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

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

The data were recorded under the DarwinCore standard55,56 in a matrix named “Benthic biota of CIMAR-Fiordos and Southern Ice Field Cruises”58. The occurrence dataset contains direct basic information (description, scope [temporal, geographic and taxonomic], methodology, bibliography, contacts, data description, GBIF registration and citation), project details, metrics (taxonomy and occurrences classification), activity (citations and download events) and download options. The following data fields were occupied:Column 1: “occurrenceID” (single indicator of the biological record indicating the cruise and correlative record).Column 2: “basisOfRecord” (“PreservedSpecimen” for occurrence records with catalogue number of scientific collection, “MaterialCitation” for any literature record).Column 3: “institutionCode” (The acronym in use by the institution having custody of the sample or information referred to in the record).Column 4: “collectionCode” (The name of the cruise).Column 5: “catalogNumber” (The repository number in museums or correlative number).Column 6: “type” (All records entered as “text”).Column 7: “language” (Spanish, English or both).Column 8: “institutionID” (The identifier for the institution having custody of the sample or information referred to in the record).Column 9: “collectionID” (The identifier for the collection or dataset from which the record was derived).Column 10: “datasetID” (The code “CONA-benthic-biota-database” for entire database).Column 11: “recordedBy” (Author/s who recorded the original occurrence [publication source]).Column 12: “individualCount” (Number of individuals recorded).Column 13: “associatedReferences” (Publication source [report and/or paper/s] for each record).Column 14: “samplingProtocol” (The sampling gear for each record).Column 15: “eventDate” (The date-time or interval during which the record occurred).Column 16: “eventRemarks” (Comments or notes about the event).Column 17: “continent” (Location).Column 18: “country” (Location).Column 19: “countryCode” (The standard code for the country in which the location occurs).Column 20: “stateProvince” (Location, refers to the Administrative Region of Chile).Column 21: “county” (Location, refers to the Administrative Province of Chile).Column 22: “municipality” (Location, refers to the Administrative Commune of Chile).Column 23: “locality” (The specific name of the place).Column 24: “verbatimLocality” (The original textual description of the place).Column 25: “verbatimDepth” (The original description of the depth).Column 26: “minimumDepthInMeters” (The shallowest depth of a range of depths).Column 27: “maximumDepthInMeters” (The deepest depth of a range of depths).Column 28: “locationRemarks” (The name of the sample station of the cruise).Column 29: “verbatimLatitude” (The verbatim original latitude of the location).Column 30: “verbatimLongitude” (The verbatim original longitude of the location).Column 31: “verbatimCoordinateSystem” (The coordinate format for the “verbatimLatitude” and “verbatimLongitude” or the “verbatimCoordinates” of the location).Column 32: “verbatimSRS” (The spatial reference system [SRS] upon which coordinates given in “verbatimLatitude” and “verbatimLongitude” are based)Column 33: “decimalLatitude” (The geographic latitude in decimal degrees).Column 34: “decimalLongitude” (The geographic longitude in decimal degrees).Column 35: “geodeticDatum” (The spatial reference system [SRS] upon which the geographic coordinates given in “decimalLatitude” and “decimalLongitude” was based).Column 36: “coordinateUncertaintyInMeters” (The horizontal distance from the given “decimalLatitude” and “decimalLongitude” describing the smallest circle containing the whole of the location).Column 37: “georeferenceRemarks” (Notes about the spatial description determination).Column 38: “identifiedBy” (Responsible for recording the original occurrence [publication source]).Column 39: “dateIdentified” (The date-time or interval during which the identification occurred.)Column 40: “identificationQualifier” (A taxonomic determination [e.g., “sp.”, “cf.”]).Column 41: “scientificNameID” (An identifier for the nomenclatural details of a scientific name).Column 42: “scientificName” (The name of species or taxon of the occurrence record).Column 43: “kingdom” (The scientific name of the kingdom in which the taxon is classified).Column 44: “phylum” (The scientific name of the phylum or division in which the taxon is classified).Column 45: “class” (The scientific name of the class in which the taxon is classified).Column 