. Biogeor. 29, 1978–1987 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Pergams, O. R. W. & Lacy, R. C. Rapid morphological and genetic change in Chicago-area Peromyscus. Mol. Ecol. 17, 450–463 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.McKinney, M. L. Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 11, 161–176 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.McNab, B. K. Geographic and temporal correlations of mammalian size reconsidered: a resource rule. Oecologia 164, 13–23 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Schmidt, N. M. & Jensen, P. M. Changes in mammalian body length over 175 years – adaptations to a fragmented landscape? Conserv. Ecol. 72, 6 (2003).
Google Scholar 
27.Schmidt, N. M. & Jensen, P. M. Concomitant patterns in avian and mammalian body length changes in Denmark. Ecol. Soc. 10, 5 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Nowak, R. M. Walker’s mammals of the world. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (1999).29.Lindstedt, S. L. & Boyce, M. S. Seasonality, fasting endurance, and body size in mammals. Am. Nat. 125, 873–878 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.McCain, C. M. & King, S. R. B. Body size and activity times mediate mammalian responses to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1760–1769 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Naya, D. E., Naya, H. & Cook, J. Climate change and body size trends in aquatic and terrestrial endotherms: does habitat matter? PLoS ONE 12, e0183051 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Johnson, G. E. Hibernation in mammals. Q. Rev. Biol. 6, 439–461 (1931).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Terrien, J., Perret, M. & Aujard, F. Behavioral thermoregulation in mammals: a review. Front. Biosci. 16, 1428–1444 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Kuussaari, M. et al. Butterfly species’ responses to urbanization: differing effects of human population density and built-up area. Urban Ecosyst. 24, 515–527 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.McNab, B. K. Food habits, energetics, and the population biology of mammals. Am. Nat. 116, 106–124 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Guralnick, R., Hantak, M. M., Li, D. & McLean, B. S. Body size trends in response to climate and urbanization in the widespread North American deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Sci. Rep. 10, 8882 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Robinette, W. L., Baer, C. H., Pillmore, R. E. & Knittle, C. E. Effects of nutritional change on captive mule deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 37, 312–326 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Beckmann, J. P. & Berger, J. Using black bears to test ideal-free distribution models experimentally. J. Mammal. 84, 594–606 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Liow, L. H., Fortelius, M., Lintulaakso, K., Mannila, H. & Stenseth, N. C. Lower extinction risk in sleep-or-hide mammals. Am. Nat. 173, 264–272 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Eastman, L. M., Morelli, T. L., Rowe, K. C., Conroy, C. J. & Moritz, C. Size increase in high elevation ground squirrels over the last century. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1499–1508 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Cardillo, M. et al. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 309, 1239–1241 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Huey, R. B. et al. Predicting organismal vulnerability to climate warming: roles of behaviour, physiology and adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1665–1679 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Scheffers, B. R., Edward, D. P., Diesmos, A., William, S. E. & Evans, T. A. Microhabitats reduce animal’s exposure to climate extremes. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 495–503 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Smith, F. A., Betancourt, J. L. & Brown, J. H. Evolution of body size in the woodrat over the past 25,000 years of climate change. Science 270, 2012–2014 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Sheridan, J. A. & Bickford, D. Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 401–406 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Gohli, J. & Voje, K. L. An interspecific assessment of Bergmann’s rule in 22 mammalian families. BMC Evolut. Biol. 16, 222 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Babinska-Werka, J. Food of the striped field mouse in different types of urban areas. Acta Theriol. 26, 285–299 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Brown, J. S., Kotler, B. P. & Porter, W. P. How foraging allometries are resource dynamics could explain Bergmann’s rule and the body-size diet relationship in mammals. Oikos 126, 224–230 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Santini, L. et al. One strategy does not fit all: Determinants of urban adaptation in mammals. Ecol. Lett. 22, 365–376 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Nielsen, S. E. et al. Environmental, biological and anthropogenic effects on grizzly bear body size: temporal and spatial considerations. BMC Ecol. 13, 31 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Dahirel, M., De Cock, M., Vantieghem, P. & Bonte, D. Urbanization-driven changes in web building and body size in an orb web spider. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 79–91 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Hart, M. A. & Sailor, D. J. Quantifying the influence of land-use and surface characteristics on spatial variability in the urban heat island. