Philippa Kaur

Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2022. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 4811–4900 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, S.-S. et al. Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 2915–2919 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6, 6603 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850-2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alkama, R. & Cescatti, A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science 351, 600–604 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Longo, M. et al. Aboveground biomass variability across intact and degraded forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 1639–1660 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qie, L. et al. Long-term carbon sink in Borneo’s forests halted by drought and vulnerable to edge effects. Nat. Commun. 8, 1966 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, I. A., Hutyra, L. R., Reinmann, A. B., Marrs, J. K. & Thompson, J. R. Piecing together the fragments: elucidating edge effects on forest carbon dynamics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 213–221 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, C. M. A., Harper, K. A. & Clarke, M. J. Trends in studies of edge influence on vegetation at human-created and natural forest edges across time and space. Can. J. For. Res. 51, 274–282 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. The fate of tropical forest fragments. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax8574 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matricardi, E. A. T. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vancutsem, C. et al. Long-term (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe1603 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoene, D., Killmann, W., Lüpke, H. V. & LoycheWilkie, M. Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 5: Definitional Issues Related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (FAO, 2007).Goetz, S. J. et al. Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation under REDD+. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 123001 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, T. R. H., Brown, S., Murray, L. & Sidman, G. Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: an underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 3 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cadenasso, M. L., Traynor, M. M. & Pickett, S. T. Functional location of forest edges: gradients of multiple physical factors. Can. J. For. Res. 27, 774–782 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, M., Jochheim, H., Kersebaum, K.-C., Lischeid, G. & Nendel, C. Gradients of microclimate, carbon and nitrogen in transition zones of fragmented landscapes – a review. Agric. For. Meteorol. 232, 659–671 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva Junior, C. H. L. et al. Amazonian forest degradation must be incorporated into the COP26 agenda. Nat. Geosci. 14, 634–635 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6550–6555 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Windisch, M. G., Davin, E. L. & Seneviratne, S. I. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 867–871 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santoro, M. et al. The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 3927–3950 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chuvieco, E. et al. Generation and analysis of a new global burned area product based on MODIS 250 m reflectance bands and thermal anomalies. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2015–2031 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, Z. et al. Fire enhances forest degradation within forest edge zones in Africa. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00763-8 (2021).Cook, M., Schott, J. R., Mandel, J. & Raqueno, N. Development of an operational calibration methodology for the Landsat thermal data archive and initial testing of the atmospheric compensation component of a land surface temperature (LST) product from the archive. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61111244 (2014).Wan, Z. New refinements and validation of the collection-6 MODIS land-surface temperature/emissivity product. Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 36–45 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broadbent, E. N. et al. Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1745–1757 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest edges. Nat. Commun. 6, 10158 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva Junior, C. et al. Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8360 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F. et al. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278, 1117–1118 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mu, Q., Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 1781–1800 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, C., Jia, L. & Hu, G. Global land surface evapotranspiration monitoring by ETMonitor model driven by multi-source satellite Earth observations. J. Hydrol. 613, 128444 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brinck, K. et al. High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nat. Commun. 8, 14855 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 56–67 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Paula, M. D., Costa, C. P. A. & Tabarelli, M. Carbon storage in a fragmented landscape of Atlantic forest: the role played by edge-affected habitats and emergent trees. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 4, 349–358 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697–720 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Clim. 26, 6844–6858 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 500–515 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kozlowski, T. T. Responses of woody plants to flooding and salinity. Tree Physiol. 17, 490–490 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D. & Edwards, D. P. Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous lands pan-tropically. Nat. Sustain. 5, 123–130 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Santoro, M. & Cartus, O. ESA Biomass Climate Change Initiative (Biomass_cci): Global Datasets of Forest Above-Ground Biomass for the Years 2010, 2017 and 2018, v3 (NERC EDS Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, 2021); https://doi.org/10.5285/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8Gerland, P. et al. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 346, 234–237 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alkama, R. et al. Vegetation-based climate mitigation in a warmer and greener world. Nat. Commun. 13, 606 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. & Cescatti, A. The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. Nat. Commun. 9, 679 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W. et al. Land-use and land-cover change carbon emissions between 1901 and 2012 constrained by biomass observations. Biogeosciences 14, 5053–5067 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

All procedures involving animals were conducted in accordance with the guidelines and regulations from Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the University of Florida (protocol #201509019). Tis manuscript is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines.Site descriptionThis study was carried out at the North Florida Research and Education Center, in Marianna, FL (30°46′35″N 85°14′17″W, 51 m.a.s.l). The trial was performed in two experimental years (2019 and 2020) in a greenhouse.The soil used was collected from a pasture of rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.) and Argentine bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flügge) as the main forages. Without plant and root material, only soil was placed into buckets, as described below in the bucket assemblage section. Soil was classified as Orangeburg loamy sand (fine-loamy-kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kandiudults), with a pHwater of 6.7, Mehlich-1-extratable P, K, Mg and Ca concentrations of 41, 59, 63, 368 mg kg−1, respectively. Average of minimum and maximum daily temperature and relative humidity in the greenhouse for September and November (September for beetle trial due seasonal appearance of beetles, and October and November to the Pear Millet trial) in 2019 and 2020 were 11 and 33 °C, 81%; 10 and 35 °C, 77%, respectively.Biological material determinationTo select the species of beetles, a previous dung beetle sampling was performed in the grazing experiment in the same area (grass and legume forage mixture) to determine the number of dung beetle species according to the functional groups as described by Conover et al.44. Beetles were pre-sampled from March 2017 to June 2018, where Tunnelers group were dominant and represented by Onthophagus taurus (Schreber), Digitonthophagus gazella (Fabricius), Phanaeus vindex (MacLeay), Onthophagus oklahomensis (Brown), and Euniticellus intermedius (Reiche). Other species were present but not abundant, including Aphodius psudolividus (Linnaeus), Aphodius carolinus (Linnaeus), and Canthon pilularius (Linnaeus) identified as Dweller and Roller groups, respectively. The pre-sampling indicated three species from the Tunneler group were more abundant, and thereby, were chosen to compose the experimental treatments (Fig. 4).Figure 4Most abundant dung beetle species in Marianna, FL used in the current study. Credits: Carlos C.V. García.Full size imageBeetles collection and experimental treatmentsThree species of common communal dung beetles were used: O. taurus (1), D. gazella (2), and P. vindex (3). Treatments included two treatments containing only soil and soil + dung without beetles were considered as Control 1 (T1) and Control 2 (T2), respectively. Isolated species T3 = 1, T4 = 2, T5 = 3 and their combinations T6 = 1 + 2 and T7 = 1 + 2 + 3. Dung beetles were trapped in the pasture with grazing animals using the standard cattle-dung-baited