Philippa Kaur

Wilson, E. O. The Insect Societies (Oxford University Press, 1971).
Google Scholar 
Beshers, S. N. & Fewell, J. H. Models of division of labor in social insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46, 413–440 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seeley, T. D. Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 4, 287–293 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Tallamy, D. W. Insect parental care. Bioscience 34, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309421 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Queller, D. C. Extended parental care and the origin of eusociality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 256, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1994.0056 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bigley, W. S. & Vinson, S. B. Characterization of a brood pheromone isolated from the sexual brood of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta 1,2. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68, 301–304 (1975).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Endler, A. et al. Surface hydrocarbons of queen eggs regulate worker reproduction in a social insect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 2945–2950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308447101 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maisonnasse, A., Lenoir, J. C., Beslay, D., Crauser, D. & Le Conte, Y. E-beta-ocimene, a volatile brood pheromone involved in social regulation in the honey bee colony (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 5, e13531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013531 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schultner, E., Oettler, J. & Helantera, H. The role of brood in eusocial hymenoptera. Q. Rev. Biol. 92, 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/690840 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amdam, G. V., Hartfelder, K., Norberg, K., Hagen, A. & Omholt, S. W. Altered physiology in worker honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) infested with the mite Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae): A factor in colony loss during overwintering? J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 741–747 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Calabi, P. & Traniello, J. F. Behavioral flexibility in age castes of the ant Pheidole dentata. J. Insect Behav. 2, 663–677 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Gordon, D. W. Dynamics of task switching in harvester ants. Anim. Behav. 38, 194–204 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Robinson, G. E. Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37, 637–665. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.003225 (1992).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, E. J., Feinerman, O. & Franks, N. R. Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 4373–4380 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Nijhout, H. F. & Wheeler, D. E. Juvenile-hormone and the physiological-basis of Insect polymorphisms. Q. Rev. Biol. 57, 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1086/412671 (1982).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herb, B. R. et al. Reversible switching between epigenetic states in honeybee behavioral subcastes. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 1371–1373. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3218 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kensuke, N. Age polyethism, idiosyncrasy and behavioural flexibility in the queenless ponerine ant, Diacamma sp. J. Ethol. 13, 113–123 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Kensuke, N. Does behavioral flexibility compensate or constrain colony productivity? Relationship among age structure, labor allocation, and production of workers in ant colonies. J. Insect Behav. 9, 557–569 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Shimoji, H., Kasutani, N., Ogawa, S. & Hojo, M. K. Worker propensity affects flexible task reversion in an ant. Behav. Ecol. 74, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bernadou, A., Busch, J. & Heinze, J. Diversity in identity: Behavioral flexibility, dominance, and age polyethism in a clonal ant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1365–1375 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Kohlmeier, P., Feldmeyer, B. & Foitzik, S. Vitellogenin-like A—Associated shifts in social cue responsiveness regulate behavioral task specialization in an ant. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005747 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Tripet, F. & Nonacs, P. Foraging for work and age-based polyethism: The roles of age and previous experience on task choice in ants. Ethology 110, 863–877 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Kohlmeier, P., Alleman, A. R., Libbrecht, R., Foitzik, S. & Feldmeyer, B. Gene expression is more strongly associated with behavioural specialisation than with age or fertility in ant workers. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14971 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levenbook, L. & Bauer, A. C. The fate of the larval storage protein calliphorin during adult development of Calliphora vicina. Insect Biochem. 14, 77–86 (1984).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Oi, F. M. & Scharf, M. E. Social exploitation of hexamerin: RNAi reveals a major caste-regulatory factor in termites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 4499–4504 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Tarver, M. R., Bennett, G., Oi, F. & Scharf, M. Two hexamerin genes from the termite Reticulitermes flavipes: Sequence, expression, and proposed functions in caste regulation. Gene 376, 47–58 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hawkings, C., Calkins, T. L., Pietrantonio, P. V. & Tamborindeguy, C. Caste-based differential transcriptional expression of hexamerins in response to a juvenile hormone analog in the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta). PLoS ONE 14, e0216800 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, E. A. & Goodisman, M. A. Gene expression and the evolution of phenotypic diversity in social wasps. BMC Biol. 5, 1–9 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Hunt, J. H., Buck, N. A. & Wheeler, D. E. Storage proteins in vespid wasps: Characterization, developmental pattern, and occurrence in adults. J. Insect Physiol. 49, 785–794 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Colgan, T. J. et al. Polyphenism in social insects: Insights from a transcriptome-wide analysis of gene expression in the life stages of the key pollinator, Bombus terrestris. BMC Genom. 12, 1–20 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Cremer, S., Armitage, S. A. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Social immunity. Curr. Biol. 17, R693–R702 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cremer, S., Pull, C. D. & Fuerst, M. A. Social immunity: Emergence and evolution of colony-level disease protection. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 105–123 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Danihlík, J., Aronstein, K. & Petřivalský, M. Antimicrobial peptides: A key component of honey bee innate immunity: Physiology, biochemistry, and chemical ecology. J. Apic. Res. 54, 123–136 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Koch, S. I. et al. Caste-specific expression patterns of immune response and chemosensory related genes in the leaf-cutting ant, Atta vollenweideri. PLoS ONE 8, e81518 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chardonnet, F. et al. Food searching behaviour of a Lepidoptera pest species is modulated by the foraging gene polymorphism. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 3465–3473 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Scheiner, R., Page, R. E. Jr. & Erber, J. Responsiveness to sucrose affects tactile and olfactory learning in preforaging honey bees of two genetic strains. Behav. Brain Res. 120, 67–73 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. et al. Visual pattern memory requires foraging function in the central complex of Drosophila. Learn. Mem. 15, 133–142 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, Y., Lei, Y., Lu, L. & He, Y. Temperature-and food-dependent foraging gene expression in foragers of the red imported fire ant Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Physiol. Entomol. 45, 1–6 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Ingram, K. K. et al. Context-dependent expression of the foraging gene in field colonies of ants: The interacting roles of age, environment and task. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 283, 20160841 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ingram, K. K., Oefner, P. & Gordon, D. M. Task-specific expression of the foraging gene in harvester ants. Mol. Ecol. 14, 813–818 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lucas, C. & Sokolowski, M. B. Molecular basis for changes in behavioral state in ant social behaviors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 6351–6356 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ben-Shahar, Y. The foraging gene, behavioral plasticity, and honeybee division of labor. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 191, 987–994 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Daugherty, T., Toth, A. & Robinson, G. Nutrition and division of labor: Effects on foraging and brain gene expression in the paper wasp Polistes metricus. Mol. Ecol. 20, 5337–5347 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, L. W., Porter, S. D., Daniels, E. & Korzukhin, M. D. Potential global range expansion of the invasive fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Biol. Invasions 6, 183–191 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Valles, S. M., Wetterer, J. K. & Porter, S. D. The red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the West Indies: Distribution of natural enemies and a possible test bed for release of self-sustaining biocontrol agents. Fls. Entomol. 98, 1101–1105 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Greenberg, L., Vinson, S. & Ellison, S. Nine-year study of a field containing both monogyne and polygyne red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 85, 686–695 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Keller, L. & Ross, K. G. Selfish genes: A green beard in the red fire ant. Nature 394, 573–575 (1998).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vinson, S. B. Impact of the invasion of the imported fire ant. Insect Sci. 20, 439–455 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Tschinkel, W. R. The Fire Ants (Harvard University Press, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Cassill, D. L. & Tschinkel, W. R. Task selection by workers of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45, 301–310 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Mirenda, J. T. & Vinson, S. B. Division of labour and specification of castes in the red imported fire ant Solenopsis invicta Buren. Anim. Behav. 29, 410–420 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, E. O. Division of labor in fire ants based on physical castes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Solenopsis). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 51, 615–636 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Sorensen, A., Busch, T. M. & Vinson, S. B. Behavioral flexibility of temporal subcastes in the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta in response to food. Psyche 91, 319–331 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Bigley, W. S. & Vinson, S. B. Characterization of a brood pheromone isolated from the sexual brood of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2, 301–304 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Bajracharya, P., Lu, H. L. & Pietrantonio, P. V. The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren) kept Y not F: Predicted sNPY endogenous ligands deorphanize the short NPF (sNPF) receptor. PLoS ONE 9(10), e109590 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Castillo, P. Short neuropeptide F receptor in the worker brain of the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren) and methodology for RNA interference M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University (2015).Castillo, P. & Pietrantonio, P. V. Differences in sNPF receptor-expressing neurons in brains of fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren) worker subcastes: Indicators for division of labor and nutritional status? PLoS ONE 8, e83966 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cassill, D. L. & Tschinkel, W. R. Allocation of liquid food to larvae via trophallaxis in colonies of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Anim. Behav. 3, 801–813 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Cassill, D. L., Stuy, A. & Buck, R. G. Emergent properties of food distribution among fire ant larvae. J. Theor. Biol. 3, 371–381 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dussutour, A. & Simpson, S. J. Communal nutrition in ants. Curr. Biol. 19, 740–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.015 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petralia, R. S. & Vinson, S. B. Feeding in the larvae of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta: Behavior and morphological adaptations. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 71, 643–648 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Petralia, R. S. & Vinson, S. B. Developmental morphology of larvae and eggs of the imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 72, 472–484 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Chen, J. Advancement on techniques for the separation and maintenance of the red imported fire ant colonies. Insect Sci. 14, 1–4 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Banks, W. A. et al. (Agricultural Research (Southern Region), Science and Education…, 1981).Valles, S. M. & Porter, S. D. Identification of polygyne and monogyne fire ant colonies (Solenopsis invicta) by multiplex PCR of Gp-9 alleles. Insectes Soc. 2, 199–200 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Schmittgen, T. D. & Livak, K. J. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nat. Protoc. 3, 1101 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, D., Zhang, Z., He, X. & Liang, G. Validation of reference genes in Solenopsis invicta in different developmental stages, castes and tissues. PLoS ONE 8, e57718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057718 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, H.-L., Zhao, C.-Y. & He, Y.-R. On the molecular basis of division of labor in Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) workers: RNA-seq analysis. J. Insect Sci. 17, 48 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Chen, J. et al. Role of the foraging gene in worker behavioral transition in the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pest Manag. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6921 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shorter, J. R. & Tibbetts, E. A. The effect of juvenile hormone on temporal polyethism in the paper wasp Polistes dominulus. Insectes Soc. 56, 7–13 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Pankiw, T., Page, R. E. Jr. & Kim Fondrk, M. Brood pheromone stimulates pollen foraging in honey bees (Apis mellifera). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 44, 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050531 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smedal, B., Brynem, M., Kreibich, C. D. & Amdam, G. V. Brood pheromone suppresses physiology of extreme longevity in honeybees (Apis mellifera). J. Exp. Biol. 212, 3795–3801. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.035063 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Solis, C. R. & Strassmann, J. E. Presence of brood affects caste differentiation in the social wasp, Polistes exclamans Viereck (Hymenoptera, Vespidae). Funct. Ecol. 4, 531–541. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389321 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Traynor, K. S. Decoding Brood Pheromone: The Releaser and Primer Effects of Young and Old Larvae on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Workers (Arizona State University, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Wagoner, K. M., Spivak, M. & Rueppell, O. Brood affects hygienic behavior in the honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 111, 2520–2530. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy266 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nijhout, H. F. & Wheeler, D. E. Juvenile hormone and the physiological basis of insect polymorphisms. Q. Rev. Biol. 57, 109–133 (1982).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 p.FAO. in Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en (2020).Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington (2005)CBD. Considerations for Implementing International Standards and Codes of Conduct in National Invasive Species. Strategies and Plans. CBD (2011).Semper-Pascual, A. et al. Using occupancy models to assess the direct and indirect impacts of agricultural expansion on species’ populations. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 3669–3688 (2020).