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 95, 397–406 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Yom-Tov, Y. Body sizes of carnivores commensal with humans have increased over the past 50 years. Funct. Ecol. 17, 323–327 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 287, 1–23 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Metcalfe, N. B. & Ure, S. E. Diurnal variation in flight performance and hence potential predation risk in small birds. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 261, 395–400 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kullberg, C., Fransson, T. & Jakobsson, S. Impaired predator evasion in fat blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 263, 1671–1675 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Downes, S. Trading heat and food for safety: costs of predator avoidance in a lizard. Ecology 82, 2870–2881 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Macleod, R., Gosler, A. G. & Cresswell, W. Diurnal mass gain strategies and perceived predation risk in the great tit Parus major. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 956–964 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Harris, S. E. & Munshi-South, J. Signatures of positive selection and local adaptation to urbanization in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Mol. Ecol. 26, 6336–6350 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Ordeñana, M. A. et al. Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. J. Mammal. 91, 1322–1331 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Croci, S., Butet, A. & Clergeau, P. Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits? Condor 110, 223–240 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Jokimäki, J., Suhonen, J., Jokimäki-Kaisanlahti, M.-L. & Carbó-Ramirez, P. Effects of urbanization on breeding birds in European towns: Impacts of species traits. Urban Ecosyst. 19, 1565–1577 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Jung, K. & Threlfall, C. G. Trait-dependent tolerance of bats to urbanization: a global meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20181222 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Parsons, A. W. et al. Mammal communities are larger and more diverse in moderately developed areas. eLife 7, e38012 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Fuller, A., Mitchell, D., Maloney, S. K. & Hetem, R. S. Towards a mechanistic understanding of the responses of large terrestrial mammals to heat and aridity associated with climate change. Clim. Change Resp. 3, 10 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Ruf, T. & Geiser, F. Daily torpor and hibernation in birds and mammals. Biol. Rev. 90, 891–926 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Suggitt, A. J. et al. Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 713–717 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Law, C. J., Slater, G. J. & Mehta, R. S. Shared extremes by ectotherms and endotherms: body elongation in mustelids is associated with small size and reduced limbs. Evolution 73, 735–749 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. Bergmann’s rule and body size in mammals. Am. Nat. 161, 821–825 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Nengovhela, A., Denys, C. & Taylor, P. J. Life history and habitat do not mediate temporal changes in body size due to climate warming in rodents. PeerJ 8, 9792 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Merckx, T., Kaiser, A. & Van Dyck, H. Increased body size along urbanization gradients at both community and intraspecific level in macro-moths. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3837–3848 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Ohlberger, J. Climate warming and ectotherm body size – from individual physiology to community ecology. Funct. Ecol. 27, 991–1001 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Grimm, N. B. et al. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B. & Hutyra, L. R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16083–16088 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Christensen, J. H. et al. Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution Working Group I Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel Clim. Change 1–6, 1217–1308 (2013). pp.
Google Scholar 
77.Guralnick, R. & Constable, H. VertNet: creating a data-sharing community. Bioscience 60, 258–259 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.National Ecological Observatory Network. Data Products: DP1.10072.001. Provisional data downloaded from http://data.neonscience.org on May 10, 2019. Battelle, Boulder, CO, USA. (2019).79.Calhoun, J. B. North American census of small mammals. Release no. 1. Announcement of program. Rodent ecology program. Johns Hopkins University Pres. (1948).80.Calhoun, J. B. North American census of small mammals. Release no. 2. Annual report of census made in 1948. Rodent ecology program. Johns Hopkins University Press. (1949).81.Calhoun, J. B. North American census of small mammals. Release no. 3. Annual report of census made in 1949. Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory. (1950).82.Calhoun, J. B. North American census of small mammals. Release no. 4. Annual report of census made in 1950. Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory. (1951).83.Calhoun, J. B. Population dynamics of vertebrates. Compilations of research data. Release no. 5. 1951 Annual report – North American census of small mammals. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health. (1956).84.Calhoun, J. B. & Arata, A. A. Population dynamics of vertebrates. Compilations of research data. Release no. 6. 1952 Annual report – North American census of small mammals. