Philippa Kaur

When introducing ARs as a fisheries management tool to Senegal, the Japanese management had the mindset of Japanese stakeholders, i.e., introducing fishing rights. However, after discussions with Senegalese stakeholders, it was decided that no-take areas would be delineated around ARs because the establishment of a strong fishing rights regime was not socially acceptable to the Senegalese fishing community. Japanese governance is based on the acceptance and respect of fishers towards individual, private AR concessions. In contrast, fishers in Senegal, and more widely in West Africa, are characterized by high mobility, particularly in the context of climate change and overexploitation18,19. Consequently, respect for local management regulations is lower, with open access being generally assumed. The basic concept of implementing a no-take area on the AR was not easily accepted by fishers. The immersion of AR concrete blocks was set as a top priority by managers at the expense of more complex socio-economic considerations, such as consciousness-raising activities and self-sustaining participative monitoring of the AR.The clear contradiction between the ecological knowledge of fishers and their behavior was explained by the well-known effects of open access resources on individual behavior. This phenomenon was also observed in our mathematical model. The processes in the mathematical model are in accordance with those perceived by the fishers, so that the results are also those expected by fisher’s local ecological knowledge. It is interesting to notice that the theoretical results presented here are the mathematical solutions of the model at equilibrium between fishing effort and fish population growth, i.e. after an oscillation period. It is obvious that short-term effect of fishing on the AR is always to increase the catch, but many fishers did perceive the longer-term effect of decreasing catches. The potential negative effect of the AR on catch when there is high fish attraction combined with high fishing pressure on the AR might explain the reluctance of a part of the fishers community to AR deployment (Fig. 2). In particular, the model illustrates that the AR attraction effect strongly determines the impact of the management. In general, fish attraction is the most immediate effect perceived after AR deployment11, as was true for our study16. Though the AR volume was relatively small (70 m3), the empty space between the higher blocks also contributes approximately 280 to 570 m3 of good habitat/refuge for schooling fish; therefore, it is actually difficult to accurately describe the volume that affects fish. Thus, it is difficult to say whether this AR is below or above the forecasted optimal volume in absence of fishing (120m3 with model parameters). The existence of an optimal volume for AR was also suggested by field studies as a trade off between food supply and refuge20, in line with our results. For management purposes, it is interesting to determine whether the AR is above or below this optimal level because if the volume is too small, the model predicted that any level of fishing on the AR would, in the long term, decrease the catch in the considered area. On the other hand, if the volume is above the optimal level, a small fishing effort on the AR could be authorized and would increase the total catch in the area.Field observation showed that the fish attraction effect was strong16 but precise estimation of this parameter cannot be inferred, as this would need, ideally, individual fish trajectories. Future field research on the attraction effect may permit estimating the AR attraction parameters. The model sensitivity test showed that the stronger the attraction parameter, the better the impact of the AR for the fisheries in case of no or small fishing effort on the AR (Fig. 3). But at the same time, the attraction is a strong incentive for fishers to fish on the AR, and the predicted benefit for fisheries in the fishing area rapidly vanishes when fishing effort on AR increases. This in turn provides further incentive for fishers to fish the AR, challenging the surveillance capacity. If fish attractiveness is strong and too many fishers fish on the AR, catch in the area will be concentrated on the AR, while the adjacent fishing area will be depleted, with catch levels lower than those prior to AR deployment.Specifically, in the context of generalized overfishing in Senegal21, deciding not to fish on the AR represents significant individual loss, despite being recognized as beneficial, globally22. It has been argued that this situation would rarely occur in small-scale fisheries, due to existing arrangements between individuals23. However, in the context of the highly mobile Senegalese artisanal fishing fleet and its overcapacity, as soon as the AR in Yenne