Google Scholar 
IPCC. Provisional State of the Global Climate. 2022. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/5417cd9148c248c0985a5b6d028b0277, Accessed 23rd December 2022.Nunez, S. & Alkemade, R. Exploring interaction effects from mechanisms between climate and land-use changes and the projected consequences on biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 3685–3696 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Liu, C., White, M. & Newell, G. Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence absence data. Ecography 34, 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06354.x (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hao, T., Elith, J., Lahoz-Monfort, J. J. & Guillera-Arroita, G. Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models. Ecography 43, 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04890 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, G. R., Raxworthy, J. C., Nakamura, M. & Peterson, A. T. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: A test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr 34, 102–117 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Thuiller, W. et al. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 2234–2250 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
He, Y. et al. Predicting potential global distribution and risk regions for potato cyst nematodes (Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pallida). Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–10 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 330–342 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Ashraf, U., Chaudhry, M. N. & Peterson, A. T. Ecological niche models of biotic interactions predict increasing pest risk to olive cultivars with changing climate. Ecosphere 12, e03714. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3714 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17, 43–57 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ganglo, J. C. et al. Ecological niche modeling and strategies for the conservation of Dialium guineense Willd. (Black velvet) in West Africa. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 9, 373–388 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Djotan, A. K. G. et al. How far can climate changes help to conserve and restore Garcinia kola Heckel, an extinct species in the wild in Benin (West Africa). Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 10, 203–213 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kakpo, S. B. et al. Spatial distribution and impacts of climate change on Milicia excelsa in Benin, West Africa. J. For. Res. 32, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-019-01069-7 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M. et al. A global map of terrestrial habitat types. Sci. Data 7(1), 1–8 (2020).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Poor, E. E., Scheick, B. K. & Mullinax, J. M. Multiscale consensus habitat modeling for landscape level conservation prioritization. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–13 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schüßler, D., Mantilla-Contreras, J., Stadtmann, R., Ratsimbazafy, J. H. & Radespiel, U. Identification of crucial stepping stone habitats for biodiversity conservation in northeastern Madagascar using remote sensing and comparative predictive modeling. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 2161–2184 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Campos-Cerqueira, M. et al. Climate change is creating a mismatch between protected areas and suitable habitats for frogs and birds in Puerto Rico. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 3509–3528 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Biddle, R. et al. The value of local community knowledge in species distribution modelling for a threatened Neotropical parrot. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 1803–1823 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Costa, A. et al. Modelling the amphibian chytrid fungus spread by connectivity analysis: Towards a national monitoring network in Italy. Biodivers. Conserv. 30(10), 2807–2825 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Konowalik, K. & Nosol, A. Evaluation metrics and validation of presence-only species distribution models based on distributional maps with varying coverage. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Borgelt, J., Sicacha-Parada, J., Skarpaas, O. & Verones, F. Native range estimates for red-listed vascular plants. Sci. Data 9(1), 1–12 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Brychkova, G. et al. Climate change and land-use change impacts on future availability of forage grass species for Ethiopian dairy systems. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–16 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Carrara, R. & Roig-Juñent, S. A. Maps of potential biodiversity: when the tools for regional conservation planning clash with species ecological niches. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(2), 651–665 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Critchlow, R. et al. Multi-taxa spatial conservation planning reveals similar priorities between taxa and improved protected area representation with climate change. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(2), 683–702 (2022).
Google Scholar 
González-Orozco, C. E., Porcel, M., Rodriguez-Medina, C. & Yockteng, R. Extreme climate refugia: A case study of wild relatives of cacao (Theobroma cacao) in Colombia. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(1), 161–182 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Karami, S., Ejtehadi, H., Moazzeni, H., Vaezi, J. & Behroozian, M. Minimal climate change impacts on the geographic distribution of Nepeta glomerulosa, medicinal species endemic to southwestern and central Asia. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–10 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Montemayor, S. I., Besteiro, S. I. & del Río, M. G. Integrating ecological and biogeographical tools for the identification of conservation areas in two Neotropical biogeographic provinces in Argentina based on phytophagous insects. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(7), 1969–1986 (2022).
Google Scholar 
da Silva, L. B. et al. How future climate change and deforestation can drastically affect the species of monkeys endemic to the eastern Amazon, and priorities for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(3), 971–988 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Yousefi, M. & Naderloo, R. Global habitat suitability modeling reveals insufficient habitat protection for mangrove crabs. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–9 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Yudaputra, A. et al. Habitat preferences, spatial distribution and current population status of endangered giant flower Amorphophallus titanum. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(3), 831–854 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Gomes, V. H. et al. Species distribution modelling: Contrasting presence-only models with plot abundance data. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hoveka, L. N., van der Bank, M., Bezeng, B. S. & Davies, T. J. Identifying biodiversity knowledge gaps for conserving South Africa’s endemic flora. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 2803–2819 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Macdonald, D. W. et al. Predicting biodiversity richness in rapidly changing landscapes: Climate, low human pressure or protection as salvation?. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 4035–4057 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Peng, Y., Feng, J., Sang, W. & Axmacher, J. C. Geographical divergence of species richness and local homogenization of plant assemblages due to climate change in grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(3), 797–810 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Rincón, V. et al. Connectivity of Natura 2000 potential natural riparian habitats under climate change in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula: Implications for their conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 31(2), 585–612 (2022).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Leta, S. et al. Modeling the global distribution of Culicoides imicola: An Ensemble approach. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1–9 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Messina, J. P. et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat. Microbiol. 4(9), 1508–1515 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Redding, D. W. et al. Impacts of environmental and socio-economic factors on emergence and epidemic potential of Ebola in Africa. Nat. Commun. 10, 4531 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Klitting, R. et al. Predicting the evolution of the Lassa virus endemic area and population at risk over the next decades. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 1–15 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Li, Y. P., Gao, X., An, Q., Sun, Z. & Wang, H. B. Ecological niche modeling based on ensemble algorithms to predicting current and future potential distribution of African swine fever virus in China. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–11 (2022).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Oppel, S., Schaefer, H. M., Schmidt, V. & Schröder, B. How much suitable habitat is left for the last known population of the Pale-headed Brush-Finch?. The Condor 106, 429–434 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Heikkinen, R. K., Marmion, M. & Luoto, M. Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability?. Ecography 35, 276–288 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Manzoor, S. A., Griffiths, G. & Lukac, M. Species distribution model transferability and model grain size–finer may not always be better. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–9 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Yates, K. L. et al. Outstanding challenges in the transferability of ecological models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.001 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gantchoff, M. G. et al. Distribution model transferability for a wide-ranging species, the Gray Wolf. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 1–11 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Lyam, P. T., Adeyemi, T. O. & Ogundipe, O. T. Distribution modelling of Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don. in South-West Nigeria. J. Nat. Environ. Sci. 3, 7–14 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Orwa, C., Mutua, A., Kindt, R., Jamnadass, R., & Simons, A. Agroforestree Database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af/treedb/ (2009).Bolanle-Ojo, O. T. & Onyekwelu, J. C. Socio-economic importance of Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don. Rainforest and derived savanna ecosystems of Ondo state, Nigeria. Eur. J. Agric. For. Res. 2, 43–51 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Ugwu, J. A. & Umeh, V. C. Assessment of African star apple (Chrysophyllum albidum) fruit damage due to insect pests in Ibadan Southwest Nigeria. Res. J. For. 9, 87–92 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Akoegninou, A., Van der Burg, W. J. & Van der Maesen, L. J. G. in Flore Analytique du Bénin (No. 06.2). Backhuys Publishers. (2006).Houessou, L. G., Lougbegnon, T. O., Gbesso, F. G., Anagonou, L. E. & Sinsin, B. Ethno-botanical study of the African star apple (Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don) in the Southern Benin (West Africa). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 8, 1–10 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lougbégnon, O. T., Nassi, K. M. & Gbesso, G. H. F. Ethnobotanique quantitative de l’usage de Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don par les populations locales au Bénin. J. Appl. Biosci. 95, 9028–9038 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Nartey, D., Gyesi, J. N., & Borquaye, L. S. Chemical composition and biological activities of the essential oils of Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don (African star apple). Biochem. Res. Int. 2021 (2021).Olajide, O., Udo, E. S., & Out, D. O. Diversity and population of timber tree species producing valuable non-timber products in two tropical rainforests in cross river state, Nigeria. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. ISSN Print 1813–2235 (2008)Platts, P. J., Omeny, P. & Marchant, R. AFRICLIM: High-resolution climate projections for ecological applications in Africa. Afr. J. Ecol. 53, 103–108 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Hajima, T. et al. Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 2197–2244 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. An R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lannuzel, G., Balmot, J., Dubos, N., Thibault, M. & Fogliani, B. High-resolution topographic variables accurately predict the distribution of rare plant species for conservation area selection in a narrow-endemism hotspot in New Caledonia. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 963–990 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Scales, K. L. et al. Scale of inference: On the sensitivity of habitat models for wide-ranging marine predators to the resolution of environmental data. Ecography 40, 210–220 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. (2017) WorldClim 2: New 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37(12), 4302–4315 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Center for International Earth Science Information Network: CIESIN—Columbia University. 2021. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Administrative Unit Center Points with Population Estimates, Revision 11. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Last Accessed 7th December, 2021. https://doi.org/10.7927/H4BC3WMT (2018)Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 (2016).Article 
ADS 

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).