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health. (1957).85.Calhoun, J. B. & Arata, A. A. Population dynamics of vertebrates. Compilations of research data. Release no. 7. 1953 Annual report – North American census of small mammals. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health. (1957).86.Calhoun, J. B. & Arata, A. A. Population dynamics of vertebrates. Compilations of research data. Release no. 8. 1954 Annual report – North American census of small mammals. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health. (1957).87.Calhoun, J. B. & Arata, A. A. Population dynamics of vertebrates. Compilations of research data. Release no. 9. 1955 and 1956 Annual report – North American census of small mammals and certain summaries for the years 1948–1956. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Mental Health. (1957).88.Guralnick, R. P. et al. The Importance of digitized biocollections as a source of trait data and a new VertNet resource. Database 2016, baw158 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Laney, C. & Lunch, C. neonUtilities: utilities for working with NEON data. R package version 1.3.1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/neonUtilities. (2019).90.Chapman, A. D. & Wieczorek, J. Guide to best practices for georeferencing. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. (2006).91.Wieczorek, J., Guo, Q., Boureau, C. & Wieczorek, C. Georeferencing calculator. http://manisnet.org/gci2.html. (2001).92.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, https://www.R-project.org/. (2021).93.Tiwari, V. & Kashikar, A. OutlierDetection: Outlier Detection. R package version 0.1.1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/OutlierDetection/index.html. (2019).94.Fang, Y. & Jawitz, J. W. High-resolution reconstruction of the United States human population distribution, 1790 to 2010. Sci. Data 5, 180067 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Venter, O. et al. Global Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 10067 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Li, D., Stucky, B. J., Deck, J., Baiser, B. & Guralnick, R. P. The effect of urbanization on plant phenology depends on regional temperature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1661–1667 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
97.Li, D. et al. Climate, urbanization, and species traits interactively drive flowering duration. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 892–903 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.PRISM Climate Group. PRISM climate data. Available at https://prism.oregonstate.edu. (2020).99.Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A. & Jetz, W. Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLOS Biol. 17, e3000494 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. (2014).101.Brown, James H. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press. (1995).102.Smith, F. A. et al. Similarity of mammalian body size across the taxonomic hierarchy and across space and time. Am. Nat. 163, 672–691 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
103.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Barton, K. Package ‘MuMIn’. Model selection and model averaging based on information criteria. R package version 3.2.4. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html. (2012).105.Li, D., Dinnage, R., Helmus, M. & Ives, A. phyr: An R package for phylogenetic species‐distribution modelling in ecological communities. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1455–1463 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Ives, A. R. & Li, D. rr2: an R package to calculate R2s for regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 1028 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Vik JO, Brinch CN, Boutin S, Stenseth NC. Interlinking hare and lynx dynamics using a century’s worth of annual data. Popul Ecol. 2008;50:267–74.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Luo G, Han Q, Zhou D, Li L, Chen X, Li Y, et al. Moderate grazing can promote aboveground primary production of grassland under water stress. Ecol Complex. 2012;11:126–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
3.McNaughton S. Grazing as an optimization process: grass-ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. Am Nat. 1979;113:691–703.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J, Locey KJ, et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature. 2017;551:457–63.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Zhang Z, Yan C, Krebs CJ, Stenseth NC. Ecological non-monotonicity and its effects on complexity and stability of populations, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Modell. 2015;312:374–84.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Devin S, Giamberini L, Pain-Devin S. Variation in variance means more than mean variations: what does variability tell us about population health status? Environ Int. 2014;73:282–7.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Steudel B, Hector A, Friedl T, Löfke C, Lorenz M, Wesche M, et al. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning change along environmental stress gradients. Ecol Lett. 2012;15:1397–405.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Christin S, Hervet É, Lecomte N. Applications for deep learning in ecology. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10:1632–44.Article 

Google Scholar 