pitfall traps, as described by Bertone et al.41. To avoid losing samples due to cattle trampling, 18 traps were randomized in nine paddocks (two traps per paddock) and installed protected by metal cages, and after a 24-h period, beetles were collected, and the traps removed. Table 1 shows the number of dung beetles, their total mass (used to standardize treatments) per treatment, and the average mass per species. To keep uniformity across treatments we kept beetle biomass constant across species at roughly 1.7 to 1.8 g per assemblage (Table 1). Twenty-four hours after retrieving the beetles from the field traps, they were separated using an insect rearing cage, classified, and thereafter stored in small glass bottles provided with a stopper and linked to a mesh to keep the ventilation and maintaining the beetles alive.Table 1 Total number and biomass of dung beetles per treatment.Full size tableBuckets assemblageThe soil used in the buckets was collected from the grazing trial in two experimental years (August 2019 and August 2020) across nine paddocks (0.9 ha each). The 21 plastic buckets had a 23-cm diameter and 30-cm (0.034 m2) and each received 10 kg of soil (Fig. 5). At the bottom of the recipient, seven holes were made for water drainage using a metallic mesh with 1-mm diameter above the surface of the holes to prevent dung beetles from escaping. Water was added every four days to maintain the natural soil conditions at 60% of the soil (i.e., bucket) field capacity (measured with the soil weight and water holding capacity of the soil). Because soil from the three paddocks had a slightly different texture (sandy clay and sandy clay loam), we used them as the blocking factor.Figure 5Bucket plastic bucket details for dung beetle trial.Full size imageThe fresh dung amount used in the trial was determined based on the average area covered by dung and dung weight (0.05 to 0.09 m2 and 1.5 to 2.7 kg) from cattle in grazing systems, as suggested by Carpinelli et al.45. Fresh dung was collected from Angus steers grazing warm-season grass (bahiagrass) pastures and stored in fridge for 24 h, prior to start the experiment. A total of 16.2 kg of fresh dung was collected, in which 0.9 kg were used in each bucket. After the dung application, dung beetles were added to the bucket. To prevent dung beetles from escaping, a mobile plastic mesh with 0.5 mm diameter was placed covering the buckets before and after each evaluation. The experiment lasted for 24 days in each experimental year (2019 and 2020), with average temperature 28 °C and relative humidity of 79%, acquired information from the Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN).Chamber measurementsThe gas fluxes from treatments were evaluated using the static chamber technique46. The chambers were circular, with a radius of 10.5 cm (0.034 m2). Chamber bases and lids were made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the lid were lined with an acrylic sheet to avoid any reactions of gases of interest with chamber material (Fig. 6). The chamber lids were covered with reflective tape to provide insulation, and equipped with a rubber septum for sampling47. The lid was fitted with a 6-mm diameter, 10-cm length copper venting tube to ensure adequate air pressure inside the chamber during measurements, considering an average wind speed of 1.7 m s−148,49. During measurements, chamber lids and bases were kept sealed by fitting bicycle tire inner tubes tightly over the area separating the lid and the base. Bases of chambers were installed on top of the buckets to an 8-cm depth, with 5 cm extending above ground level. Bases were removed in the last evaluation day (24th) of each experimental year.Figure 6Static chamber details and instruments for GHG collection in the dung beetle trial.Full size imageGas fluxes measurementsThe gas fluxes were measured at 1000 h following sampling recommendations by Parkin & Venterea50, on seven occasions from August 28th to September 22nd in both years (2019 and 2020), being days 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 after dung application. For each chamber, gas samples were taken using a 60-mL syringe at 15-min intervals (t0, t15, and t30). The gas was immediately flushed into pre-evacuated 30-mL glass vials equipped with a butyl rubber stopper sealed with an aluminium septum (this procedure was made twice per vial and per collection time). Time zero (t0) represented the gas collected out of the buckets (before closing the chamber). Immediately thereafter, the bucket lid was tightly closed by fitting the lid to the base with the bicycle inner tube, followed by the next sample deployment times.Gas sample analyses were conducted using a gas chromatograph (Trace 1310 Gas Chromatograph, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). For N2O, an electron capture detector (350 °C) and a capillary column (J&W GC packed column in stainless steel tubing, length 6.56 ft (2 M), 1/8 in. OD, 2 mm ID, Hayesep D packing, mesh size 80/100, pre-conditioned, Agilent Technologies) were used. Temperature of the injector and columns were 80 and 200 °C, respectively. Daily flux of N2O-N (g ha−1 day−1) was calculated as described in Eq. (1):$${text{F}}, = ,{text{A}}*{text{dC}}/{text{dt}}$$
(1)
where F is flux of N2O (g ha−1 day−1), A is the area of the chamber, and dC/dt is the change of concentration in time calculated using a linear method of integration by Venterea et al.49.Ammonia volatilization measurementAmmonia volatilization was measured using the open chamber technique, as described by Araújo et al.51. The ammonia chamber was made of a 2-L volume polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle. The bottom of the bottle was removed and used as a cap above the top opening to keep the environment controlled, free of insects and other sources of contamination. An iron wire was used to support the plastic jar. A strip of polyfoam (250 mm in length, 25 mm wide, and 3 mm thick) was soaked in 20 ml of acid solution (H2SO4 1 mol dm−3 + glycerine 2% v/v) and fastened to the top, with the bottom end of the foam remaining inside the plastic jar. Inside each chamber there was a 250-mm long wire designed with a hook to support it from the top of the bottle, and wire basket at the bottom end to support a plastic jar (25 mL) that contained the acid solution to keep the foam strip moist during sampling periods (Fig. 7). The ammonia chambers were placed installed in the bucket located in the middle of each experimental block after the last gas sampling of the day and removed before the start of the next gas sampling.Figure 7Mobile ammonia chamber details for ammonia measurement in dung beetle trial. Adapted from Araújo et al.51.Full size imageNutrient cyclingPhotographs of the soil and dung portion of each bucket were taken twenty-four hours after the last day of gas flux measurement sampling to determine the dung removal from single beetle species and their combination. In the section on statistical analysis, the programming and statistical procedures are described. After this procedure, seeds of pearl millet were planted in each bucket. After 5 days of seed germination plants were thinned, maintaining four plants per bucket. Additionally, plants were clipped twice in a five-week interval, with the first cut occurring on October 23rd and the second cut occurring on November 24th, in both experimental years. Before each harvest, plant height was measured twice in the last week. In the harvest day all plants were clipped 10 cm above the ground level. Samples were dried at 55 °C in a forced-air oven until constant weight and ball-milled using a Mixer Mill MM 400 (Retsch, Newton, PA, USA) for 9 min at 25 Hz, and analyzed for total N concentration using a C, H, N, and S analyzer by the Dumas dry combustion method (Vario Micro Cube; Elementar, Hanau, Germany).Statistical analysisTreatments were distributed in a randomized complete block design (RCBD), with three replications. Data were analyzed using the Mixed Procedure from SAS (ver. 9.4., SAS Inst., Cary, NC) and LSMEANS compared using PDIFF adjusted by the t-test (P  More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Zhu, L. et al. Comparable biophysical and biogeochemical feedbacks on warming from tropical moist forest degradation. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01137-y (2023). More

Wajnberg, É. et al. (eds) Behavioral Ecology of Insect Parasitoids: From Theoretical Approaches to Field Applications 1st edn. (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology (Princeton University Press, 1994).Book 

Google Scholar 
Morris, R. J., Lewis, O. T. & Godfray, H. C. J. Apparent competition and insect community structure: Towards a spatial perspective. Annales Zoologica Fennici 42, 1–14 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Forbes, A. A., Bagley, R. K., Beer, M. A., Hippee, A. C. & Widmayer, H. A. Quantifying the unquantifiable: Why Hymenoptera, not Coleoptera, is the most speciose animal order. BMC Ecol. 18, 1–11 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassell, M. P. & Waage, J. K. Host–parasitoid population interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29, 89–114 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lafferty, K. D. et al. Parasites in food webs: The ultimate missing links. Ecol. Lett. 11, 533–546 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Van Veen, F. J. F., Van Holland, P. D. & Godfray, H. C. J. Stable coexistence in insect communities due to density- and trait-mediated indirect effects. Ecology 86, 3182–3189 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, M. H. et al. Relative importance of predators and parasitoids for cereal aphid control. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Series B Biol. Sci. 270, 1905–1909 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, N. J. & Wajnberg, É. Optimal foraging behavior and efficient biological control methods. In Behavioral Ecology of Insect Parasitoids: From Theoretical Approaches to Field Applications 1st edn (eds Wajnberg, É. et al.) 1–30 (Blackwell Publishing, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Vinson, S. B. Host suitability for insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 25, 397–419 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benrey, B. & Denno, R. F. The slow-growth-high-mortality hypothesis: A test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78, 987–999 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Chau, A. & Mackauer, M. Host-instar selection in the aphid parasitoid Monoctonus paulensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae): Assessing costs and benefits. Can. Entomol. 133, 549–564 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strand, M. R. & Obrycki, J. J. Host specificity of insect parasitoids and predators. Bioscience 46, 422–429 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vinson, S. B. Host selection by insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 21, 109–133 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. G. & Messing, R. H. Fitness consequences of body-size-dependent host species selection in a generalist ectoparasitoid. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56, 513–522 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Z., Xu, B., Li, L. & Sun, J. Host-size mediated trade-off in a parasitoid Sclerodermus harmandi. PLoS ONE 6, e23260 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. Y., Yang, Z. Q., Wu, H. & Gould, J. R. Effects of host size on the sex ratio, clutch size, and size of adult Spathius agrili, an ectoparasitoid of emerald ash borer. Biol. Control 44, 7–12 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hardy, I. C. W., Griffiths, N. T. & Godfray, H. C. J. Clutch size in a parasitoid wasp: A manipulation experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 121–129 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scriber, J. M. & Slansky, F. The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 26, 183–211 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreau, J., Benrey, B. & Thiery, D. Assessing larval food quality for phytophagous insects: Are the facts as simple as they appear?. Funct. Ecol. 20, 592–600 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidowitz, G., D’Amico, L. J. & Nijhout, H. F. The effects of environmental variation on a mechanism that controls insect body size. Evolut. Ecol. Res. 6, 49–62 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Williams, I. S. Slow-growth, high-mortality-a general hypothesis, or is it?. Ecol. Entomol. 24, 490–495 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, K. & Chen, Y. Slow-growth high-mortality: A meta-analysis for insects. Insect Sci. 25, 337–351 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Waldbauer, G. P. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Adv. Insect Physiol. 5, 229–288 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hochuli, D. F. Insect herbivory and ontogeny: How do growth and development influence feeding behaviour, morphology and host use?. Austral. Ecol. 26, 563–570 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holmes, L. A., Nelson, W. A. & Lougheed, S. C. Food quality effects on instar-specific life histories of a holometabolous insect. Ecol. Evol. 10, 626–637 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kagata, H. & Ohgushi, T. Bottom-up trophic cascades and material transfer in terrestrial food webs. Ecol. Res. 21, 26–34 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scherber, C. et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468, 553–556 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vidal, M. C. & Murphy, S. M. Bottom-up vs top-down effects on terrestrial insect herbivores: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 21, 138–150 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, J. A. Factors affecting the evolution of development strategies in parasitoid wasps: The importance of functional constraints and incorporating complexity. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 117, 1–13 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charnov, E. L., Los-den Hartogh, R. L., Jones, W. T. & van den Assem, J. Sex ratio evolution in a variable environment. Nature 289, 27–33 (1981).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Larson, A. O. The bean weevil and the southern Cowpea weevil in California. United States Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 593, Washington, D. C. (1938).Askew, R. R. & Shaw, M. R. Parasitoid communities: their size, structure and development in Insect Parasitoids: 13th Symposium of Royal Entomological Society of London (eds. Waage, J.K. & Greathead, D.J. 225–264 (1986).Holmes, L. A., Nelson, W. A., Dyck, M. & Lougheed, S. C. Enhancing the usefulness of artificial seeds in seed beetle model systems research. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1701–1706 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellers, J., Van Alphen, J. J. M. & Sevenster, J. G. A field study of size-fitness relationships in the parasitoid Asobara tabida. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 318–324 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. 99, 673–686 (2004).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Thin-plate regression splines. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 65, 95–114 (2003).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2020). Accessed 3 April 2020.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretical Approach 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N., Pya, N. & Saefken, B. Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models (with discussion). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 111, 1548–1575 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolker, B., & R Development Core Team Tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. Version 1.0.20. (2017). Accessed 4 April 2020.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometical. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Rose, N. L., Yang, H., Turner, S. D. & Simpson, G. L. An assessment of the mechanisms for the transfer of lead and mercury from atmospherically contaminated organic soils to lake sediments with particular reference to Scotland, UK. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 82, 113–135 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Holmes, L. A., Nelson, W. A. & Lougheed, S. C. Data from: Food quality effects on instar-specific life histories of a holometabolous insect. Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d7wm37px7 (2020).Therneau, T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.2-13. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival. (2021). Accessed 3 April 2020.Efron, B. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1982).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Awmack, C. S. & Leather, S. R. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47, 817–844 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clancy, K. M. & Price, P. W. Rapid herbivore growth enhances enemy attack: Sublethal plant defenses remain a paradox. Ecology 68, 733–737 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loader, C. & Damman, H. Nitrogen content of food plants and vulnerability of Pieris rapae to natural enemies. Ecology 72, 1586–1590 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uesugi, A. The slow-growth high-mortality hypothesis: Direct experimental support in a leafmining fly. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 221–228 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feeny, P. Plant apparency and chemical defense. in Biochemical Interaction Between Plants and Insects. 1–40 (Springer, 1976).Teder, T. & Tammaru, T. Cascading effects of variation in plant vigor on the relative performance of insect herbivores and their parasitoids. Ecol. Entomol. 27, 94–104 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kagata, H., Nakamura, M. & Ohgushi, T. Bottom-up cascade in a tri-trophic system: Different impacts of host-plant regeneration on performance of a willow leaf beetle and its natural enemy. Ecol. Entomol. 30, 58–62 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vet, L. E. M., Lewis, W. J. & Cardé, R. T. Parasitoid foraging and learning. In Chemical Ecology of Insects 2 (eds Cardé, R. T. & Bell, W. J.) 65–101 (Springer, 1995).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Ishii, Y. & Shimada, M. Learning predator promotes coexistence of prey species in host-parasitoid systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 5116–5120 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ode, P. J. & Hardy, I. C. Parasitoid sex ratios and biological control. Behavioral ecology of insect parasitoids. In Behavioral Ecology of Insect Parasitoids: From Theoretical Approaches to field applications (eds Wajnberg, E. et al.) 253–291 (Wiley, 2008).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Xiaoyi, W. & Zhongqi, Y. Behavioral mechanisms of parasitic wasps for searching concealed insect hosts. Acta Ecol. Sin. 28, 1257–1269 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Otten, H., Wäckers, F., Battini, M. & Dorn, S. Efficiency of vibrational sounding in the parasitoid Pimpla turionellae is affected by female size. Anim. Behav. 61, 671–677 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaplan, I., Carrillo, J., Garvey, M. & Ode, P. J. Indirect plant-parasitoid interactions mediated by changes in herbivore physiology. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 14, 112–119 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ode, P. J. Plant toxins and parasitoid trophic ecology. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 32, 118–123 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barbosa, P., Gross, P. & Kemper, J. Influence of plant allelochemicals on the tobacco hornworm and its parasitoid, Cotesia congregate. Ecology 72, 1567–1575 (1991).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barbosa, P. Natural enemies and herbivore–plant interactions: Influence of plant allelochemicals and host specificity. In Novel Aspects of Insect–Plant Interactions (eds Barbosa, P. & Letourneau, L. D. K.) 201–230 (Wiley, 1988).