Google Scholar 
Naimi, B. & Araújo, M. B. sdm: A reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography 39, 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01881 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2020)Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R. & Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 802–813 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 (2001).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, B. & Agresti, A. Summarizing the predictive power of a generalized linear model. Stat. Med. 19, 1771–1781 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hastie, T. J. in Generalized Additive Models, Statistical models, 249–307 (Routledge, 2017).Friedman, J. H. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann. Stat. 19, 1–67 (1991).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: How, where and how many?. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 327–338 (2012).
Google Scholar 
QGIS Development Team. QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org (2021)Fandohan, B. et al. Women’s traditional knowledge, use value, and the contribution of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) to rural households’ cash income in Benin. Econ. Bot. 64, 248–259 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Gouwakinnou, G. N., Lykke, A. M., Assogbadjo, A. E. & Sinsin, B. Local knowledge, pattern and diversity of use of Sclerocarya birrea. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7, 1–9 (2011).
Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, M. S. & Ignizio, D. A. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. US Geological Surv. Data Ser. 691, 4–9 (2012).
Google Scholar 
United Nations. 2022. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100, Accessed 25th December 2022 .Gbesso, F. H. G., Tente, B. H. A., Gouwakinnou, G. N. & Sinsin, B. A. Influence des changements climatiques sur la distribution géographique de Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don (Sapotaceae) au Benin. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 7, 2007–2018 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Mi, C., Huettmann, F., Guo, Y., Han, X. & Wen, L. Why choose random forest to predict rare species distribution with few samples in large undersampled areas? Three Asian crane species models provide supporting evidence. Peer J. 5, e2849. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2849 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Segurado, P. & Araujo, M. B. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 31, 1555–1568 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G. et al. Model-based uncertainty in species range prediction. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1704–1711 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Dambros, C. et al. The role of environmental filtering, geographic distance and dispersal barriers in shaping the turnover of plant and animal species in Amazonia. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 3609–3634 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

Flash recordingAll field recording and experiments were performed at the paddy field in the Northern Chita Peninsula, Aichi Prefecture, central Japan, in June and July between 2003 and 2016. The ambient temperature at the firefly’s active period was measured using a thermometer. The flashes were recorded with a digital video camera (NV-GS-400, Panasonic, Japan) mounted on a tripod at a height of 30–50 cm from ground and a distance of 1.0–1.5 m away from the specimen. Isolated specimens were selected for recording to exclude the background light from other nontarget specimens. When another specimen appeared near the target specimen, the video recording was cancelled. When a female copulated during video recording in the field, her flashes until 1 min before copulation were regarded as those of a ‘receptive female’. To record the flashes of a ‘mated female’, the female specimens already mated were prepared in aquariums (because virgin and mated females cannot be distinguished in the field): the eggs were obtained from wild female specimens collected one year before at the same field and reared to adults; immediately after emergence the virgin female was confined in a small container with two cultured males for two nights to facilitate copulation. As the parents of the reared specimens were collected from the observation field (same genetic background), the rearing temperature was almost the same as that of the natural field, the emergence period of the cultured specimens overlapped with that of the natural population, the adult body sizes of the reared and natural specimens were indistinguishable, and the flash pattern of the cultured mated females was indistinguishable from that of the wild (potentially) mated females. Thus, we believe that there was no influence of different rearing environments, i.e., the flash behavior of the cultured mated female specimens is expected to be substantially the same as that of wild mated female specimens. To distinguish them from wild (potentially) mated females, the elytra of cultured mated females were marked with colored ink before placing them in the field, and after three days, the flashes of ink-marked specimens were recorded. Of note, we never observed male attraction and copulation in any of the mated females used for field observation; thus, the mated females were unreceptive.Waveform analysisSequential still images were captured from video files at 30 frames per second using VirtualDub (GPL), and then the light intensities in the images were qualified (8-bit linear gray scaling from black to white at 0–255) using ImageJ software. In this study, we defined ‘flash’ as a luminescent waveform from baseline to baseline and ‘flickering’ as fluctuation above baseline in a single flash. The waveforms containing a saturated signal (255, white) were omitted. The waveforms of the maximum signal value lower than 50 were also omitted because of the difficulty in separating signal and noise. Approximately 10–90 waveforms per individual were analyzed; thus, the effect of the occasional interruption of the flash recording by the specimen’s movement and/or vegetation swinging between the specimen and the video camera is statistically ignorable. FD is defined as the time interval between the beginning and the end of a flash (Fig. S1). Flicker intensity (FI) was defined as$${text{FI}} = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}l} {mathop {max }limits_{1 le i le n} left( {frac{{{text{min}}left( {p_{i} ,p_{i + 1} } right) – t_{i} }}{{min left( {p_{i} , p_{i + 1} } right) + t_{i} }}} right)} hfill & {{text{if}} , n ge 1} hfill \ 0 hfill & {{text{if}} , n = 0} hfill \ end{array} } right.$$where p, t, and n denote the peak and the trough (local extrema) in the waveform of a flash and the number of toughs in the flash, respectively (Fig. S1). In total, we measured the FD and FI values of 347, 94, and 355 waveforms from 13 sedentary males, 7 receptive females, and 8 mated females, respectively. We did not consider the flash brightness as a factor because the measured value of the light intensity depends largely on the distance between the light source and the detector; thus, the actual brightness of the lantern cannot be practically measured in the field.e-FireflyFor male attraction experiments, we built an electronic LED device, the e-firefly, to generate patterned flashes with various FDs and FIs using a chip LED (green type, λmax = 568 nm, Everlight Electronics, Taiwan; Figs. S2 and S3) with a microcontroller PIC16F628A (Microchip Technology, USA) (see Figs. S4-S5). An example of the program for the microcontroller is shown in Supplementary Data S1. The brightness was constant in all programs. Flickering frequency ranged between 5–12 Hz, which corresponds to that of sedentary male flashes (approximately 10 Hz)15. To prevent direct access of the attracted specimen to the light source, the chip LED was covered by a steel net painted green (see Fig. S2). For flying male attraction experiments, when the male landed within a 100-mm distance from the e-firefly, we judged the attraction to be a success; otherwise, it was a failure. For sedentary male attraction experiments, the e-firefly was placed 200–300 mm away from the sedentary male. When the approaching male touched the steel net covering the e-firefly, to warrant a positive approach, we measured the time the male remained on the net. If the male did not move away from the net for more than 2 min, we judged the attraction to be a success (strict criterion for judgment); otherwise, it was a failure.Spectral measurementThe luminescence spectra of e-firefly and A. lateralis were measured using a Flame-S spectrophotometer (Ocean Insight, USA). The living A. lateralis specimens were anesthetized on ice and frozen at − 20 °C until use. The lantern started luminescence by thawing at room temperature, and the spectrum was measured during luminescence (within 5 min).Statistical analysisFirst, we considered a discriminant analysis using a logistic regression model that discriminates between receptive females and others in the observational data. We fitted several models with combinations of FD and FI, quadratic terms of FD and FI (FD2, FI2), interaction of FD and FI (FD (times) FI), and temperature (T) as explanatory variables. Based on Akaike’s information criteria (AIC) values and model simplicity, we chose the logistic regression model with FD, FI, FD2 and T as explanatory variables. Let (p)(({varvec{x}})) denote the conditional probability that a flash is from a receptive female given ({varvec{x}}=left(mathrm{FD},mathrm{ FI},mathrm{ T}right)) and (widehat{p})(({varvec{x}})) denote its estimate. The coefficients of the logistic regression model are estimated as follows.