was no longer subject to surveillance, it rapidly attracted fishers from other villages. Also, pre-existing arrangements between fishers might be overruled when new ARs are created, changing the structure of existing fishing grounds.At the time of the survey, the surveillance system set up by the co-management entities was not operational in our case study, because it was dependent on temporally limited external financing. These limitations are typical of short-term projects that focus on a single restricted area for a pre-determined duration, usually up to two years (e.g., NGOs, World Bank). Local fishers perceptions were globally in line with the model prediction that this AR fails to improve fisheries yield when surveillance is not in place to ensure AR regulations are observed, despite effective fish attraction and production existing in the AR.The model predicted that enhanced production on ARs could not keep pace with unrestricted access, which might be particularly true in Senegal where fishing effort rapidly reorganizes itself according to local yields24. Enhanced production due to the AR largely increases the catch if the fishing pressure on the AR remains null or very low, but it has no effect on the catch for higher fishing pressures on the AR (Fig. 3). These results were stable even if fish population growth, fish catchability, mobility and economic parameters could modulate the predicted amplitude of the catch and AR optimal volume. These results are consistent with existing theoretical studies of the impact of fisher movement to high production areas in and around MPAs25. Taking into account several species and their interactions (predation, competition) would lead to a very complex ecosystem model specific to the area (e.g. 26), with necessarily more assumptions. This model would necessarily be more difficult to share with fishers and other stakeholders. Both to simplify model structure and facilitate communication of results to stakeholders, we assumed in our model that the balance of entries exits and is in equilibrium, so that the migratory species did not affect the long-term equilibrium between fishing effort and fish abundance.The design of ARs could be adjusted to reduce the effect of illegal fishing by passively preventing both industrial and artisanal fishing activity. Complex structures are more effective for fish production and attraction27. We showed that, although production might have a limited effect on total catch, attraction can largely increase AR efficiency (total catch) if the rate of illegal fishing rate is very low or absent. Complex structures protect fish more effectively from small scale fishing gear28, including divers (Pers. Comm., Mamadou Sarr, Ouakam fishers committee). Thus, ARs should be appropriately designed to help mitigate potential issues28. Such designs might be more costly, and do not exclude the need for surveillance, but would enhance fisheries management, especially when surveillance cannot capture low levels of illegal fishing.Finally, if socio-economic and governance conditions are not met, well-intentioned AR projects will likely disturb the existing equilibrium among fishers that have different levels of access to the AR. Poor governance of marine resources has previously been described in West Africa, particularly in Senegal29, as has the failure of AR projects in a number of other developing countries9, which further deteriorate fishers trust and management plans efficiency30. In order to avoid that, NGO and governmental agencies driving ARs projects must consider that AR management induces collective costs before providing potentially collective gains. Thus, co-management that involves governmental institutions and fisher communities is required. Future management and adaptation plans for fishers, particularly in developing countries, should, therefore, focus efforts on raising long-term awareness of actors in both government institutions and fishing communities. At the level of institutional or development partners, long-term management costs should be included in the set-up of AR projects. For example, the local fishers committee of Yenne recently reported the establishment of a collective ship chandler whose profits are used to finance AR surveillance during the daytime. Subsequently, fishers noted an improvement in catches around the AR, even though illegal fishing likely continues on the AR at night (Pers. Comm. chair of local fishers committee). These observations support model predictions that low levels of illegal fishing might not disturb the positive impact of the AR. Alternatively surveillance effort could be supported by the community if benefits were managed according to ancestral traditions. Indeed, “no take area” regime on the AR would be in line with some past West African tribal laws, applied before the