9.De’ath G, Fabricius KE. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology. 2000;81:3178–92.Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Larsen PE, Field D, Gilbert JA. Predicting bacterial community assemblages using an artificial neural network approach. Nat Methods. 2012;9:621–5.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Sperlea T, Kreuder N, Beisser D, Hattab G, Boenigk J, Heider D. Quantification of the covariation of lake microbiomes and environmental variables using a machine learning‐based framework. Mol Ecol. 2021;30:2131–44.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Schiel DR, Lilley SA, South PM. Ecological tipping points for an invasive kelp in rocky reef algal communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2018;587:93–104.Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Robinson B, Cohen JS, Herman JD. Detecting early warning signals of long-term water supply vulnerability using machine learning. Environ Model Softw. 2020;131:104781.Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Hessen DO, Andersen T, Lyehe A. Carbon metabolism in a humic lake: pool sizes and cycling through zooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr. 1990;35:84–99.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Nebbioso A, Piccolo A. Molecular characterization of dissolved organic matter (DOM): a critical review. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013;405:109–24.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Coble PG, Lead J, Baker A, Reynolds DM, Spencer RG (eds). Aquatic organic matter fluorescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.17.Finstad AG, Andersen T, Larsen S, Tominaga K, Blumentrath S, de Wit HA, et al. From greening to browning: catchment vegetation development and reduced S-deposition promote organic carbon load on decadal time scales in Nordic lakes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Monteith DT, Stoddard JL, Evans CD, de Wit HA, Forsius M, Høgåsen T, et al. Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature. 2007;450:537–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.de Wit HA, Valinia S, Weyhenmeyer GA, Futter MN, Kortelainen P, Austnes K, et al. Current browning of surface waters will be further promoted by wetter climate. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2016;3:430–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Meyer-Jacob C, Tolu J, Bigler C, Yang H, Bindler R. Early land use and centennial scale changes in lake-water organic carbon prior to contemporary monitoring. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:6579–84.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Nelson DM, Smith W Jr. Sverdrup revisited: critical depths, maximum chlorophyll levels, and the control of Southern Ocean productivity by the irradiance‐mixing regime. Limnol Oceanogr. 1991;36:1650–61.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Thrane J-E, Hessen DO, Andersen T. The absorption of light in lakes: negative impact of dissolved organic carbon on primary productivity. Ecosystems. 2014;17:1040–52.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Tranvik LJ. Allochthonous dissolved organic matter as an energy source for pelagic bacteria and the concept of the microbial loop. In: Salonen KKT, Jones RI, editors. Dissolved organic matter in lacustrine ecosystems. Vol. 73. Dordrecht: Springer; 1992. p. 107–14.24.Bastviken D, Tranvik LJ, Downing JA, Crill PM, Enrich-Prast A. Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink. Science. 2011;331:50.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Cole JJ, Caraco NF, Kling GW, Kratz TK. Carbon dioxide supersaturation in the surface waters of lakes. Science. 1994;265:1568–70.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Yang H, Andersen T, Dörsch P, Tominaga K, Thrane JE, Hessen DO. Greenhouse gas metabolism in Nordic boreal lakes. Biogeochemistry. 2015;126:211–25.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Cottrell MT, Kirchman DL. Natural assemblages of marine proteobacteria and members of the Cytophaga-Flavobacter cluster consuming low-and high-molecular-weight dissolved organic matter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:1692–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Crump BC, Kling GW, Bahr M, Hobbie JE. Bacterioplankton community shifts in an arctic lake correlate with seasonal changes in organic matter source. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:2253–68.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Jones SE, Newton RJ, McMahon KD. Evidence for structuring of bacterial community composition by organic carbon source in temperate lakes. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:2463–72.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kritzberg ES, Langenheder S, Lindström ES. Influence of dissolved organic matter source on lake bacterioplankton structure and function–implications for seasonal dynamics of community composition. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006;56:406–17.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Lindström ES. Bacterioplankton community composition in five lakes differing in trophic status and humic content. Microb Ecol. 2000;40:104–13.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.D’Andrilli J, Junker JR, Smith HJ, Scholl EA, Foreman CM. DOM composition alters ecosystem function during microbial processing of isolated sources. Biogeochemistry. 2019;142:281–98.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Eiler A, Langenheder S, Bertilsson S, Tranvik LJ. Heterotrophic bacterial growth efficiency and community structure at different natural organic carbon concentrations. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:3701–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Guillemette F, del Giorgio PA. Reconstructing the various facets of dissolved organic carbon bioavailability in freshwater ecosystems. Limnol Oceanogr. 2011;56:734–48.