Google Scholar 
Ode, P. J. Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: Effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51, 163–185 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seebacher, F., White, C. R. & Franklin, C. E. Physiological plasticity increases resilience of ectothermic animals to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 61–66 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Havird, J. C. et al. Distinguishing between active plasticity due to thermal acclimation and passive plasticity due to Q10 effects: why methodology matters. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1015–1028 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, M. E., Wang, G. & Huey, R. B. Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming. Nature 467, 704–706 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
White, C. R., Alton, L. A., Bywater, C. L., Lombardi, E. J. & Marshall, D. J. Metabolic scaling is the product of life history optimization. Science 377, 834–839 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savage, V. M., Gilloly, J. F., Brown, J. H. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163, 429–441 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, J. R., Sunday, J. M. & O’Connor, M. I. Metabolic theory and the temperature–size rule explain the temperature dependence of population carrying capacity. Am. Nat. 192, 687–697 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Damuth, J. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290, 699–700 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuster, L., Cameron, H., White, C. R. & Marshall, D. J. Metabolism drives demography in an experimental field test. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2104942118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amarasekare, P. & Coutinho, R. M. The intrinsic growth rate as a predictor of population viability under climate warming. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1240–1253 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amarasekare, P. & Savage, V. A framework for elucidating the temperature dependence of fitness. Am. Nat. 179, 178–191 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lande, R. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. Am. Nat. 142, 911–927 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Comeault, A. A. & Matute, D. R. Temperature-dependent competitive outcomes between the fruit flies Drosophila santomea and Drosophila yakuba. Am. Nat. 197, 312–323 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, A. J., Jenkinson, L. S., Lawton, J. H., Shorrocks, B. & Wood, S. Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391, 783–786 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davis, A. J., Lawton, J. H., Shorrocks, B. & Jenkinson, L. S. Individualistic species responses invalidate simple physiological models of community dynamics under global environmental change. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 600–612 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilman, S. E., Urban, M. C., Tewksbury, J., Gilchrist, G. W. & Holt, R. D. A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 325–331 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janča, M. & Gvoždík, L. Costly neighbours: heterospecific competitive interactions increase metabolic rates in dominant species. Sci. Rep. 7, 5177 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pettersen, A. K., Hall, M. D., White, C. R. & Marshall, D. J. Metabolic rate, context-dependent selection, and the competition–colonization trade-off. Evol. Lett. 4, 333–344 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeLong, J. P., Hanley, T. C. & Vasseur, D. A. Competition and the density dependence of metabolic rates. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 51–58 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, D., Armstrong, J. D. & Metcalfe, N. B. Estimated standard metabolic rate interacts with territory quality and density to determine the growth rates of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Funct. Ecol. 25, 1360–1367 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ayala, F. J. in Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky (eds Hecht, M. K. & Steere, W. C.) 121–158 (Springer, 1970).Atkinson, W. D. & Shorrocks, B. Aggregation of larval Diptera over discrete and ephemeral breeding sites: the implications for coexistence. Am. Nat. 124, 336–351 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKenzie, J. A. & McKechnie, S. W. A comparative study of resource utilization in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Oecologia 40, 299–309 (1979).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alton, L. A. et al. Developmental nutrition modulates metabolic responses to projected climate change. Funct. Ecol. 34, 2488–2502 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, K. A. & Hoffmann, A. A. Thermal ramping rate influences evolutionary potential and species differences for upper thermal limits in Drosophila. Funct. Ecol. 24, 694–700 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Overgaard, J., Kristensen, T. N., Mitchell, K. A. & Hoffmann, A. A. Thermal tolerance in widespread and tropical Drosophila species: does phenotypic plasticity increase with latitude? Am. Nat. 178, S80–S96 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kellermann, V. et al. Comparing thermal performance curves across traits: how consistent are they? J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb193433 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terblanche, J. S., Clusella-Trullas, S. & Chown, S. L. Phenotypic plasticity of gas exchange pattern and water loss in Scarabaeus spretus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): deconstructing the basis for metabolic rate variation. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 2940–2949 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tewksbury, J. J., Huey, R. B. & Deutsch, C. A. Putting the heat on tropical animals. Science 320, 1296–1297 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bos, M., Burnet, B., Farrow, R. & Woods, R. A. Mutual facilitation between larvae of the sibling species Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Evolution 31, 824–828 (1977).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arthur, W. On the complexity of a simple environment: competition, resource partitioning and facilitation in a two-species Drosophila system. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 313, 471–508 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Hodge, S., Mitchell, P. & Arthur, W. Factors affecting the occurrence of facilitative effects in interspecific interactions: an experiment using two species of Drosophila and Aspergillus niger. Oikos 87, 166–174 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bath, E., Morimoto, J. & Wigby, S. The developmental environment modulates mating-induced aggression and fighting success in adult female Drosophila. Funct. Ecol. 32, 2542–2552 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thibert, J., Farine, J. P., Cortot, J. & Ferveur, J. F. Drosophila food-associated pheromones: effect of experience, genotype and antibiotics on larval behavior. PLoS ONE 11, e0151451 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chown, S. L. et al. Scaling of insect metabolic rate is inconsistent with the nutrient supply network model. Funct. Ecol. 21, 282–290 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, R. A., Wilks, A. R. & Brownrigg, R. mapdata: extra map databases. R version 2.3.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mapdata (2018).R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Bolker, B. & R Development Core Team bbmle: tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. R version 1.0.25 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bbmle (2022).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 
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression 3rd edn (Sage, 2019).Hartig, F. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R version 0.4.6 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2022).Messamah, B., Kellermann, V., Malte, H., Loeschcke, V. & Overgaard, J. Metabolic cold adaptation contributes little to the interspecific variation in metabolic rates of 65 species of Drosophilidae. J. Insect Physiol. 98, 309–316 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S. et al. rgbif: interface to the global biodiversity information facility API. R version 3.7.3 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgbif (2022).Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R version 3.6-3 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2022).Alton, L. A. & Kellermann, V. Data for “Interspecific interactions alter the metabolic costs of climate warming”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7475922 (2023).White, C. R. et al. Geographical bias in physiological data limits predictions of global change impacts. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1572–1578 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

A hippo swims in Colombia’s Magdalena River, near where Pablo Escobar’s compound was located.Credit: Fernando Vergara/AP/Shutterstock

Colombian environment minister Susana Muhamad has triggered fear among researchers that she will protect, rather than reduce, a growing population of invasive hippos that threaten the country’s natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Although she did not directly mention the hippos — a contentious issue in Colombia — Muhamad said during a speech in late January that her ministry would create policies that prioritize animal well-being, including the creation of a new division of animal protection.
Landmark Colombian bird study repeated to right colonial-era wrongs
The hippos escaped from drug-cartel leader Pablo Escobar’s estate after he died in 1993. Left alone, the male and three females that Escobar had illegally imported from a US zoo established themselves in Colombia’s Magdalena River and some small lakes nearby — part of the country’s main watershed. After years of breeding, the ‘cocaine hippos’ have multiplied to about 150 individuals, scientists estimate.Given that the hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius) — considered the largest invasive animal in the world — have no natural predators in Colombia and have been mating at a steady rate, their population could reach 1,500 in 16 years, according to a modelling study published in 20211. “I do not understand what the government is waiting for to act,” says Nataly Castelblanco Martínez, a Colombian conservation biologist at the Autonomous University of Quintana Roo in Chetumal, Mexico, and co-author of the study. “If we don’t do anything, 20 years from now the problem will have no solution.”Researchers have called for a strict management plan that would eventually reduce the wild population to zero, through a combination of culling some animals and capturing others, then relocating them to facilities such as zoos. But the subject of what to do with the hippos has polarized the country, with some enamoured by the animals’ charisma and value as a tourist attraction and others concerned about the threat they pose to the environment and local fishing communities.‘A bit surreal’Several studies and observations suggest how destructive it could be to allow the Colombian hippo population to explode. A 2019 paper2, for example, showed that, compared with lakes without hippos, those where the animals have taken up residence contain more nutrients and organic matter that favour the growth of cyanobacteria — aquatic microbes associated with toxic algal blooms. These blooms can reduce water quality and cause mass fish deaths, affecting local fishing communities.

A sign near Doradal, Colombia, warns passersby of the danger of invasive hippos.Credit: Juancho Torres/Anadolu Agency via Getty

Other scientists have predicted that the hippos could displace endangered species that are native to the Magdalena River, such as the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus), by outcompeting them for food and space. They caution that traffic accidents and attacks on people caused by the hippos will become more common. And they warn that wildlife traffickers are already taking advantage of the situation by illegally selling baby hippos — a trend that could intensify.“It’s a bit surreal,” says Jorge Moreno Bernal, a vertebrate palaeontologist at the University of the North in Barranquilla, Colombia. “This is just a taste of what may come.”When Colombian authorities first recognized the speed at which the hippo population was growing, during the 2000s, they acted to reduce their numbers. But in 2009, when photos appeared online after soldiers gunned down Pepe, Escobar’s fugitive male hippo, the outcry from animal-rights activists and others plunged the environment ministry into an “institutional paralysis”, says Sebastián Restrepo Calle, an ecologist at Javeriana University in Bogotá.Researchers say that the hippos don’t belong in Colombia — they are native to sub-Saharan Africa. Simulations run by Castelblanco Martínez and her colleagues suggest that to reduce the population to zero by 2033, about 30 hippos would need to be removed from the wild population per year1. No other course of action, including sterilization or castration, would eradicate them, according to the modelling of various management scenarios, says Castelblanco Martínez.The cost of inactionThe worry now is that, instead of basing decisions on evidence and expertise in conservation, the government is listening to popular opinion, says Restrepo Calle. Neither Muhamad nor representatives of the environment ministry replied to Nature’s requests for comment.