colonization era, which set marine area where fishing activities were restricted for occasional community celebrations. Collective processes where fishers and other stakeholders can design temporary no-take zones around the AR could increase fishers trust and compliance to the rules, fostering a positive socio-ecological feedback loop30.Hybridization of local and scientific knowledge, through the integration of natural sciences and social sciences, is key point for governance setting31,32,33. Indeed, the communication of the resulting hybrid knowledge in specific events gathering local stakeholders helps strengthen fisheries co-management for the establishment of surveillance and regulatory frameworks. This phenomenon was experienced during the public restitution of the present study with the community, fishers, children’s from local schools and governmental stakeholders. Science popularization of the study results was in French and local language (Wolof) retransmitted on national news (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQqFU2P4XZU). Posters were exposed during the event, including pictures of local fishers interviewed and statements reflecting their own perception of how the artificial reef interacts with ecological processes and fisheries dynamics. Straightaway, stakeholders and local promoters of AR publicly expressed their concern and willingness to prioritize the setting up an efficient AR surveillance independent from external resources prior to increase AR deployments. Knowledge hybridization could produce more specific models that could be used for warning and advice, for example by considering potential impacts of ARs on species compositions3,34,35, environmental parameters36, and cascade effects on the trophic food web37. However this approach would need to be adapted to local social-ecological governance, which might require dedicated political-anthropological studies (see concept of adaptive co-management32).In summary, best practices should involve all stakeholders, consider local specificities, such as site configuration, governance, ecosystem, availability of ad hoc human and financial resources for AR surveillance, and define AR volume and design accordingly to these parameters. Thus, if plans exist to deploy ARs at large scales we recommend that legislation is strengthened, with detailed Environmental and social Impact Assessments38 to implement ARs, including considerations of long-term governance. More

Bagworm walking method using a ladder-like silk footholdWhen bagworms are reared in a plastic or glass cage, they walk not only on the floor but also on the walls or ceiling using only their three pairs of thoracic legs. The method by which they achieve this was clarified by placing a bagworm on black paper. Where the bagworm had walked, a ladder-like silk trace was observed on the black paper (Fig. 2a). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observation of one of the steps (or rungs) of the ladder-like trace revealed that each step was made up of a zigzag pattern of silk threads (Fig. 2b). Further magnified SEM observations revealed that the folded parts of the zigzag-spun thread were glued selectively to the substrate with adhesive whereas the remaining straight parts (hereafter, termed ‘bridges’ or ‘bridge threads’) were unglued (Fig. 2c–e).Figure 2Architecture of the ladder-like foothold. (a) A typical ladder-like foothold constructed by a bagworm on black paper, (b) an enlarged image showing one of the steps in the foothold and (c) a scanning electron microscopy image of the step shown in (b). The unglued bridge threads and a glued turn in the step shown in (c) are magnified in (d) and (e), respectively. (f) An enlarged image of four continuous steps in the foothold shown in (a). The neighbouring steps are connected via a single thread indicated by the arrows. (g) A schematic depiction of the basic architecture of the foothold; blue lines and green circles correspond to the silk thread and glued parts, respectively. (h) A photograph of a bagworm constructing a foothold on a transparent plastic board.Full size imageNotably, the steps of the foothold were not independent but rather always connected with neighbouring steps via a single thread (Fig. 2f). The overall basic construction of the foothold is schematically depicted in Fig. 2g. We found that the foothold was constructed in one continuous movement and always made of a single thread regardless of walking distance or time; therefore, a continuous thread exceeding a length of 100 m could be collected from one foothold14. We also observed bagworm climbing behaviour on a transparent plastic board, which clarified the important role of the silk trace as a foothold (Fig. 2h). During this behaviour, the bagworm used its sickle claws (Fig. 1e) to hook its second and third pairs of