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Judd KE, Crump BC, Kling GW. Variation in dissolved organic matter controls bacterial production and community composition. Ecology. 2006;87:2068–79.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Romera-Castillo C, Sarmento H, Alvarez-Salgado XA, Gasol JM, Marrasé C. Net production and consumption of fluorescent colored dissolved organic matter by natural bacterial assemblages growing on marine phytoplankton exudates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:7490–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Kawasaki N, Benner R. Bacterial release of dissolved organic matter during cell growth and decline: molecular origin and composition. Limnol Oceanogr. 2006;51:2170–80.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Battin TJ, Luyssaert S, Kaplan LA, Aufdenkampe AK, Richter A, Tranvik LJ. The boundless carbon cycle. Nat Geosci. 2009;2:598–600.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Osterholz H, Singer G, Wemheuer B, Daniel R, Simon M, Niggemann J, et al. Deciphering associations between dissolved organic molecules and bacterial communities in a pelagic marine system. ISME J. 2016;10:1717–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Cory RM, Kling GW. Interactions between sunlight and microorganisms influence dissolved organic matter degradation along the aquatic continuum. Limnol Oceanogr Lett. 2018;3:102–16.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Khomich M, Kauserud H, Logares R, Rasconi S, Andersen T. Planktonic protistan communities in lakes along a large-scale environmental gradient. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017;93:fiw231.42.Khomich M, Davey ML, Kauserud H, Rasconi S, Andersen T. Fungal communities in Scandinavian lakes along a longitudinal gradient. Fungal Ecol. 2017;27:36–46.Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Andersen T, Hessen DO, Håll JP, Khomich M, Kyle M, Lindholm M, et al. Congruence, but no cascade-pelagic biodiversity across 3 trophic levels in Nordic lakes. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:8153–65.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Lyche Solheim A, Rekolainen S, Moe SJ, Carvalho L, Phillips G, Ptacnik R, et al. Ecological threshold responses in European lakes and their applicability for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation: synthesis of lakes results from the REBECCA project. Aquatic Ecol. 2008;42:317–34.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Henriksen A, Skjelvåle BL, Mannio J, Wilander A, Harriman R, Curtis C, et al. Northern European lake survey, 1995: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russian Kola, Russian Karelia, Scotland and Wales. Ambio. 1998;27:80–91.46.Ptacnik R, Andersen T, Brettum P, Lepistö L, Willén E. Regional species pools control community saturation in lake phytoplankton. Proc Royal Soc B. 2010;277:3755–64.Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Mitchell BG, Kahru M, Wieland J, Stramska M. Determination of spectral absorption coefficients of particles, dissolved material and phytoplankton for discrete water samples. In: Mueller JL, Fargion GS, McClain CR, editors. Ocean optics protocols for satellite ocean color sensor validation, Revision IV. Vol. 4. Greenbelt, Maryland: Goddard Space Flight Center; 2003. p. 39–64.48.Weishaar JL, Aiken GR, Bergamaschi BA, Fram MS, Fujii R, Mopper K. Evaluation of specific ultraviolet absorbance as an indicator of the chemical composition and reactivity of dissolved organic carbon. Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37:4702–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Bricaud A, Stramski D. Spectral absorption coefficients of living phytoplankton and nonalgal biogenous matter: a comparison between the Peru upwelling areaand the Sargasso Sea. Limnol Oceanogr. 1990;35:562–82.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10–2.Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–D6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:5261–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [Internet]. 2017.55.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara RB et al. vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-6. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.56.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Venables W, Ripley B. Modern applied statistics with S. New York, NY: Springer; 2002.58.van Buuren S. MICE: multivariate imputation by chained equations. R package version 2.22. 2015. https://mran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2014-11-17/web/packages/mice/mice.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2019.59.Minchin PR. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. In: Prentice IC, van der Maarel E, editors. Theory and models in vegetation science. Dordrecht: Springer; 1987. p. 89–107.60.Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature. 1986;323:533–6.Article 

Google Scholar 