Ancient stone tools suggest early humans dined on hippo
“Why prioritize one species over our own ecosystems?” — especially a species that isn’t native, asks Alejandra Echeverri, a Colombian conservation scientist at Stanford University in California. Along with her colleagues, Echeverri published a study last month showing that Colombia has few policies governing invasive species compared with its overall number of biodiversity policies3.Animals-rights advocates, meanwhile, argue that they aren’t ignoring environmental concerns. Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado, an animal-rights activist and specialist in animal law at Saint Thomas University in Bogotá, says “It’s not about saving the hippos on a whim,” but rather about solving the issue while also giving the hippos justice. “My indisputable position is: let’s save as many individuals as possible, let’s do it ethically.”Researchers, too, say they have the animals’ best interests at heart. “Even if [advocates] don’t see it, we care about the hippos,” Castelblanco Martínez says. “The more time that passes, the more hippos will either have to be culled, castrated or captured.”The question is whether environmental authorities will act swiftly to draft and enforce a management plan that is both ethical and effective. Should they sit on the issue for too long, Castelblanco Martínez warns, rural communities that are most affected by the hippos might take matters into their own hands.If the government doesn’t cull them, she says, people will use shotguns to do it. More

Hui, C. & Richardson, D. M. Invasion Dynamics (Oxford University Press, 2017).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Clobert, J., Baguette, M., Benton, T. G. & Bullock, J. M. Dispersal Ecology and Evolution (Oxford University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
Shigesada, N., Kawasaki, K. & Takeda, Y. Modeling stratified diffusion in biological invasions. Am. Nat. 146, 229–251 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chuang, A. & Peterson, C. R. Expanding population edges: Theories, traits, and trade-offs. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 494–512 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cayuela, H. et al. Determinants and consequences of dispersal in vertebrates with complex life cycles: A review of pond-breeding amphibians. Q. Rev. Biol. 95, 36 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Measey, G. J. et al. A global assessment of alien amphibian impacts in a formal framework. Divers. Distrib. 22, 970–981 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Antonelli, A., Smith, R. J., Perrigo, A. L. & Crottini, A. Madagascar’s extraordinary biodiversity: Evolution, distribution, and use. Science 378, eabf0869 (2022).
Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, B. M. et al. Widespread vulnerability of Malagasy predators to the toxins of an introduced toad. Curr. Biol. 28, R654–R655 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F. et al. Toad invasion of Malagasy forests triggers severe mortality of a predatory snake. Biol. Inv. 24, 1189–1198 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F. et al. Abundance, distribution and spread of the invasive Asian toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus in eastern Madagascar. Biol. Inv. 21, 1615–1626 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClelland, P., Reardon, J. T., Kraus, F., Raxworthy, C. J. & Randrianantoandro, C. Asian toad eradication feasibility report for Madagascar (Te Anau, 2015).Smith, M. A. & Green, D. M. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: Are all amphibian populations metapopulations?. Ecography 28, 110–128 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shine, R. et al. Increased rates of dispersal of free-ranging cane toads (Rhinella marina) during their global invasion. Sci. Rep. 11, 23574 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Myles-Gonzalez, E., Burness, G., Yavno, S., Rooke, A. & Fox, M. G. To boldly go where no goby has gone before: Boldness, dispersal tendency, and metabolism at the invasion front. Behav. Ecol. 26, 1083–1090 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Petegem, K. H. P. et al. Empirically simulated spatial sorting points at fast epigenetic changes in dispersal behaviour. Evol. Ecol. 29, 299–310 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stuart, Y. E. et al. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science 346, 463–466 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F., Andreone, F., Crottini, A., Harison, R. F. & Ficetola, G. F. Does spatial sorting occur in the invasive Asian toad in Madagascar? Insights into the invasion unveiled by morphological analyses. JZSER 2021, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R. A. Nomadic movement in tropical toads. Oikos 96, 492–506 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, G. P., Kelehear, C. & Shine, R. Effects of seasonal aridity on the ecology and behaviour of invasive cane toads in the Australian wet–dry tropics. Funct. Ecol. 25, 1339–1347 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duellman, W. E. & Trueb, L. Biology of Amphibians (JHU Press, 1994).Book 

Google Scholar 
Wells, K. D. The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians (University of Chicago Press, 2010). https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226893334.Book 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, A. K., Kokko, H. & Neubert, M. G. Sex difference and Allee effects shape the dynamics of sex-structured invasions. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 36–46 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schwarzkopf, L. & Alford, R. A. Desiccation and shelter-site use in a tropical amphibian: Comparing toads with physical models. Funct. Ecol. 10, 193–200 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wogan, G. O. U., Stuart, B. L., Iskandar, D. T. & McGuire, J. A. Deep genetic structure and ecological divergence in a widespread human commensal toad. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150807 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F. Exploring the invasion dynamics and impacts of the invasive Asian common toad in Madagascar (University of Porto, 2022).
Google Scholar 
Reilly, S. B. et al. Toxic toad invasion of Wallacea: A biodiversity hotspot characterized by extraordinary endemism. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5029–5031 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jørgensen, C. B., Shakuntala, K. & Vijayakumar, S. Body size, reproduction and growth in a tropical toad, Bufo melanostictus, with a comparison of ovarian cycles in tropical and temperate zone anurans. Oikos 46, 379 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vences, M. et al. Tracing a toad invasion: Lack of mitochondrial DNA variation, haplotype origins, and potential distribution of introduced Duttaphrynus melanostictus in Madagascar. Amphib. Reptilia 38, 197–207 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ngo, B. V. & Ngo, C. D. Reproductive activity and advertisement calls of the Asian common toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae) from Bach Ma National Park, Vietnam. Zool. Stud. 52, 12 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F. et al. The Asian toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus) in Madagascar: A report of an ongoing invasion. In Problematic Wildlife II: New Conservation and Management Challenges in the Human-Wildlife Interactions (eds Angelici, F. M. & Rossi, L.) 617–638 (Springer, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42335-3_21.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Moore, M., Solofo Niaina Fidy, J. F. & Edmonds, D. The new toad in town: Distribution of the Asian toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus, in the Toamasina area of eastern Madagascar. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8, 440–455 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Licata, F. et al. Using public surveys to rapidly profile biological invasions in hard-to-monitor areas. Anim. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12835 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, M. et al. Automatic high-resolution land cover production in madagascar using sentinel-2 time series, tile-based image classification and google earth engine. Remote Sensing 12, 3663 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & Mcmahon, T. A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 4, 439–473 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Merkel, A. Toamasina Climate (Madagascar). Accessed 20 July 2022. https://en.climate-data.org/africa/madagascar/toamasina/toamasina-4029/
(2021).Gordon, A. Secondary sexual characters of Bufo melanostictus schneider. Copeia 1933, 204–207 (1933).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alford, R. & Rowley, J. Techniques for tracking amphibians: The effects of tag attachment, and harmonic direction finding versus radio telemetry. Amphib. Reptilia 28, 367–376 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lassueur, T., Joost, S. & Randin, C. F. Very high resolution digital elevation models: Do they improve models of plant species distribution?. Ecol. Modell. 198, 139–153 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abrams, M., Crippen, R. & Fujisada, H. ASTER global digital elevation model (GDEM) and ASTER global water body dataset (ASTWBD). Remote Sensing 12, 1156 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L., Webb, J. K. & Shine, R. Toad on the road: Use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 133, 88–94 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. et al. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2021).Yagi, K. T. & Green, D. M. Performance and movement in relation to postmetamorphic body size in a pond-breeding amphibian. J. Herpetol. 51, 482–489 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Labocha, M. K., Schutz, H. & Hayes, J. P. Which body condition index is best?. Oikos 123, 111–119 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tingley, R. & Shine, R. Desiccation risk drives the spatial ecology of an invasive anuran (Rhinella marina) in the australian semi-desert. PLoS ONE 6, e25979 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richards, S. J., Sinsch, U. & Alford, R. A. Radio Tracking. In Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians (eds Heyer, R. et al.) 155–158 (Smithsonian Institution, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Altobelli, J. T., Dickinson, K. J. M., Godfrey, S. S. & Bishop, P. J. Methods in amphibian biotelemetry: Two decades in review. Austral. Ecol. 47, 1382–1395 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7_3.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J. & Stephens, P. A. Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: The utility of the IT-AIC framework. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 77–89 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2021).Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. (2020).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 
Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. (2022).Hodges, C. W., Marshall, B. M., Hill, J. G. & Strine, C. T. Malayan kraits (Bungarus candidus) show affinity to anthropogenic structures in a human dominated landscape. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.08.459477 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, B. J., Cade, B. S. & Schwarzkopf, L. Effects of environmental variables on invasive amphibian activity: Using model selection on quantiles for counts. Ecosphere 9, e02067 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Linsenmair, K. E. & Spieler, M. Migration patterns and diurnal use of shelter in a ranid frog of a West African savannah: A telemetric study. Amphib. Reptilia 19, 43–64 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clobert, J., Le Galliard, J.-F., Cote, J., Meylan, S. & Massot, M. Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol. Lett. 12, 197–209 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ward-Fear, G., Greenlees, M. J. & Shine, R. Toads on lava: spatial ecology and habitat use of invasive cane yoads (Rhinella marina) in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 11, e0151700 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huang, W.-S., Lin, J.-Y. & Yu, J.Y.-L. Male reproductive cycle of the toad Bufo melanostictus in Taiwan. Zool. Sci. 14, 497–503 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. The straight and narrow path: the evolution of straight-line dispersal at a cane toad invasion front. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141385 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perkins, T. A., Phillips, B. L., Baskett, M. L. & Hastings, A. Evolution of dispersal and life history interact to drive accelerating spread of an invasive species. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1079–1087 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ochocki, B. M. & Miller, T. E. X. Rapid evolution of dispersal ability makes biological invasions faster and more variable. Nat. Commun. 8, 14315 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, B. L., Brown, G. P., Travis, J. M. J. & Shine, R. Reid’s paradox revisited: The evolution of dispersal kernels during range expansion. Am. Nat. 172, S34–S48 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kot, M., Lewis, M. A. & van den Driessche, P. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 77, 2027–2042 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deguise, I. & Richardson, J. S. Movement behaviour of adult western toads in a fragmented, forest landscape. Can. J. Zool. 87, 1184–1194 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitrovich, M. J., Gallegos, E. A., Lyren, L. M., Lovich, R. E. & Fisher, R. N. Habitat use and movement of the endangered Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) in coastal southern California. J. Herpetol. 45, 319–328 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. A toad more traveled: The heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am. Nat. 171, E134–E148 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Enriquez-Urzelai, U., Montori, A., Llorente, G. A. & Kaliontzopoulou, A. Locomotor mode and the evolution of the hindlimb in western mediterranean anurans. Evol. Biol. 42, 199–209 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Junior, B. T. & Gomes, F. R. Relation between water balance and climatic variables associated with the geographical distribution of anurans. PLoS ONE 10, e0140761 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klockmann, M., Günter, F. & Fischer, K. Heat resistance throughout ontogeny: Body size constrains thermal tolerance. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 686–696 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Petrovskii, S., Mashanova, A. & Jansen, V. A. A. Variation in individual walking behavior creates the impression of a Lévy flight. PNAS 108, 8704–8707 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lindström, T., Brown, G. P., Sisson, S. A., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Rapid shifts in dispersal behavior on an expanding range edge. PNAS 110, 13452–13456 (2013).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tingley, R. et al. New weapons in the toad toolkit: A review of methods to control and mitigate the biodiversity impacts of invasive Cane toads (Rhinella marina). Q. Rev. Biol. 92, 123–149 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Novoa, A. et al. Invasion syndromes: A systematic approach for predicting biological invasions and facilitating effective management. Biol. Invasions 22, 1801–1820 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeVore, J. L., Crossland, M. R., Shine, R. & Ducatez, S. The evolution of targeted cannibalism and cannibal-induced defenses in invasive populations of cane toads. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2100765118 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Muller, B. J. & Schwarzkopf, L. Relative effectiveness of trapping and hand-capture for controlling invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina). Int. J. Pest Manag. 64, 185–192 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

EthicsNo ethics approval was required for this study. Our study was conducted in a state-owned industrial oil palm plantation where we established a cooperation with the estate owner to access the site and collect data. No endangered or protected species were sampled. Research permits were obtained from the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, and sample collection and sample export permits were obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia.Study area and experimental designOur study was conducted in a state-owned industrial oil palm plantation (PTPN VI) located in Jambi, Indonesia (1.719° S, 103.398° E, 73 m above sea level). Initial planting of oil palms within the 2,025 ha plantation area started in 1998 and ended in 2002; planting density was 142 palms ha−1, spaced 8 m apart in each row and between rows, and palms were ≥16 years old during our study period of 2016–2020. The study sites have a mean annual temperature of 27.0 ± 0.2 °C and a mean annual precipitation of 2,103 ± 445 mm (2008–2017, Sultan Thaha Airport, Jambi). The management practices in large-scale oil palm plantations typically result in three contrasting management zones: (1) a 2 m radius around the base of the palm that was weeded (four times a year) and raked before fertilizer application, hereafter called the ‘palm circle’; (2) an area occurring every second inter-row, where pruned senesced palm fronds were piled up, hereafter called ‘frond piles’; and (3) the remaining area of the plantation where less weeding (two times a year) and no fertilizer were applied, hereafter called ‘inter-rows’.Within this oil palm plantation, we established a management experiment in November 2016 with full factorial treatments of two fertilization rates × two weeding practices: conventional fertilization rates at PTPN VI and other large-scale plantations (260 kg N–50 kg P–220 kg K ha−1 yr−1), reduced fertilization rates based on quantified nutrient export by harvest (136 kg N–17 kg P ha−1 yr−1–187 kg K ha−1 yr−1), herbicide and mechanical weeding15. The reduced fertilization treatment was based on quantified nutrient export from fruit harvest, calculated by multiplying the nutrient content of fruit bunches with the long-term yield data of the plantation. Fertilizers were applied yearly in April and October following weeding and raking of the palm circle. The common practice at PTPN VI and other large-scale plantations on acidic Acrisol soils is to apply lime and micronutrients, and these were unchanged in our management experiment. Before each N–P–K fertilizer application, dolomite and micronutrients were applied to the palm circle in all treatment plots using the common rates)52: 426 kg ha−1 yr−1 dolomite and 142 kg Micro-Mag ha−1 yr−1 (containing 0.5% B2O3, 0.5% CuO, 0.25% Fe2O3, 0.15% ZnO, 0.1% MnO and 18% MgO). Herbicide treatment was carried out using glyphosate in the palm circle (1.50 l ha−1 yr−1, split into four applications per year) and in the inter-rows (0.75 l ha−1 yr−1, split into two applications per year). Mechanical weeding was done using a brush cutter in the same management zones and at the same frequency as the herbicide treatment.The 22 factorial design resulted in four treatment combinations: conventional fertilization with herbicide treatment, reduced fertilization with herbicide treatment, conventional fertilization with mechanical weeding and reduced fertilization with mechanical weeding. The four treatments were randomly assigned on 50 m × 50 m plots replicated in four blocks, totalling 16 plots. The effective measurement area was the inner 30 m × 30 m area within each replicate plot to avoid any possible edge effects. For indicators (below) that were measured within subplots, these subplots were distributed randomly within the inner 30 m × 30 m of a plot. All replicate plots were located on flat terrain and on an Acrisol soil with a sandy clay loam texture.Ecosystem functions and multifunctionalityOur study included multiple indicators for each of the eight ecosystem functions23, described in details below (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). All the parameters were