[Model for the observational data with temperature (T)]
$$begin{gathered} {text{log}}frac{{hat{p}}}{{1 – hat{p}}} = begin{array}{*{20}l} { – 32.26 + 69.69 times FD – 43.47 times FI – 76.63 times FD^{2} + 0.87 times T} hfill \ {~quad left( {6.50} right)quad quad left( {15.37} right)quad quad quad left( {8.56} right)quad quad quad quad left( {17.44} right)quad quad quad left( {0.19} right)~~} hfill \ end{array} hfill \ quad {text{AIC: 84}}{text{.75}} hfill \ end{gathered}$$[Model for the observational data without temperature (T)]$$begin{gathered} {text{log}}frac{{hat{p}}}{{1 – hat{p}}} = begin{array}{*{20}l} { – 7.69~ + 47.57 times FD~ – 38.29 times FI~ – 52.86 times FD^{2} ~} hfill \ {~;left( {1.86} right)quad quad left( {9.68} right)quad quad quad left( {7.08} right)quad quad quad quad left( {11.38} right)~~} hfill \ end{array} hfill \ quad {text{AIC: 114}}{text{.89}} hfill \ end{gathered}$$where values in parentheses indicate standard deviations. The same applies hereafter. Temperature (T) is included in the model not because it affects the occurrence of receptive females but because it affects the FD and/or FI of receptive females. The AIC value increased by 30, which is substantial, when temperature was excluded from the model.Figure 2 shows the FD and FI of each flash from receptive females, mated females and males with the discriminant boundaries of receptive females from others for (p=0.5).We next considered a discriminant analysis for the experimental data. Let ({q}^{f}({varvec{x}})) denote the conditional probability that a flying male is attracted to a flash of ({varvec{x}}=left(mathrm{FD},mathrm{ FI},mathrm{ T}right)) and lands, and ({widehat{q}}^{f}({varvec{x}})) denote its estimate. Among several models we fit, the smallest AIC value is attained by the logistic regression model with FD, FI and T as explanatory variables, but the AIC is not much different from the model with FD and FI only.
[Model for flying males with temperature (T)]
$$begin{gathered} {text{log}}frac{{hat{q}^{f} }}{{1 – hat{q}^{f} }} = begin{array}{*{20}l} { – 0.74~~ – 2.42 times FD – 16.82 times FI + 0.31 times T} hfill \ {~;left( {4.01} right)quad quad left( {0.83} right)quad quad quad left( {4.88} right)quad quad quad quad left( {0.20} right)~} hfill \ end{array} hfill \ quad {text{AIC}}:66.96 hfill \ end{gathered}$$

[Model for flying males without temperature (T)]
$$begin{gathered} {text{log}}frac{{hat{q}^{f} }}{{1 – hat{q}^{f} }} = begin{array}{*{20}l} { – 5.36~ – 1.72 times FD – 13.69 times FI} hfill \ {~;left( {1.49} right)quad quad left( {0.63} right)~quad quad left( {4.09} right)~~} hfill \ end{array} hfill \ quad {text{AIC}}:67.61 hfill \ end{gathered}$$
For sedentary males, the model with the smallest AIC value includes all the quadratic terms of FI and FD but not temperature. Let ({q}^{s}({varvec{x}})) denote the conditional probability that a sedentary male is attracted to a flash of ({varvec{x}}=left(mathrm{FD},mathrm{ FI},mathrm{ T}right)) and ({widehat{q}}^{s}left({varvec{x}}right)) denote its estimate. The logistic regression model for ({q}^{s}({varvec{x}})) with the best AIC value is given as follows.
[Model for sedentary males]
$${text{log}}frac{{hat{q}~^{s} }}{{1 – hat{q}~^{s} }} = begin{array}{*{20}l} { – 0.68~ + 7.84 times FD~ + 48.17 times FI – 5.35 times FD^{2} – 166.70 times FI^{2} – 65.67 times FD times FI} hfill \ {;left( {0.97} right)quad quad quad left( {2.99} right)quad quad quad left( {17.74} right)quad quad quad left( {1.74} right)quad quad quad quad left( {72.34} right)quad quad quad quad left( {17.67} right)~} hfill \ end{array}$$
Figure 3 shows successes and failures of attraction of flying males on the left and sedentary males on the right with estimated discriminant boundaries.Let us now estimate probabilities that a flying male is attracted and lands or a sedentary male is attracted to a flash when a flash is from a receptive female or when a flash is either from a sedentary male or mated female. The probability that a flying male is attracted and lands when a flash is from a receptive female is a conditional probability and is expressed as follows.$$begin{aligned} Pleft(left.begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} right|begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} right) & = frac{{Pleft( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} {text{ and }}begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} } right) }}{{Pleft( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{Receptive}}} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} } right)}}, \ Pleft( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{Receptive}}} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} } right) & = mathop int_{Omega } Pleft(left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{Receptive}}} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} right|{varvec{x}} right)fleft( {varvec{x}} right)d{varvec{x}} = mathop int_{Omega }pleft( {varvec{x}} right) fleft( {varvec{x}} right)d{varvec{x}} hspace{5mm}{text{and}} \ Pleft( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} {text{ and }}begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} } right) & = mathop int_{Omega } Pleft(left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{Receptive}}} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} right|varvec{x} right)Pleft(left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} right|{varvec{x}} right)fleft( {varvec{x}} right)d{varvec{x}} \ & = mathop int_{Omega } pleft( varvec{x} right)q^{f} left( {varvec{x}} right)fleft( {varvec{x}} right)d{varvec{x}}mathbf{.} \ end{aligned}$$Integrals are taken over the domain (Omega) of ({varvec{x}}=(FD, FI, T)) of all females and males, and (f({varvec{x}})) is the joint density function of ({varvec{x}}.) Because (f({varvec{x}})) is unknown, we use the empirical distribution of the observational data, and conditional probabilities given ({varvec{x}}) are replaced with their estimates by logistic regression models. Let ({{varvec{x}}}_{i}=left(F{D}_{i}, F{I}_{i}, {T}_{i}right), i=mathrm{1,2},dots N) denote the (i) th observation in the observational data. The estimates of probabilities are given as follows:$$begin{aligned} hat{P}left( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{Receptive}}} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} }right) & = frac{1}{N}mathop sum limits_{i = 1}^{n} hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right) hspace{15mm} {text{and}} \ hat{P}left( {begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} {text{ and }}begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {{text{female}}} \ end{array} } right) & = frac{1}{N}mathop sum limits_{i = 1}^{n} hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right) hat{q}^{f} left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right). \ end{aligned}$$Thus,$$hat{P}left( left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} right| begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {text{female}} \ end{array} right) = frac{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right) hat{q}^{f} left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right)}}{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n}hat{p}left(varvec{x}_i right)}}.$$Similarly, we have$$begin{aligned} hat{P}left( left.begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Flying male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array}right| {text{Others}} right) & = frac{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (1 – hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right)) hat{q}^{f} left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right)}}{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (1 – hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right))}} \ hat{P}left( left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Sedentary male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array} right| begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Receptive }} \ {text{female}} \ end{array} right)& = frac{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} hat{p}left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right) hat{q}^{s} left( {{varvec{x}}_{i} } right)}}{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} hat{p}left( varvec{x}_{i} right)}}hspace{15mm} {text{ and}} \hat{P}left(left. begin{array}{*{20}c} {text{Sedentary male}} \ {text{is attracted}} \ end{array}right| {text{Others}} right) & = frac{{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} left( {1 – hat{p}left( varvec{x}_{i} right)} right) hat{q}^{s} left( {varvec{x}_{i} } right)}}{mathop sum nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} left( {1 – hat{p}left( varvec{x}_{i} right)} right)} . \ end{aligned}$$The estimated probabilities are shown in Table 1.Table 1 Estimated probabilities of a flying male and a sedentary male being attracted to flashes from a receptive female and from others.Full size table More

The flightless dodo went extinct in the seventeenth century. Biotech company Colossal Biosciences plans to resurrect it.Credit: Hart, F/Bridgeman Images

A biotech company announced an audacious effort to ‘de-extinct’ the dodo last week. The flightless birds vanished from the island of Mauritius — in the Indian Ocean — in the late seventeenth century, and became emblematic of humanity’s negative impacts on the natural world. Could the plan actually work?Colossal Biosciences, based in Dallas, Texas, has landed US$225 million in investment (including funds from the celebrity Paris Hilton) — having previously announced plans to de-extinct thylacines, an Australian marsupial, and create elephants with woolly mammoth traits. But Colossal’s plans depend on huge advances in genome editing, stem-cell biology and animal husbandry, making success far from certain.“It’s incredibly exciting that there’s that kind of money available,” says Thomas Jensen, a cell and molecular reproductive physiologist at Wells College in Aurora, New York. “I’m not sure that the end goal they’re going for is something that’s super feasible in the near future.”Iridescent pigeonsColossal’s plan starts with the dodo’s closest living relative, the iridescent-feathered Nicobar pigeon (Caloenas nicobarica). The company plans to isolate and culture specialized primordial germ cells (PGCs) — which make sperm and egg-producing cells — from developing Nicobars. Colossal’s scientists would edit DNA sequences in the PGCs to match those of dodos using tools such as CRISPR. These gene-edited PGCs would then be inserted into embryos from a surrogate bird species to generate chimeric — those with DNA from both species — animals that make dodo-like egg and sperm. These could potentially produce something resembling a dodo (Raphus cucullatus).To gene-edit Nicobar pigeon PGCs, scientists first need to identify the conditions that allow these cells to flourish in the laboratory, says Jae Yong Han, an avian-reproduction scientist at Seoul National University. Researchers have done this with chickens, but it will take time to identify the appropriate culture conditions that suit other birds’ PGCs.A greater challenge will be determining the genetic changes that could transform Nicobar pigeons into Dodos. A team including Beth Shapiro, a palaeogeneticist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is advising Colossal on the dodo project, has sequenced the dodo genome but has not yet published the results. Dodos and Nicobar pigeons shared a common ancestor that lived around 30 million to 50 million years ago, Shapiro’s team reported in 20161. By comparing the nuclear genomes of the two birds, the researchers hope to identify most of the DNA changes that distinguish between them.Insights from ratsTom Gilbert, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who also advises Colossal, expects the dodo genome to be of high quality — it comes from a museum sample he provided to Shapiro. But he says that finding all the DNA differences between the two birds is not possible. Ancient genomes are cobbled together from short sequences of degraded DNA, and so are filled with unavoidable gaps and errors. And research he published last year comparing the genome of the extinct Christmas Island rat (Rattus macleari) with that of the Norwegian brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)2 suggests that gaps in the dodo genome could lie in the very DNA regions that have changed the most since its lineage split from that of Nicobar pigeons.Even if researchers could identify every genetic difference, introducing the thousands of changes to PGCs would not be simple. “I’m not sure it’s feasible in the near future,” says Jensen, whose team is encountering difficulties making a single genetic change to the genomes of quail.Focusing on only a subset of DNA changes, such as those that alter protein sequences, could slash the number of edits needed. But it’s still not clear that this would yield anything resembling a wild dodo, says Gilbert. “My worry is that Paris Hilton thinks she’s going to get a dodo that looks like a dodo,” he says.A further problem will be the need to find a large bird, such as an emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), that can act as the surrogate, says Jensen. “Dodo eggs are much, much larger than Nicobar pigeon eggs, you couldn’t grow a dodo inside of a Nicobar egg.”Chicken embryos are fairly receptive to PGCs from other birds, and Jensen’s team has created chimeric chickens that can produce quail sperm — efforts to generate eggs have failed so far. But he thinks it will be far more challenging to transfer PGCs — particularly heavily gene-edited ones — from one wild bird into another.Conservation boon?Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm acknowledges these hurdles, but argues they aren’t dealbreakers. Work towards dodo de-extinction will help with conservation efforts for other birds, he adds. “It will bring a lot of new technologies to the field of bird conservation,” agrees Jensen.Vikash Tatayah, conservation director at the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation in Vacoas-Phoenix, is also enthusiastic about the attention dodo de-extinction could bring to conservation. “It’s something we would like to embrace,” he says.But he points out that the predators that threatened the dodo in the seventeeth century haven’t gone away, whereas most of its habitat has. “You do have to ask,” he says, “if we could have such money, wouldn’t it be better spent on restoring habitat on Mauritius and preventing species from going extinct?” More

Davidson, S. C. et al. Ecological insights from three decades of animal movement tracking across a changing arctic. Science 370, 712–715 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 224–228 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Both, C., Bouwhuis, S., Lessells, C. M. & Visser, M. E. Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441, 81–83 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Studds, C. E. & Marra, P. P. Rainfall-induced changes in food availability modify the spring departure programme of a migratory bird. Proc. R. Sci. B. 278, 3437–3443 (2011).
Google Scholar 
González, A. M., Bayly, N. J. & Hobson, K. A. Earlier and slower or later and faster: spring migration pace linked to departure time in a Neotropical migrant songbird. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2840–2851 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Liedvogel, M., Åkesson, S. & Bensch, S. The genetics of migration on the move. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 561–569 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Caprioli, M. et al. Clock gene variation is associated with breeding phenology and maybe under directional selection in the migratory barn swallow. PLoS ONE 7, e35140 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mettler, R., Segelbacher, G. & Schaefer, M. H. Interactions between a candidate gene for migration (ADCYAP1), morphology and sex predict spring arrival in blackcap populations. PLoS ONE 10, e0144587 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bazzi, G. et al. Clock gene polymorphism and scheduling of migration: a geolocator study of the barn swallow Hirundo rustica. Sci. Rep. 5, 12443 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Saino, N. et al. Polymorphism at the Clock gene predicts phenology of long-distance migratoin in birds. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1758–1773 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bossu, C. M. et al. Clock-linked genes underlie seasonal migratory timing in a diurnal raptor. Proc. R. Soc. B. 289, 20212507 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Malley, K. G., Ford, M. J. & Hard, J. J. Clock polymorphism in Pacific salmon: evidence for variable selection along a latitudinal gradient. Proc. R. Soc. B. 277, 3703–3714 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Peterson, M. P. et al. Variation in candidate genes CLOCK and ADCYAP1 does not consistently predict differences in migratory behavior in the songbird genus Junco. F1000Research 2 (2013).McKinnon, E. A. & Ten Love, O. P. years tracking the migrations of small landbirds: Lessons learned in the golden age of bio-logging. Auk 135, 834–856 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Fraser, K. C. et al. Continent-wide tracking to determine migratory connectivity and tropical habitat associations of a declining aerial insectivore. Proc. R. Soc. B. 279, 4901–4906 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Neufeld, L. R. et al. Breeding latitude is associated with the timing of nesting and migration around the annual calendar among purple martin Progne subis populations. J. Ornithol. 162, 1009–1024 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Peona, V. et al. Identifying the causes and consequences of assembly gaps using a multiplatform genome assembly of a bird-of-paradise. Mol. Ecol. 21(1), 263–286 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Coelho, L. A., Musher, L. J. & Cracraft, J. A multireference-based whole genome assembly for the obligate ant-following antbird, Rhegmatorhina melanosticta (Thamnophilidae). Diversity 11(19), 144 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Carbonetto, P. & Stephens, M. Polygenic modeling with Bayesian sparse linear mixed models. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003264 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuller, Z. L. et al. Population genetics of the coral Acropora millepora: Towards a genomic predictor of bleaching. Science 369(6501) (2019).Jones, S., Pfister-Genskow, M., Benca, R. M. & Cirelli, C. Molecular correlates of sleep and wakefulness in the brain of the white-crowned sparrow. J. Neurochem. 105, 46–62 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, C. et al. Sleep regulation by neurotensinergic neurons in a thalamo-amygdala circuit. Neuron 103 (2019).Wong, J. M. & Eirin-Lopez, J. M. Evolution of methyltransferase-like (METTL) proteins in metazoan: a complex gene family involved in epitranscriptomic regulation and other epigenetic processes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 5309–5327 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jia, Z. et al. ACSS3 in brown fast drives propionate catabolism and its deficiency leads to autophagy and systemic metabolic dysfunction. Clin. Transl. Med. 12, e665 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muller, F. et al. Towards a conceptual framework for explaining variation in nocturnal departure time of songbird migrants. Mov. Ecol. 4, 24 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Fraser, K. C. et al. Individual variability in migration timing can explain long-term population-level advances in a songbird. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 324 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barret, R. D. H. & Schluter, D. Adaptation from standing genetic variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23(1), 38–44 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Colodro-Conde, L. et al. A direct test of the diathesis-stress model for depression. Mol. Psychiatry 23, 1590–1596 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Dudbridge, F. Power and predictive accuracy of polygenic risk scores. PLOS Genetics 9(4) (2013).Lavallée, C. D. et al. The use of nocturnal flights for barrier crossing in a diurnally migrating songbird. Mov. Ecol. 9, 21 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Saino, N. et al. Migration phenology and breeding success are predicted by methylation of a photoperiodic gene in the barn swallow. Sci. Rep. 7, 45412 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Henry, R. A. et al. Changing the selectivity of p300 by acetyl-CoA modulation of histone acetylation. ACS Chem. Biol 10, 146–156 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sun, H., Skorgerbø, G., Wang, Z., Liu, W. & Li, Y. Structural relationships between highly conserved elements and genes in vertebrate genomes. PLoS ONE 3, e3727 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chin, C. S. et al. Phased diploid genome assembly with single-molecule real-time sequencing. Nat. Methods 13, 1050–1054 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chin, C. S. et al. Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat. Methods 10, 563–569 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koren, S. et al. Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 27, 722–736 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. J. et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS ONE 9, e112963 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coombe, L. et al. ARKS: Chromosome-scale scaffolding of human genome drafts with linked read kmers. BMC Bioinform. 19, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Campbell, M. S., Holt, C., Moore, B. & Yandell, M. Genome annotation and curation using MAKER and MAKER‐P. Curr. Protocols Bioinform. 48, 4.11.1–4.11.39 (2014).Malmberg, M. M. et al. Evaluation and recommendations for routine genotyping using skim whole genome re-sequencing in canola. Front. Plant. Sci. 9 (2018).Browning, B. L. & Browning, S. R. Genotype imputation with millions of reference samples. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 116–126 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Golicz, A. A., Bayer, P. E. & Edwards, D. Skim-based genotyping by sequencing. Methods Mol. Biol. 1245, 257–270 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hill, R. D. Theory of geolocation by light levels. In B. J. L. Boeuf, & R. M. Laws (Ed.), Elephant seals: Population ecology, behaviour and physiology, pp. 227–236. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1994).Wotherspoon, S., Summer, M. & Lisovski, S. BAStag: basic data processing for light based geolocation archival tags. Version 0.1.3. (2016).Lisovski, S. & Hahn, S. GeoLight-processing and anslysing light-based geolocator data in R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 1055–1059 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Gompert, Z., Lucas, L. K., Nice, C. C. & Buerkle, C. A. Genome divergence and the genetic architecture of barriers to gene flow between Lycaeides idas and L. melissa. Evolution 67, 2498–2514 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Pfeifer, S. P. et al. The evolutionary history of Nebraska deer mice: local adaptation in the face of strong gene flow. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 792–806 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Choi, S. W., Mak, T. S. & O’Reilly, P. F. Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analysis. Nat Protoc 15, 2759–2772 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cruickshank, T. E. & Hahn, M. W. Reanalysis suggests that genomic islands of speciation are due to reduced diversity, not reduced gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3133–3157 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Vijay, N. et al. Evolution of heterogeneous genome differentiation across multiple contact zones in a crow species complex. Nat. Commun. 7, 13195 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Delmore, K. et al. The evolutionary history and genomics of European blackcap migration. eLife 9, e54462 (2020). More