61.He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Delving deep into rectifiers: surpassing human-level performance on ImageNet classification. In: Malik J, Wang X, Yan S, Tang X, Jia J, editors. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. IEEE; 1730 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC, United States. 2015. p. 1026–34.62.Reshef DN, Reshef YA, Finucane HK, Grossman SR, McVean G, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science. 2011;334:1518–24.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Newton RJ, Jones SE, Eiler A, McMahon KD, Bertilsson S. A guide to the natural history of freshwater lake bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2011;75:14–49.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Zwart G, Crump BC, Kamst-van Agterveld MP, Hagen F, Han S-K. Typical freshwater bacteria: an analysis of available 16S rRNA gene sequences from plankton of lakes and rivers. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2002;28:141–55.Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Cavicchioli R, Ripple WJ, Timmis KN, Azam F, Bakken LR, Baylis M, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:569–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Qiu Z, Coleman MA, Provost E, Campbell AH, Kelaher BP, Dalton SJ, et al. Future climate change is predicted to affect the microbiome and condition of habitat-forming kelp. Proc Royal Soc B. 2019;286:20181887.Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Kovárová-Kovar K, Egli T. Growth kinetics of suspended microbial cells: from single-substrate-controlled growth to mixed-substrate kinetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62:646–66.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature. 2001;413:591–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Borchani H, Varando G, Bielza C, Larranaga P. A survey on multi‐output regression. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov. 2015;5:216–33.Article 

Google Scholar 
70.del Giorgio PA, Cole JJ. Bacterial growth efficiency in natural aquatic systems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1998;29:503–41.Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Tranvik LJ. Bacterioplankton growth on fractions of dissolved organic carbon of different molecular weights from humic and clear waters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990;56:1672–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Hilbe C, Nowak MA, Sigmund K. Evolution of extortion in iterated prisoner’s dilemma games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:6913–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Palen WJ, Schindler DE, Adams MJ, Pearl CA, Bury RB, Diamond SA. Optical characteristics of natural waters protect amphibians from UV‐B in the US Pacific Northwest. Ecology. 2002;83:2951–7.Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Adams, W. M. et al. Science 306, 1146–1149 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Klein, A. M. et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–313 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Potts, S. G. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Aizen, M. A. et al. Global Change Biol. 25, 3516–3527 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Dicks, L. V. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01534-9 (2021).6.Mazor, T. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1071–1074 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Brittain, C. A., Vighi, M., Bommarco, R., Settele, J. & Potts, S. G. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 106–115 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Roubik, D. W. Pollinator Safety in Agriculture (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, 2014).9.Ecobichon, D. J. Toxicology 160, 27–33 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Ravindranath, N. H. & Sathaye, J. A. In Climate Change and Developing Countries 247–265 (Springer, 2002).11.The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (eds Potts, S. G. et al.) (IPBES, 2016).12.Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (eds Potts, S. G. et al.) (IPBES, 2016). More

1.The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (IPBES, 2016).2.Potts, S. G. et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220–229 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1799 (2014).4.Powney, G. D. et al. Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nat. Commun. 10, 1018 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Koh, I. et al. Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 140–145 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Reilly, J. R. et al. Crop production in the USA is frequently limited by a lack of pollinators. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200922 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Aizen, M. A. et al. Global agricultural productivity is threatened by increasing pollinator dependence without a parallel increase in crop diversification. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3516–3527 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Moritz, R. F. A. & Erler, S. Lost colonies found in a data mine: global honey trade but not pests or pesticides as a major cause of regional honeybee colony declines. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 216, 44–50 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Senapathi, D., Goddard, M. A., Kunin, W. E. & Baldock, K. C. R. Landscape impacts on pollinator communities in temperate systems: evidence and knowledge gaps. Funct. Ecol. 31, 26–37 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 367, 685 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Woodcock, B. A. et al. Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science 356, 1393–1395 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Carvell, C. et al. Bumblebee family lineage survival is enhanced in high-quality landscapes. Nature 543, 547 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Tonietto Rebecca, K. & Larkin Daniel, J. Habitat restoration benefits wild bees: a meta‐analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 582–590 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wintermantel, D., Odoux, J.-F., Chadœuf, J. & Bretagnolle, V. Organic farming positively affects honeybee colonies in a flower-poor period in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1960–1969 (2019).