thoracic legs onto the first and second newest steps, respectively, and constructed the next step by spinning silk with a zigzag motion of the head and the skilful use of the first pair of thoracic legs. When the bagworm advanced one step, it always first shifted its third pair of thoracic legs to the next step before then shifting its second pair of thoracic legs to the newest step to avoid overloading this step, which may not yet be fully adhered to the surface (see Supplementary Movie S1). Because of this construction method, the interval distance between neighbouring steps is automatically determined by the interval between the thoracic legs. By repeating this process, the bagworm can advance forward slowly but steadily. This walking method was commonly observed on a horizontal floor surface, vertical wall, or horizontal ceiling. Although we have mainly described and shown observations from E. variegate here, with the exception of Supplementary Fig. S4 and Movie S1, we also observed instances of walking behaviour in other species, namely Eumeta minuscula, Mahasena aurea, Nipponopsyche fuscescens and Bambalina sp. (for a movie on E. minuscula walking behaviour, wherein it climbs a vertical wall, see Supplementary Movie S2). For at least 100 individuals of these bagworm species, we observed essentially identical walking behaviour to that described in the present study without exceptions for locomotion on substrates with slippery surfaces.Based on our observations, we asked the following question: how do bagworms selectively glue the folded parts of the foothold onto the substrate? Real-time observation of the tip of the spinneret (i.e. the spigot) through a transparent plastic board during the construction of the foothold revealed that adhesive was selectively discharged to attach the folded parts to the substrate; this process could be distinguished from the continuous spinning of the silk thread (for a movie showing construction behaviour, see Supplementary Movie S3). Figure 3a–g shows a time-sequence of foothold construction with enlarged images in the vicinity of the spinneret provided, whereas Fig. 3h depicts a schematic trace of the construction process. It was clearly noted that the bagworm discharged the adhesive only at the folded parts (shown in Fig. 3a–c,e,f; termed the ‘glued turn’) and not at the straight bridge parts (shown in Fig. 3d,g; termed the ‘unglued bridge thread’). From these time-sequence observations, we concluded that the bagworm controls the discharge of adhesive in an ‘on and off’ manner as necessary (essentially the same construction behaviours were confirmed for at least 20 individuals).Figure 3Foothold construction. (a–g) (left side) Time-sequence images taken during foothold construction and (right side) enlarged images of the vicinity of the spinneret (corresponding to the yellow rectangular area in each left-side image). The time-sequence images correspond to the parts of the schematic trace of foothold construction depicted by the red line in (h). In each right-side image and the schematic trace, the part of silk thread at which the adhesive was discharged is traced with a light-blue line. Green arrows in the right-side images show the direction of travel of the spinneret.Full size imagePassages of fibroin brins and adhesiveWe next investigated the spinning mechanism that enables continuous spinning of silk thread together with the selective discharge of adhesive via a single spigot. To this end, we observed the morphology of the bagworm from the silk gland to the spigot. Figure 4a shows the area in the vicinity of the spinneret, dissected and isolated from an E. variegata bagworm, which included a pair of silk glands and plural adhesive glands. As we previously reported21, the exterior shape of the silk gland in E. variegata (see Supplementary Fig. S1) is almost the same shape as that in the silkworm Bombyx mori and it is subdivided into three parts: the anterior (ASG), middle (MSG) and posterior (PSG) silk glands. We also previously confirmed that fibroin heavy chain (h-fib), fibroin light chain (l-fib) and fiboinhexamerin genes are expressed dominantly in the PSG, while sericin is expressed in the MSG, which strongly suggests that division-selective production of each protein exists in E. variegata (as has been shown in B. mori22). Figure 4b shows a magnified image of the spinneret including the end of the ASG. Beyond the pair of ASGs, which are merged into a common tube, a silk press and spinning tube appear before the spigot. This basic passage of silk fibroin from the ASG to the spigot is essentially the same as the passage observed in B. mori23. However, more detailed morphological observations of the inner structure of the passage revealed several obvious differences between E. variegata and B. mori.Figure 4Structural examination of the