Waters, C. N. et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351, 137. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, J. A. & Morris, M. G. Patterns, mechanisms and rates of extinction among invertebrates in the United Kingdom. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 344, 47–54 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, J. A. et al. Comparative losses of british butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095046 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9931 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, 21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barmentlo, S. H. et al. Experimental evidence for neonicotinoid driven decline in aquatic emerging insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, 8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105692118j1of8 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehlers, B. K., Bataillon, T. & Damgaard, C. F. Ongoing decline in insect-pollinated plants across Danish grasslands. Biol. Lett. 17, 20210493. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0493 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cardoso, P. et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Montgomery, G. A. et al. Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol. Conserv. 241, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108327 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jactel, H. et al. Insect decline: immediate action is needed. C. R. Biol. 343, 267–293. https://doi.org/10.5802/crbiol.37 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Owens, A. C. S. et al. Light pollution is a driver of insect declines. Biol. Conserv. 241, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Michalko, R., Pekar, S. & Entling, M. H. An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control. Oecologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4313-1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyffeler, M., Sterling, W. & Dean, D. How spiders make a living. Environ. Entomol. 23, 1357–1367 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Branco, V. V. & Cardoso, P. An expert-based assessment of global threats and conservation measures for spiders. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 24, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01290 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gobbi, M., Fontaneto, D. & De Bernardi, F. Influence of climate changes on animal communities in space and time: The case of spider assemblages along an alpine glacier foreland. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 1985–1992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01236.x (2006).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mammola, S., Goodacre, S. L. & Isaia, M. Climate change may drive cave spiders to extinction. Ecography 41, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02902 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potapov, A. M. et al. Functional losses in ground spider communities due to habitat structure degradation under tropical land-use change. Ecology 101, e02957. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2957 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kormann, U. et al. Local and landscape management drive trait-mediated biodiversity of nine taxa on small grassland fragments. Divers. Distrib. 21, 1204–1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12324 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hogg, B. N. & Daane, K. M. Ecosystem services in the face of invasion: the persistence of native and nonnative spiders in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Appl. 21, 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0496.1 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galle, R., Happe, A. K., Baillod, A. B., Tscharntke, T. & Batary, P. Landscape configuration, organic management, and within-field position drive functional diversity of spiders and carabids. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13257 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pekár, S. Spiders (Araneae) in the pesticide world: An ecotoxicological review. Pest. Manage. Sci. 68, 1438–1446. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3397 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bommarco, R., Miranda, F., Bylund, H. & Bjorkman, C. Insecticides suppress natural enemies and increase pest damage in cabbage. J. Econ. Entomol. 104, 782–791. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec10444 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B. & Isaac, N. J. B. Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nature Ecol. Evol. 4, 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1111-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rix, M. G. et al. Where have all the spiders gone? The decline of a poorly known invertebrate fauna in the agricultural and arid zones of southern Australia. Austral Entomol. 56, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12258 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyffeler, M. & Bonte, D. Where have all the spiders gone? Observations of a dramatic population density decline in the once very abundant garden spider, Araneus diadematus (Araneae: Araneidae), in the Swiss Midland. Insects 11, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040248 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowden, J. J., Hansen, O. L. P., Olsen, K., Schmidt, N. M. & Høye, T. T. Drivers of inter-annual variation and long-term change in High-Arctic spider species abundances. Polar Biol. 41, 1635–1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-018-2351-0 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samu, F., Németh, J. & Kiss, B. Assessment of the efficiency of a hand-held suction device for sampling spiders: Improved density estimation or oversampling?. Ann. Appl. Biol. 130, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1997.tb06840.x (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nentwig, W. et al. Spiders of Europe. Version 07.2022. https://www.araneae.nmbe.ch (2022).Heimer, S. & Nentwig, W. Spinnen Mitteleuropas (Paul Parey, 1991).
Google Scholar 
Samu, F. & Szinetár, C. On the nature of agrobiont spiders. J. Arachnol. 30, 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1636/0161-8202(2002)030[0389:Otnoas]2.0.Co;2 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchar, J. & Růžička, V. Catalogue of Spiders of the Czech Republic (Peres, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Samu, F. A general data model for databases in experimental animal ecology. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 45, 273–290 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Laliberté, E., Legendre, P. & Shipley, B. FD: Measuring Functional Diversity from Multiple Traits, and Other Tools for Functional Ecology. R package version 1.0–12. (2014).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A., Ieno, E., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. & Smith, G. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, 2009).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Vegan. Community Ecology Package. R package Version 2.5–6. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (2019).ter Braak, C. J. F. & Smilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination, Version 5.1x. (Microcomputer Power, 2018).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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169156 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H. & Baba, Y. G. DNA metabarcoding of spiders, insects, and springtails for exploring potential linkage between above- and below-ground food webs. Zool. Lett. 4, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40851-018-0088-9 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lister, B. C. & Garcia, A. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10397–E10406. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722477115 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harwood, J. D., Sunderland, K. D. & Symondson, W. O. C. Monoclonal antibodies reveal the potential of the tetragnathid spider Pachygnatha degeeri (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) as an aphid predator. Bull. Entomol. Res. 95, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1079/BER2004346 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Samu, F., Beleznai, O. & Tholt, G. A potential spider natural enemy against virus vector leafhoppers in agricultural mosaic landscapes: Corroborating ecological and behavioral evidence. Biol. Control. 67, 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.08.016 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biteniekyté, M. & Relys, V. Epigeic spider communities of a peat bog and adjacent habitats. Rev. Iber. Aracnol. 15, 81–87 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Michalko, R., Kosulic, O., Hula, V. & Surovcova, K. Niche differentiation of two sibling wolf spider species, Pardosa lugubris and Pardosa alacris, along a canopy openness gradient. J. Arachnol. 44, 46–51 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyffeler, M. & Birkhofer, K. An estimated 400–800 million tons of prey are annually killed by the global spider community. Naturwissenschaften 104, 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1440-1 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sohlström, E. H. et al. Future climate and land-use intensification modify arthropod community structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 327, 107830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107830 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sallé, A. et al. Climate change alters temperate forest canopies and indirectly reshapes arthropod communities. Front. For. Glob. Change 4, 710854 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Høye, T. T. et al. Nonlinear trends in abundance and diversity and complex responses to climate change in Arctic arthropods. Proc. Natl. Acas. Sci. USA 118, e2002557117 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity: Ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G. & Tscharntke, T. Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 474–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swinbank, A. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 1–9 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Wissinger, S. Cyclic colonization in predictably ephemeral habitats: A template for biological control in annual crop systems. Biol. Control 10, 4–15 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samu, F., Szita, É. & Botos, E. Short- and longer-term colonization of alfalfa by spiders: A case study into the succession of perennial fields. In European Arachnology 2008 (eds Nentwig, W. et al.) 153–163 (Natural History Museum, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Samu, F., Horváth, A., Neidert, D., Botos, E. & Szita, É. Metacommunities of spiders in grassland habitat fragments of an agricultural landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol. 31, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.07.009 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Costanza, R. et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harwell, M. A. et al. Conceptual framework for assessing ecosystem health. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 15, 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4152 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roca, G. et al. Response of seagrass indicators to shifts in environmental stressors: A global review and management synthesis. Ecol. Ind. 63, 310–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.007 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westgate, M. J., Likens, G. E. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biol. Cons. 158, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.016 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Logan, M. et al. Ecosystem health report cards: An overview of frameworks and analytical methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 113, 105834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105834 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dennison, W. C., Lookingbill, T. R., Carruthers, T. J., Hawkey, J. M. & Carter, S. L. An eye-opening approach to developing and communicating integrated environmental assessments. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[307:AEATDA]2.0.CO;2 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harwell, M. A. et al. A framework for an ecosystem integrity report card: examples from south Florida show how an ecosystem report card links societal values and scientific information. Bioscience 49, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313475 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collier, C. J. et al. An evidence-based approach for setting desired state in a complex Great Barrier Reef seagrass ecosystem: A case study from Cleveland Bay. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 7, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coles, R. G. et al. Seagrass: Ecology, Uses and Threats (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2011).