Google Scholar 
16.Dicks, L. V. et al. Ten policies for pollinators. Science 354, 975–976 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.FAO’s Global Action on Pollination Services for Sustainable Agriculture: National Initiatives (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/pollination/major-initiatives/national-initiatives/en/18.Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators CBD/COP/DEC/14/6 30 November 2018 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018).19.Teichroew, J. L. et al. Is China’s unparalleled and understudied bee diversity at risk? Biol. Conserv. 210, 19–28 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Breeze, T. D., Gallai, N., Garibaldi, L. A. & Li, X. S. Economic measures of pollination services: shortcomings and future directions. TREE 31, 927–939 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Díaz, S. et al. 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, 2019).22.Hall, D. M. & Steiner, R. Insect pollinator conservation policy innovations at subnational levels: lessons for lawmakers. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 118–128 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Mukherjee, N. et al. The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1097–1109 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Kovács-Hostyánszki, A. et al. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 20, 673–689 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Kennedy, C. M. et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 16, 584–599 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Basu, P. et al. Scale dependent drivers of wild bee diversity in tropical heterogeneous agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6983–6992 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Marques, A. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Jayne, T. S., Snapp, S., Place, F. & Sitko, N. Sustainable agricultural intensification in an era of rural transformation in Africa. Glob. Food Security 20, 105–113 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Mitchell, E. A. D. et al. A worldwide survey of neonicotinoids in honey. Science 358, 109–111 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Woodcock, B. A. et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7, 12459 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Rundlof, M. et al. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521, 77–80 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Schreinemachers, P. & Tipraqsa, P. Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy 37, 616–626 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Use and Effects in African Agriculture: a Review and Recommendations to Policymakers (NASAC, 2019); https://nasaconline.org/en/index.php/2020/05/26/neonicotinoid-insecticides-use-and-effects-in-african-agriculture-a-review-and-recommendations-to-policy-makers/35.Herrando, S. et al. Contrasting impacts of precipitation on Mediterranean birds and butterflies. Sci. Rep. 9, 5680 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. GM Crops: Global Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-2018 (PG Economics Ltd, 2020); https://pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/globalimpactfinalreportJuly2020.pdf37.Farina, W. M., Balbuena, M. S., Herbert, L. T., Gonalons, C. M. & Vazquez, D. E. Effects of the herbicide glyphosate on honey bee sensory and cognitive abilities: individual impairments with implications for the hive. Insects 10, 354 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Zattara, E. E. & Aizen, M. A. Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4, 114–123 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Regan, E. C. et al. Global trends in the status of bird and mammal pollinators. Conserv. Lett. 8, 397–403 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Samnegård, U., Hambäck, P. A., Lemessa, D., Nemomissa, S. & Hylander, K. A heterogeneous landscape does not guarantee high crop pollination. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20161472 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Groeneveld, J. H., Tscharntke, T., Moser, G. & Clough, Y. Experimental evidence for stronger cacao yield limitation by pollination than by plant resources. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 12, 183–191 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Lautenbach, S., Seppelt, R., Liebscher, J. & Dormann, C. F. Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefit. PLoS ONE 7, e35954 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Garibaldi, L. A., Aizen, M. A., Klein, A. M., Cunningham, S. A. & Harder, L. D. Global growth and stability of agricultural yield decrease with pollinator dependence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5909–5914 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Urbanization (Our World in Data, 2018); https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization46.Hipolito, J., Boscolo, D. & Viana, B. F. Landscape and crop management strategies to conserve pollination services and increase yields in tropical coffee farms. Agriculture Ecosyst. Environ. 256, 218–225 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Begotti, R. A. & Peres, C. A. Rapidly escalating threats to the biodiversity and ethnocultural capital of Brazilian Indigenous Lands. Land Use Policy 96, 10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Pirk, C. W. W., Strauss, U., Yusuf, A. A., Démares, F. & Human, H. Honeybee health in Africa—a review. Apidologie 47, 276–300 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Gebremedhn, H., Amssalu, B., Smet, L. D. & de Graaf, D. C. Factors restraining the population growth of Varroa destructor in Ethiopian honey bees (Apis mellifera simensis). PLoS ONE 14, e0223236 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Junge, X., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Hunziker, M. & Schüpbach, B. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1430–1440 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Lee, H., Sumner, D. A. & Champetier, A. Pollination markets and the coupled futures of almonds and honey bees: simulating impacts of shifts in demands and costs. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 230–249 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Rucker, R. R., Thurman, W. N. & Burgett, M. Colony collapse and the consequences of bee disease: market adaptation to environmental change. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6, 927–960 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Breeze, T. D. et al. Linking farmer and beekeeper preferences with ecological knowledge to improve crop pollination. People Nat. 1, 562–572 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Hall, D. M. & Martins, D. J. Human dimensions of insect pollinator conservation. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 38, 107–114 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Zommers, Z. et al. Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 516–529 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Duijm, N. J. Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Saf. Sci. 76, 21–31 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Peace, C. The risk matrix: uncertain results? Policy Pract. Health Saf. 15, 131–144 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Morgan, M. G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7176–7184 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. & Burgman, M. A. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Appl. 12, 618–628 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.FAOStat (FAO, 2017); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data61.Regional Report for Africa on Pollinators and Pollination and Food Production UNEP/CBD/COP/13/INF/36 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2016).62.Sutherland, W. J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M. B., Pretty, J. & Rudd, M. A. Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 238–247 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Wickham, H. ggplot2. R v.4.0.0 https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/ (2016).64.Christensen, R. H. B. ordinal. R v.4.0.3 http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/ (2018).65.Menard, S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis (SAGE Publications, 2002).66.Hill, R. et al. Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation. Nat. Sustain. 2, 214–222 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.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).2.Measuring Progress: Towards Achieving the Environmental Dimension of the SDGs (UNEP, 2019).3.Blicharska, M. et al. Biodiversity’s contributions to sustainable development. Nat. Sustain 2, 1083–1093 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.The Global Risks Report 2020 (World Economic Forum, 2020).5.Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).7.Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).9.UNEP Frontiers 2016 Report: Emerging Issues of Environment Concern (UNEP, 2016).10.Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2020).11.Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Global Biodiversity Outlook Vol. 25 (Secretariat of the CBD, 2014).13.Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2, e140 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.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 
16.Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier—Human Development and the Anthropocene (UNDP, 2020).18.Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2020—Charting Pathways out of Multidimensional Poverty (UNDP & OPHI, 2020).19.Becker, F. G. et al. Global Slavery Index 2018 (Walk Free Foundation, 2018).20.2020 ITUC Global Rights Index: The World’s Worst Countries for Workers (ITUC, 2020).21.Corruption Perceptions Index 2020 (Transparency International, 2020).22.Soto-Navarro, C. A. et al. Building a Multidimensional Biodiversity Index—A Scorecard for Biodiversity Health (UNEP-WCMC, 2020); https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/building-a-multidimensional-biodiversity-index23.Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P. & Durand, M. Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance (OECD, 2018).24.Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. The GDP paradox. J. Econ. Psychol. 30, 117–135 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.UNDP Strategic Plan, 2018-2021 (UNDP, 2017).26.Dasgupta, P. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).Book 

Google Scholar 
27.Costanza, R. et al. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House, 2017).29.Mazzucato, M. The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (Penguin, 2019).30.Perrings, C. et al. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: saving natural capital without losing interest. Conserv. Biol. 20, 263–264 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Primmer, E. & Paavola, J. Insurance value of ecosystems: an introduction. Ecol. Econ. 184, 107001 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Jørgensen, S. L., Termansen, M. & Pascual, U. Natural insurance as condition for market insurance: climate change adaptation in agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106489 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2010).34.Hansen, M. H., Li, H. & Svarverud, R. Ecological civilization: interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 195–203 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Gruetzmacher, K. et al. The Berlin principles on one health—bridging global health and conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 764, 142919 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).37.2019—Global Report on Food Crises: Joint Analysis for Better Decisions (Food Security Information Network, 2019).38.CBD/WG2020/2/4 29 Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its Second Meeting (CBD, 2020).39.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Chan, K. M. A. et al. Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K. & Pascual, U. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, A1–A7 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992).44.Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain 1, 448–451 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. & Torrisi, G. On the methodological framework of composite indices: a review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Soc. Indic. Res. 141, 61–94 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators—Methodology and User Guide (OECD, 2008).49.Kumar, P. (ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (Earthscan, 2010).50.Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, 41 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.The Global Goals for Sustainable Development (Global Goals); http://www.globalgoals.org/resources52.Zenghelis, D. et al. Valuing Wealth, Building Prosperity: Wealth Economy Project First Year Report to LetterOne (Bennett Institute for Public Policy, 2020).53.Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Wendling, Z. A. et al. 2020 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 2020).55.Borucke, M. et al. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol. Indic. 24, 518–533 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Sachs, J. et al. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19: Sustainable Development Report 2020 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).57.Usubiago-Liano, A. & Ekins, P. Developing a Novel Index of Strong Environmental Sustainability: Preliminary Results (Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, 2019).58.Acosta, L. A. et al. Green Growth Index 2020—Measuring Performance in Achieving SDG Targets Technical Report No. 16 (GGGI, 2020).59.Agrobiodiversity Index Report 2019: Risk and Resilience (Biodiversity International, 2019).60.Angulo, R., Díaz, Y. & Pardo, R. The Colombian multidimensional poverty index: measuring poverty in a public policy context. Soc. Indic. Res. 127, 1–38 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Watts, K. et al. Ecological time lags and the journey towards conservation success. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 304–311 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More