passages of fibroin brins and adhesive. (a) An optical microscope image of the area in the vicinity of a spinneret isolated from a female bagworm in the final instar stage. Indicated by arrows is a pair of silk glands (SG), one of the adhesive glands (ADG) and the spinneret (SP). (b) An optical microscope image of the passage including the (1) end of the anterior SGs (ASGs), (2) common tube, (3) silk press, (4) spinning tube and (5) spigot. (c–j) Optical microscope images showing cross-sections of the passage of fibroin brins obtained from the corresponding positions (c–j) in image (b). To focus on the fibroin brins and its passage, the surrounding outer part was removed so that a pair of fibroin brins was revealed in each image (except for image (c), which shows only one side of the ASG). Unmagnified images of (f–j), including the outer part, are shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. (k–n) 3D X-ray CT images of the spinneret: (k) overview, (l) cross-sectional top view, (m) cross-sectional side view and (n) passage of the fibroin brins and corresponding cross-sectional images at various positions. In the cross-sectional side view (m), the sheath and core parts are coloured blue and pink, respectively. (o) Image of the tip of a spigot from which adhesive is overflowing and a silk thread is emerging.Full size imageCross-sectional images along the spinneret are shown in Fig. 4c–j; these focus on the silk brins and their passage (unmagnified versions of the images in Fig. 4f–j are shown in Supplementary Fig. S2). The fibroin brins have an approximately round cross-sectional shape at the end of the ASG (Fig. 4c) and are merged at a common tube, which deforms their round shape slightly (Fig. 4d). The fibroin brins seem to be coated with a thin layer of sericin after the MSG, similar to B. mori; however, we omit the presence of the sericin layer here for convenience. The paired brins are gradually pressed between the ventral and dorsal hard cuticle plates at the silk press, and a gradual diameter decrease and shape deformation follows (Fig. 4e,f). At the exit of the silk press, each brin becomes elliptic and the diameter in the major axis decreases. Interestingly, the elliptical shape and 1.7-axial ratio for the major and minor axes of the fibroin brin cross-section in bagworm silk, which we previously reported14, are already determined at this stage in the silk press; afterwards, the diameter decreases without any change in the axial ratio of the elliptical cross-section. Notably, the two elliptical fibroin brins are aligned side-by-side so that their major axes are in line horizontally (to resemble a figure of ‘∞’) at the spinning press, and these are followed by the spinning tube (Fig. 4e–h). However, the alignment is twisted by 90° in one direction (to resemble a figure of ‘8’) before the brins are spun from the spigot (Fig. 4i,j).We found that the spinning tube was surrounded by a hard exoskeleton. Using 3D-X-ray CT observations, we produced clear images of the exterior and interior morphologies of the spinning tube enveloped by exoskeleton (Fig. 4k–m; the exterior shape observed from the dorsal-, ventral- and lateral-sides by optical microscopy is provided in Supplementary Fig. S3). The spigot was not cut perpendicularly to the spinning tube but rather with a slope of around 20°; consequently, it was elliptic. X-ray CT clearly showed the core-sheath structure of the spinneret and a wide expanse of sheath parts (Fig. 4m) between the exterior shell and interior spinning tube (Fig. 4l,m). Using optical microscope observations of the cross-sections, we found that at least three pairs of adhesive ducts were running in the sheath space (Supplementary Fig. S2E). Therefore, while the silk brins pass through the central narrow spinning tube, the plural adhesive ducts pass through the outer space independently of the silk thread. Finally, the adhesive enters a ladle-like reservoir located at the spigot and is released together with the silk thread (Fig. 4o). The presence of definitive routes connecting the adhesive passage and the spigot were not clearly observed in our X-ray CT images, probably due to the small structural scale relative to the space resolution used in our analysis (i.e. 0.31 μm). We speculate that the adhesive merges into the spigot via a fine, porous sponge-like structure, and we indicate assumed routes in Fig. 4l,m. X-ray CT observations also revealed a sophisticated structural design involving gradual twists in the silk brins by 90° from ‘∞’ to ‘8’ (Fig. 4n and Supplementary Movie S4). Essentially identical spinneret structures were observed by X-ray CT images for all of eight observed individuals from the third to final instars of E. variegata. More

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.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