Google Scholar 
Grech, A. et al. A comparison of threats, vulnerabilities and management approaches in global seagrass bioregions. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 024006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024006 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lambert, V. M. et al. Connecting targets for catchment sediment loads to ecological outcomes for seagrass using multiple lines of evidence. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112494 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, M. P. et al. Predicting seagrass decline due to cumulative stressors. Environ. Model. Softw. 130, 104717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104717 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chartrand, K. M., Szabó, M., Sinutok, S., Rasheed, M. A. & Ralph, P. J. Living at the margins: The response of deep-water seagrasses to light and temperature renders them susceptible to acute impacts. Mar. Environ. Res. 136, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.02.006 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chartrand, K., Bryant, C., Carter, A., Ralph, P. & Rasheed, M. Light thresholds to prevent dredging impacts on the Great Barrier Reef seagrass, Zostera muelleri spp. capricorni. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00106 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abal, E. & Dennison, W. Seagrass depth range and water quality in southern Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Mar. Freshwater Res. 47, 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9960763 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dennison, W. et al. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation: Habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311969 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, A. B., Collier, C., Coles, R., Lawrence, E. & Rasheed, M. A. Community-specific, “desired” states for seagrasses through cycles of loss and recovery. J. Environ. Manag. 314, 115059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115059 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaldy, J. E., Brown, C. A. & Pacella, S. R. Carbon limitation in response to nutrient loading in an eelgrass mesocosm: Influence of water residence time. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 689, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps14061 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carter, A. B. et al. A spatial analysis of seagrass habitat and community diversity in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01471-4 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kenworthy, W. J., Wyllie-Echeverria, S., Coles, R. G., Pergent, G. & Pergent-Martini, C. Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation 595–623 (Springer, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Hayes, M. A. et al. The differential importance of deep and shallow seagrass to nekton assemblages of the great barrier reef. Diversity 12, 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12080292 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marsh, H., O’Shea, T. J. & Reynolds, J. E. III. Ecology and Conservation of the Sirenia: Dugongs and Manatees Vol. 18 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Scott, A. L. et al. The role of herbivory in structuring tropical seagrass ecosystem service delivery. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00127 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
York, P. H., Macreadie, P. I. & Rasheed, M. A. Blue carbon stocks of Great Barrier Reef deep-water seagrasses. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180529. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0529 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Unsworth, R. K., Collier, C. J., Waycott, M., Mckenzie, L. J. & Cullen-Unsworth, L. C. A framework for the resilience of seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.016 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madden, C. J., Rudnick, D. T., McDonald, A. A., Cunniff, K. M. & Fourqurean, J. W. Ecological indicators for assessing and communicating seagrass status and trends in Florida Bay. Ecol. Ind. 9, S68–S82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.004 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
York, P. et al. Dynamics of a deep-water seagrass population on the Great Barrier Reef: Annual occurrence and response to a major dredging program. Sci. Rep. 5, 13167. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13167 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rasheed, M. A., McKenna, S. A., Carter, A. B. & Coles, R. G. Contrasting recovery of shallow and deep water seagrass communities following climate associated losses in tropical north Queensland, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 83, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.013 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T., Chartrand, K., Wells, J., Carter, A. & Rasheed, M. Seagrasses in Port Curtis and Rodds Bay 2019 Annual long-term monitoring and whole port survey. 71, https://www.tropwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20-64-Annual-Seagrass-monitoring-in-Port-Curtis-and-Rodds-Bay-2019.pdf (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 20/64, James Cook University, Cairns, 2020).Ruaro, R., Gubiani, E. A., Hughes, R. M. & Mormul, R. P. Global trends and challenges in multimetric indices of biological condition. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105862 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kilminster, K. et al. Unravelling complexity in seagrass systems for management: Australia as a microcosm. Sci. Total Environ. 534, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.061 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Collier, C. J., Chartrand, K., Honchin, C., Fletcher, A. & Rasheed, M. Light thresholds for seagrasses of the GBR: a synthesis and guiding document. Including knowledge gaps and future priorities. 41, http://nesptropical.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NESP-TWQ-3.3-FINAL-REPORTa.pdf (Report to the National Environmental Science Programme, Cairns, 2016).Bryant, C., Jarvis, J. C., York, P. & Rasheed, M. Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership Pilot Report Card; ISP011: Seagrass., 74, https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/44549/ (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 14/53, James Cook University, Cairns, 2014).McIntosh, E. J. et al. Designing report cards for aquatic health with a whole-of-system approach: Gladstone Harbour in the Great Barrier Reef. Ecol. Ind. 102, 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.012 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Birch, W. & Birch, M. Succession and pattern of tropical intertidal seagrasses in Cockle Bay, Queensland, Australia: A decade of observations. Aquat. Bot. 19, 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(84)90048-2 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasheed, M. A. Recovery and succession in a multi-species tropical seagrass meadow following experimental disturbance: The role of sexual and asexual reproduction. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 310, 13–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2004.03.022 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christiaen, B., Lehrter, J., Goff, J. & Cebrian, J. Functional implications of changes in seagrass species composition in two shallow coastal lagoons. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 557, 11. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11847 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hyndes, G. A., Kendrick, A. J., MacArthur, L. D. & Stewart, E. Differences in the species- and size-composition of fish assemblages in three distinct seagrass habitats with differing plant and meadow structure. Mar. Biol. 142, 1195–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1010-2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ray, B. R., Johnson, M. W., Cammarata, K. & Smee, D. L. Changes in seagrass species composition in Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries: Effects on associated seagrass Fauna. PLoS ONE 9, e107751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107751 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ondiviela, B. et al. The role of seagrasses in coastal protection in a changing climate. Coast. Eng. 87, 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.11.005 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lavery, P. S., Mateo, M. -Á., Serrano, O. & Rozaimi, M. Variability in the carbon storage of seagrass habitats and its implications for global estimates of blue carbon ecosystem service. PLoS ONE 8, e73748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073748 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coles, R. G. et al. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: Managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 153, A1–A12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.07.020 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. M., Reason, C., McKenna, S. & Rasheed, M. A. Seagrasses in Port Curtis and Rodds Bay 2020. Annual long-term monitoring. 54, https://www.dropbox.com/s/f5yb6bjjpbvc1f2/21%2016%20Smith%20et%20al%202021%20Annual%20Seagrass%20monitoring%20in%20Port%20Curtis%20and%20Rodds%20Bay%202020_Final%20version.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/16, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).Windle, J., Rolfe, J. & Pascoe, S. Assessing recreational benefits as an economic indicator for an industrial harbour report card. Ecol. Ind. 80, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.036 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scott, A. & Rasheed, M. A. Port of Karumba long-term annual seagrass monitoring 2020. 28, https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwtys67ljssbp9t/21%2005%20Scott%20%26%20Rasheed%202021%20FINAL%202020%20Karumba%20Long-term%20seagrass%20monitoring%20report%20low%20res.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/05, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Smith, T., Reason, C., McKenna, S. & Rasheed, M. Port of Weipa long‐term seagrass monitoring program, 2000 ‐ 2020. 49, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghqy3bmn9p8jbsi/20%2058%20Smith%20et%20al%202020%20Port%20of%20Weipa%20Annual%20Long%20Term%20Seagrass%20Monitoring%20Report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 20/58, James Cook University, Cairns, 2020).Reason, C. L., Smith, T. M. & Rasheed, M. A. Seagrass habitat of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet: Cairns Shipping Development Program and Annual Monitoring Report 2020. 54, https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7xtrytjjip3a42/21%2009%20Final_Cairns%20Harbour%20Seagrass%20Monitoring%20Report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/09, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).Reason, C. L., York, P. H. & Rasheed, M. A. Seagrass habitat of Mourilyan Harbour: Annual monitoring report – 2020. 36, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kg3toxmlifh62tg/21%2010%20Mourilyan%20Harbour%20seagrass%20monitoring%20report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/10, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).McKenna, S., Wilkinson, J., Chartrand, K. & Van De Wetering, C. Port of Townsville Seagrass Monitoring Program: 2020. 62, https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8nsx8ts93fgr36/21%2014%20Final%20POTL%20Annual%20Seagrass%20Report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/14, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).McKenna, S. A., van de Wetering, C., Wilkinson, J. & Rasheed, M. A. Port of Abbot Point long-term seagrass monitoring program: 2020. 35, https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5a5l7pkikcjrfb/21%2025%20McKenna%20et%20al%20Port%20of%20Abbot%20Point%20Long-term%20seagrass%20Monitoring%20report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/25, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).York, P. H. & Rasheed, M. A. Annual Seagrass Monitoring in the Mackay-Hay Point Region – 2020. 42, https://www.dropbox.com/s/u45yezm3984lw1a/21%2020%20Hay%20Point%20and%20Mackay%20Seagrass%20Final%20Report%202020.pdf?dl=0 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/20, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).van de Wetering, C., Carter, A. B. & Rasheed, M. A. Mackay-Whitsunday-Isaac Seagrass Monitoring 2017–2020: Marine Inshore South Zone. 30, https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/70923/ (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/06, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).Carter, A. B. et al. Torres Strait Seagrass 2021 Report Card. 76, https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/70797/ (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 21/13, James Cook University, Cairns, 2021).Gladstone Ports Corporation. Port of Gladstone. https://www.gpcl.com.au/port-of-gladstone (2022).Sawynok, B., Venables, B. & Pinto, U. Incorporating a fish recruitment indicator into a health report card: A case study from Gladstone Harbour, Australia. Ecol. Indic. 115, 106329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106329 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pascoe, S. et al. Developing a social, cultural and economic report card for a regional industrial harbour. PLoS ONE 11, e0148271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148271 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chartrand, K. M., Bryant, C. V., Sozou, A., Ralph, P. J. & Rasheed, M. A. Final Report: Deep‐water seagrass dynamics ‐ Light requirements, seasonal change and mechanisms of recruitment. 67, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mo8dcq1322qv5c3/AAAgu3lEnJsLgxdawXaOltu-a/2017?dl=0&preview=17+16+Final+Report+Deep-water+seagrass+dynamics.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication 17/16, James Cook University, Cairns, 2017).Kirkman, H. Decline of seagrass in northern areas of Moreton Bay, Queensland. Aquat. Bot. 5, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(78)90047-5 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mellors, J. E. An evaluation of a rapid visual technique for estimating seagrass biomass. Aquat. Bot. 42, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(91)90106-F (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Emmer, I. et al. Methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration VM0033, version 2.0. https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VM0033-Methodology-for-Tidal-Wetland-and-Seagrass-Restoration-v2.0-30Sep21-1.pdf (2021). More

Bjorkman, A. D. et al. Plant functional trait change across a warming tundra biome. Nature 562, 57–62 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sabatini, F. M. et al. Global patterns of vascular plant alpha diversity. Nat. Commun. 13, 4683 (2022).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Chapin, F. S. III et al. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, 234–242 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garnier, E., Navas, M.-L. & Grigulis, K. Plant functional diversity. Organism traits, community structure, and ecosystem properties (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, NY, 2016).Funk, J. L. et al. Revisiting the Holy Grail: using plant functional traits to understand ecological processes. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 92, 1156–1173 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Adler, P. B. et al. Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 740–745 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Salguero-Gómez, R. et al. Fast-slow continuum and reproductive strategies structure plant life-history variation worldwide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113, 230–235 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bergmann, J. et al. The fungal collaboration gradient dominates the root economics space in plants. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba3756 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. et al. Reinforcing loose foundation stones in trait-based plant ecology. Oecologia 180, 923–931 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H. et al. Global trait-environment relationships of plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1906–1917 (2018).
Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Miller, J. E. D., Damschen, E. I. & Ives, A. R. Functional traits and community composition: A comparison among community‐weighted means, weighted correlations, and multilevel models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 415–425 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Guerin, G. R. et al. Environmental associations of abundance-weighted functional traits in Australian plant communities. Basic Appl. Ecol. 58, 98–109 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Walter, H. Vegetation of the earth and ecological systems of the geo-biosphere (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1985).Ordoñez, J. C. et al. A global study of relationships between leaf traits, climate and soil measures of nutrient fertility. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 137–149 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Simpson, A. H., Richardson, S. J. & Laughlin, D. C. Soil-climate interactions explain variation in foliar, stem, root and reproductive traits across temperate forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 964–978 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Cubino, J. P. et al. The leaf economic and plant size spectra of European forest understory vegetation. Ecography 44, 1311–1324 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Garnier, E. et al. Assessing the effects of land-use change on plant traits, communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands: a standardized methodology and lessons from an application to 11 European sites. Ann. Bot. 99, 967–985 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Herben, T., Klimešová, J. & Chytrý, M. Effects of disturbance frequency and severity on plant traits: An assessment across a temperate flora. Funct. Ecol. 32, 799–808 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Linder, H. P. et al. Biotic modifiers, environmental modulation and species distribution models. J. Biogeogr. 39, 2179–2190 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Gross, N. et al. Linking individual response to biotic interactions with community structure: a trait-based framework. Funct. Ecol. 23, 1167–1178 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Ordonez, A. & Svenning, J.-C. Consistent role of Quaternary climate change in shaping current plant functional diversity patterns across European plant orders. Sci. Rep. 7, 42988 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kemppinen, J. et al. Consistent trait–environment relationships within and across tundra plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 458–467 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Chytrý, M. et al. European Vegetation Archive (EVA): an integrated database of European vegetation plots. Appl. Veg. Sci. 19, 173–180 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Karger, D. N. et al. Data from: Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. EnviDat, https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.228 (2018).Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 170122 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Change. Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laughlin, D. C., Leppert, J. J., Moore, M. M. & Sieg, C. H. A multi-trait test of the leaf-height-seed plant strategy scheme with 133 species from a pine forest flora. Funct. Ecol. 24, 493–501 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Davies, C. E., Moss, D. & Hill, M. O. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to: European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, 2004.Chytrý, M. et al. EUNIS Habitat Classification: Expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 23, 648–675 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pausas, J. G. & Bond, W. J. Humboldt and the reinvention of nature. J. Ecol. 107, 1031–1037 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Meng, T.-T. et al. Responses of leaf traits to climatic gradients: adaptive variation versus compositional shifts. Biogeosciences 12, 5339–5352 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fang, J. et al. Precipitation patterns alter growth of temperate vegetation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, 81 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Butler, E. E. et al. Mapping local and global variability in plant trait distributions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E10937–E10946 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gong, H. & Gao, J. Soil and climatic drivers of plant SLA (specific leaf area). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00696 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Laughlin, D. C. et al. Root traits explain plant species distributions along climatic gradients yet challenge the nature of ecological trade-offs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Carmona, C. P. et al. Fine-root traits in the global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 597, 683–687 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ding, J., Travers, S. K. & Eldridge, D. J. Occurrence of Australian woody species is driven by soil moisture and available phosphorus across a climatic gradient. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e13095 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Falster, D. S. & Westoby, M. Plant height and evolutionary games. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 337–343 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Kunstler, G. et al. Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature 529, 204–207 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McLachlan, A. & Brown, A. C. Coastal Dune Ecosystems and Dune/Beach Interactions. In The Ecology of Sandy Shores (Elsevier), 251–271 (2006).Cui, E., Weng, E., Yan, E. & Xia, J. Robust leaf trait relationships across species under global environmental changes. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–9 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cain, S. A. Life-Forms and Phytoclimate. Bot. Rev. 16, 1–32 (1950).
Google Scholar 
Yu, S. et al. Shift of seed mass and fruit type spectra along longitudinal gradient: high water availability and growth allometry. Biogeosciences 18, 655–667 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Murray, B. R., Brown, A. H. D., Dickman, C. R. & Crowther, M. S. Geographical gradients in seed mass in relation to climate. J. Biogeogr. 31, 379–388 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Metz, J. et al. Plant survival in relation to seed size along environmental gradients: a long-term study from semi-arid and Mediterranean annual plant communities. J. Ecol. 98, 697–704 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Tao, S., Guo, Q., Li, C., Wang, Z. & Fang, J. Global patterns and determinants of forest canopy height. Ecology 97, 3265–3270 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, P., Neilson, R. P., Lenihan, J. M. & Drapek, R. J. Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 755–768 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Feeley, K. J., Bravo-Avila, C., Fadrique, B., Perez, T. M. & Zuleta, D. Climate-driven changes in the composition of New World plant communities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 965–970 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H. et al. sPlot—A new tool for global vegetation analyses. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 161–186 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Schrodt, F. et al. BHPMF—a hierarchical Bayesian approach to gap-filling and trait prediction for macroecology and functional biogeography. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 1510–1521 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Shan, H. et al. Gap filling in the plant kingdom—trait prediction using hierarchical probabilistic matrix factorization (Proceedings of the 29 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2012).Chytrý, M. et al. EUNIS-ESy, version 2021-06-01, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4812736 (2021).Wood, S. N., Pya, N. & Säfken, B. Smoothing Parameter and Model Selection for General Smooth Models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 111, 1548–1563 (2016).MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models. An Introduction with R, Second Edition (CRC Press, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2017).Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, P. C. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 944–946 (2014).
Google Scholar 
R. Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Lenth, R. V. et al. emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means; R package version 1.6.2-1 (2021).Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 772 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R.J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. dismo: species distribution modelling; R package version 1.3-3 (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag New York, 2016).Kambach, S. Habitat-specificity of climate-trait relationships in plant communities across Europe. github.com/StephanKambach, version 1.0; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7404176 (2022).Moles, A. T. et al. Global patterns in plant height. J. Ecol. 97, 923–932 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Moles, A. T. et al. Global patterns in seed size. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 109–116 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Zheng, J., Guo, Z. & Wang, X. Seed mass of angiosperm woody plants better explained by life history traits than climate across China. Sci. Rep. 7, 2741 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Saatkamp, A. et al. A research agenda for seed-trait functional ecology. N. Phytol. 221, 1764–1775 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Freschet, G. T. et al. Climate, soil and plant functional types as drivers of global fine‐root trait variation. J. Ecol. 105, 1182–1196 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Weigelt, A. et al. An integrated framework of plant form and function: The belowground perspective. N. Phytol. 232, 42–59 (2021).
Google Scholar  More