expressed at the plot level by taking the means of the subplots (that is, biological parameters) or the area-weighted average of the three management zones per plot (that is, soil parameters). (1) Greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation was indicated by NEP, soil organic C (SOC) and soil GHG fluxes. (2) Erosion prevention was signified by the understory vegetation cover during the four-year measurements. (3) Organic matter decomposition was indicated by leaf litter decomposition and soil animal decomposer activity. (4) Soil fertility was signified by gross N mineralization rate, effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC), base saturation and microbial biomass N. (5) Pollination potential was designated by pan-trapped arthropod abundance and nectar-feeding bird activity. As such, it does not quantify the pollination potential for oil palm, which is mainly pollinated by a single weevil species, but rather as a proxy for a general pollination potential for other co-occurring plants. (6) Water filtration (the capacity to provide clean water) was indicated by leaching losses of the major elements. (7) Plant refugium (the capacity to provide a suitable habitat for plants) as signified by the percentage ground cover of invasive plants to the total ground cover of understory vegetation during the four-year measurements. (8) Biological control (the regulation of herbivores via predation) was indicated by insectivorous bird and bat activities and the soil arthropod predator activity.All the ecosystem functions were merged into a multifunctionality index using the established average and threshold approaches12. For average multifunctionality, we first averaged the z-standardized values (Statistics) of indicators for each ecosystem function and calculated the mean of the eight ecosystem functions for each plot. For threshold multifunctionality, this was calculated from the number of functions that exceeds a set threshold, which is a percentage of the maximum performance level of each function12; we investigated the range of thresholds from 10% to 90% to have a complete overview. The maximum performance was taken as the average of the three highest values for each indicator per ecosystem function across all plots to reduce effect of potential outliers. For each plot, we counted the number of indicators that exceeded a given threshold for each function and divided by the number of indicators for each function12.Indicators of GHG regulationWe calculated annual NEP for each plot as: net ecosystem C exchange – harvested fruit biomass C (ref. 16), whereby net ecosystem C exchange = Cout (or heterotrophic respiration) – Cin (or net primary productivity)53. The net primary productivity of oil palms in each plot was the sum of aboveground biomass production (aboveground biomass C + frond litter biomass C input + fruit biomass C) and belowground biomass production. Aboveground biomass production was estimated using allometric equations developed for oil palm plantations in Indonesia54, using the height of palms measured yearly from 2019 to 2020. Annual frond litter biomass input was calculated from the number and dry mass of fronds pruned during harvesting events of an entire year in each plot and was averaged for 2019 and 2020. Aboveground biomass production was converted to C based on C concentrations in wood and leaf litter55. Annual fruit biomass C production (which is also the harvest export) was calculated from the average annual yield in 2019 and 2020 and the measured C concentrations of fruit bunches. Belowground root biomass and litter C production were taken from previous work in our study area55, and it was assumed constant for each plot. Heterotrophic respiration was estimated for each plot as: annual soil CO2 C emission (below) × 0.7 (based on 30% root respiration contribution to soil respiration from a tropical forest in Sulawesi, Indonesia56) + annual frond litter biomass C input × 0.8 (~80% of frond litter is decomposed within a year in this oil palm plantation8). SOC was measured in March 2018 from composite samples collected from two subplots in each of the three management zones per plot down to 50 cm depth. Soil samples were air dried, finely ground and analysed for SOC using a CN analyser (Vario EL Cube, Elementar Analysis Systems). SOC stocks were calculated using the measured bulk density in each management zone, and values for each plot were the area-weighted average of the three management zones (18% for palm circle, 15% for frond piles and 67% for inter-rows)15,22.From July 2019 to June 2020, we conducted monthly measurements of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes using vented, static chambers permanently installed in the three management zones within two subplots per plot11,57. Annual soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes were trapezoidal interpolations between measurement periods for the whole year, and values for each plot were the area-weighted average of the three management zones (above).Indicators of erosion preventionDiversity and abundance of vascular plants were assessed once a year from 2016 to 2020 before weeding in September–November. In five subplots per plot, we recorded the occurrence of all vascular plant species and estimated the percent cover of the understory vegetation. The percentage cover and plant species richness of each measurement year were expressed in ratio to that of 2016 to account for initial differences among the plots before the start of the experiment. For example, percentage cover in 2017 was:$$mathrm{Cover}_{2017} = frac{{left( {mathrm{Cover}_{2017} – mathrm{Cover}_{2016}} right)}}{{mathrm{Cover}_{2016}}}$$The values from five subplots were averaged to represent each plot.Indicators of organic matter decompositionLeaf litter decomposition was determined using litter bags (20 cm × 20 cm with 4 mm mesh size) containing 10 g of dry oil palm leaf litter8. Three litter bags per plot were placed on the edge of the frond piles in December 2016. After eight months of incubation in the field, we calculated leaf litter decomposition as the difference between initial litter dry mass and litter dry mass following incubation. Soil animal decomposer activity is described below (Soil arthropods).Indicators of soil fertilityAll these indicators were measured in February–March 2018 in the three management zones within two subplots per plot22. Gross N mineralization rate in the soil was measured in the top 5 cm depth on intact soil cores incubated in situ using the 15N pool dilution technique58. ECEC and base saturation were measured in the top 5 cm depth as this is the depth that reacts fast to changes in management22. The exchangeable cation concentrations (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Al, Fe, Mn) were determined by percolating the soil with 1 mol l−1 of unbuffered NH4Cl, followed by analysis of the percolates using an inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometer (ICP-AES; iCAP 6300 Duo view ICP Spectrometer, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Base saturation was calculated as the percentage exchangeable bases (Mg, Ca, K and Na) on ECEC. Microbial biomass N was measured from fresh soil samples using the fumigation-extraction method59. The values for each plot were the mean of the two subplots that were the area-weighted average of the three management zones (above)15,22.Indicators of general pollination potentialFluorescent yellow pan traps were used to sample aboveground arthropods (to determine pollinator communities60) in November 2016, September 2017 and June 2018. The traps were attached to a platform at the height of the surrounding vegetation within a 2 × 3 grid centred in the inter-rows of each plot in six clusters of three traps, totalling 18 traps per plot. Traps were exposed in the field for 48 h. We stored all trapped arthropods in 70% ethanol and later counted and identified to order and species level. The abundance of trapped arthropods in 2017 and 2018 were calculated as the ratio to the abundance in 2016 to account for initial differences among the plots before the start of the experiment. The activity of nectar-feeding birds is described below (Birds and bats).Indicators of water filtrationElement leaching losses were determined from analyses of soil-pore water sampled monthly at 1.5 m depth using suction cup lysimeters (P80 ceramic, maximum pore size 1 μm; CeramTec) over the course of one year (2017–2018)15. Lysimeters were installed in the three management zones within two subplots per plot. Dissolved N was analysed using continuous flow injection colorimetry (SEAL Analytical AA3, SEAL Analytical), whereas these other elements were determined using ICP-AES. The values for each plot were the mean of the two subplots that were the area-weighted average of the three management zones15,22.Indicators of plant refugiumIn five subplots per plot, the percentage cover and species richness of invasive understory plant species were assessed once a year from 2016 to 2020 before weeding in September–November. We defined invasive species as those plants non-native to Sumatra61 and among the ten dominant species (excluding oil palm) in the plantation for each year. The percentage cover of invasive understory plant species of each measurement year was expressed in a ratio to that of 2016 to account for initial differences among the plots before the start of the experiment. The values for each plot were represented by the average of five subplots.Indicators of biological controlThe activities of insectivorous birds and bats are described below (Birds and bats). In five subplots per plot, soil invertebrates were collected (Soil arthropods), counted, identified to taxonomic order level and subsequently classified according to their trophic groups that include predators60. The values from five subplots were average to represent each plot.BiodiversityBiodiversity was measured by the taxonomic richness of seven multitrophic groups, described in details below (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).Understory plant species richnessThe method is described above (Indicators of erosion prevention), using the number of species as an indicator (Supplementary Table 2).Soil microorganism richnessThis was determined in May 2017 by co-extracting RNA and DNA from three soil cores (5 cm diameter, 7 cm depth) in five subplots per plot62. While DNA extraction describes the entire microbial community, RNA represents the active community. The v3–v4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced with a MiSeq sequencer (Illumina). Taxonomic classification was done by mapping curated sequences against the SILVA small subunit (SSU) 138 non-redundant (NR) database63 with the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTN)64.Soil arthropod order richnessFor determination of soil arthropods, we collected soil samples (16 cm × 16 cm, 5 cm depth) in five subplots per plot in October–November 2017. We extracted the animals from the soil using a heat-gradient extractor65, collected them in dimethyleneglycol-water solution (1:1) and stored in 80% ethanol. The extracted animals were counted and identified to taxonomic order level61. They were also assigned to the trophic groups decomposers, herbivores and predators based on the predominant food resources recorded in previous reviews and a local study66,67. Orders with diverse feeding habits were divided into several feeding groups, for example, Coleoptera were divided into mostly predatory families (Staphylinidae, Carabidae), herbivorous families (for example, Curculionidae) and decomposer families (for example, Tenebrionidae). The total number of individuals per taxonomic group in each subplot was multiplied by the group-specific metabolic rate, which were summed to calculate soil animal decomposer activity. The values from five subplots were average to represent each plot.Aboveground arthropod order and insect family richnessIn addition to the fluorescent yellow pan traps described above (Indicators of general pollination potential), sweep net and Malaise trap samplings were conducted in June 2018, which targeted the general flying and understory dwelling arthropod communities. Sweep net sampling was conducted within the understory vegetation along two 10 m long transects per plot, with ten sweeping strokes performed per transect. In each plot, we installed a single Malaise trap between two randomly chosen palms and exposed it for 24 h. Arthropods were counted, identified to taxonomic order level and the insects to taxonomic family level and values from the three methods were summed to represent each plot.Birds and batsBirds and bats passing at each replicate plot were sampled in September 2017 using SM2Bat + sound recorders (Wildlife Acoustics) with two microphones (SMX-II and SMX-US) placed at a height of 1.5 m in the middle of each plot68. We assigned the bird vocalization to species with Xeno-Canto69 and the Macaulay library70. Insectivorous bat species richness was computed by dividing them into morphospecies based on the characteristics of their call (call frequency, duration, shape). In addition, we gathered information on proportional diet preferences of the bird species using the EltonTrait database71. We defined birds feeding on invertebrates (potential biocontrol agents) as the species with a diet of at least 80% invertebrates and feeding on nectar (potential pollinators), if the diet included at least 20% of nectar.Economic indicatorsWe used six indicators linked to the level and stability of yield and profit: yield, lower fifth quantile of the yield per palm per plot, shortfall probability, management costs, profit and relative gross margin. We assessed fruit yield by weighing the harvested fruit bunches from each palm within the inner 30 m × 30 m area of each plot. The harvest followed the schedule and standard practices of the plantation company: each palm was harvested approximately every ten days and the lower fronds were pruned. For each plot, we calculated the average fruit yield per palm and scaled up to a hectare, considering the planting density of 142 palms per ha. Because the palms in each plot have different fruiting cycles and were harvested continuously, the calculation of an annual yield may lead to misleading differences between treatments. Therefore, we calculated the cumulative yield from the beginning of the experiment to four years (2017–2020), which should account for the inter- and intra-annual variations in fruit production of the palms in the plots and thus allowing for comparison among treatments. As effects of management practices on yield may be delayed46, we also calculated the cumulative yield during two consecutive years (2017–2018 and 2019–2020) and checked for treatment effects on yield and profit indicators separately for these two periods.We computed risk indicators on the cumulative yield and on the yield between the two periods. We used the lowest fifth quantile of the yield per palm per plot (left side of the distribution) to indicate the production of the palms with lowest performance. Also, we determined the yield shortfall probability (lower partial moment 0th order), defined as the share of palms that fell below a predefined threshold of yield; the thresholds chosen were 630 kg−1 per palm for cumulative yield and 300 kg−1 per palm per year for the two-year yield, which corresponded to 75% of the average yield.Revenues and costs were calculated as cumulative values during four years of the experiment (2017–2020) using the same prices and costs for all the years. This was because we were interested in assessing the economic consequences of different management treatments, and they might be difficult to interpret when changes in prices and costs between calendar years are included, which are driven by external market powers rather than the field-management practices. For the same reason, we abstained from discounting profits. Given the usually high discount rates applied to the study area, slight differences in harvesting activities between calendar years or months might lead to high systematic differences between the management treatments, which are associated with the variation in work schedule within the plantation rather than the actual difference among management treatments. Revenues were calculated from the yield and the average price of the fruit bunches in 2016 and 201761. Material costs were the sum of the costs of fertilizers, herbicide and gasoline for the brush cutter. Labour costs were calculated from the minimum wage in Jambi and the time (in labour hours) needed for the harvesting, fertilizing and weeding operations, which were recorded in 2017 for each plot. The weeding labour included the labour for raking the palm circle before fertilization, which was equal in all treatments, and the weeding in the palm circle and inter-rows either with herbicide or brush cutter. In addition, we included the time to remove C. hirta, which must be removed mechanically from all plots once a year, calculated from the average weed-removal time in the palm circle and the percentage cover of C. hirta in each plot for each year. We then calculated the profit as the difference between revenues and the total management costs and the relative gross margin as the gross profit proportion of the revenues.StatisticsTo test for differences among management treatments for each ecosystem function and across indicators of biodiversity, the plot-level value of each indicator was first z standardized (z = (actual value − mean value across plots) / standard deviation)4. This prevents the dominance of one or few indicators over the others, and z standardization allows several distinct indicators to best characterize an ecosystem function or biodiversity4. Standardized values were inverted (multiplied by −1) for indicators of which high values signify undesirable effect (that is, NEP, soil N2O and CH4 fluxes, element leaching losses, invasive plant cover, yield shortfall, management costs) for intuitive interpretations. For a specific ecosystem function (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2) and across indicators of biodiversity (Fig. 2), linear mixed-effects (LME) models were used to assess differences among management treatments (fertilization, weeding and their interaction) as fixed effects with replicate plots and indicators (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3) as random effects. The significance of the fixed effects was evaluated using ANOVA72. The LME model performance was assessed using diagnostic residual plots73. As indicator variables may systematically differ in their responses to management treatments, we also tested the interaction between indicator and treatment (Table 1). For testing the differences among management treatments across ecosystem functions (that is, multifunctionality; Fig. 1), we used for each replicate plot the average of z-standardized indicators of each ecosystem function and ranges of thresholds (that is, number of functions that exceeds a set percentage of the maximum performance of each function12; Supplementary Fig. 3). The LME models had management treatments (fertilization, weeding and their interaction) as fixed effects and replicate plots and ecosystem functions as random effects; the interaction between ecosystem function and treatment were also tested to assess if there were systematic differences in their responses to management treatments (Table 1). As we expected that the type of weeding will influence ground vegetation, we tested for differences in ground cover of understory vegetation, measured from 2016 to 2020, using LME with management treatments as fixed effect and replicate plots and year as random effects. Differences among management treatments (fertilization, weeding and their interaction) in yield and profit indicators, which were cumulative values over four years (Fig. 3) or for two separate periods (2017–2018 and 2019–2020; Supplementary Fig. 4), were assessed using linear model ANOVA (Table 1). For clear visual comparison among management treatments across ecosystem functions, multitrophic groups for biodiversity, and yield and profit indicators, the fifth and 95th percentiles of their z-standardized values were presented in a petal diagram (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 5). Data were analysed using R (version 4.0.4), using the R packages ‘nlme’ and ‘influence.ME’73.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More