46: “order” (The scientific name of the order in which the taxon is classified).Column 47: “family” (The scientific name of the family in which the taxon is classified).Column 48: “genus” (The scientific name of the genus in which the taxon is classified).Column 49: “subgenus” (The scientific name of the subgenus in which the taxon is classified).Column 50: “specificEpithet” (The name of the first or species epithet of the “scientificName”).Column 51: “infraspecificEpithet” (The name of the lowest or terminal infraspecific epithet of the “scientificName”).Column 52: “taxonRank” (The taxonomic rank of the most specific name in the “scientificName”).Column 53: “scientificNameAuthorship” (The authorship information for the “scientificName” formatted according to the conventions of the applicable nomenclatural Code).Column 54: “verbatimIdentification” (A string representing the taxonomic identification as it appeared in the original record).The information sources (see Fig. 2b) provided a total of 107 publications (22 cruise reports and 85 scientific papers; see Fig. 2c). Nineteen of the 22 cruise reports reviewed provided species occurrence records8,28,29,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46, one provided qualitative or descriptive data, with no recorded occurrences31, and two did not provide information on benthic biota (CIMAR-9 and −23 cruises). Of all the scientific papers reviewed, 74 provided records of species occurrences (Table 2), while 11 did not provide any record, as they were data without occurrences of geographically referenced species or with descriptive or qualitative information: Foraminifera59,60,61,62, Annelida63,64,65,66, Fishes67, Mollusca68 and Echinodermata69. The phyla with the highest number of publications were the following: Annelida (present in 18 reports and 21 papers), Mollusca (in 14 and 20), Arthropoda (in 10 and 18), Echinodermata (in 10 and 9), Chordata (in 10 and 9) and Foraminifera (in 4 and 10).Table 2 Publications with >100 occurrences, indicating the main recorded taxa.Full size tableThe information registry includes data on occurrences and number of individuals for 8,854 records (files in the database), representing 1,225 species (Fig. 3). The main taxa in terms of occurrence and number of species were Annelida (mainly Polychaeta), Foraminifera, Mollusca and Arthopoda (mainly Crustacea), together accumulating ~70% of total occurrences and ~73% of the total species (Fig. 3). The large number of recorded occurrences of Myzozoa (10%) should be highlighted, which, however, only represent about 32 species. Echinodermata represented ~8% of occurrences and 7% of species.Fig. 3Occurrences and total species by taxon, considering large taxonomic groups of the benthic biota recorded in the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of occurrences and species are represented in parentheses.Full size imageThe cruises with the highest number of occurrences were CIMAR-2 (with 1,424), followed by CIMAR-8 (1,040) and CIMAR-16 (813) (Fig. 4). Three dominant taxonomic groups were recorded in most cruises, except for cruises CIMAR-1, CIMAR-4, CIMAR-17, CIMAR-18 and CIMAR-24 (Fig. 4). The cruises with the highest number of species recorded were CIMAR-2 (with 335), CIMAR-3 (328) and CIMAR-8 (323) (Fig. 5). Three or fewer dominant taxonomic groups were recorded only in the CIMAR-1, CIMAR-4, CIMAR-17, CIMAR-18 and CIMAR-24 cruises (Fig. 5).Fig. 4Total occurrences and percentages per dominant taxon recorded in each of the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of occurrences per dominant taxon are represented in parentheses.Full size imageFig. 5Total species and percentages per dominant taxon recorded in each of the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. The absolute values of species per dominant taxon are represented in parentheses.Full size imageThe latitudinal bands 42°S and 45°S are those with the highest number of occurrences (Fig. 6), while the 56°S and 46°S bands had the fewest. The highest number of species was recorded in the 52°S and 50°S latitudinal bands, while, as with the occurrences, the lowest values corresponded to the 56°S and 46°S latitudinal bands (Fig. 6).Fig. 6Occurrences and number of species recorded by latitudinal band from the CIMAR 1 to 25 and CDHS-1995 cruises. SEP: South-eastern Pacific.Full size image 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

Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Elahi, R. et al. Recent trends in local-scale marine biodiversity reflect community structure and human impacts. Curr. Biol. 25, 1938–1943 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harley, C. D. G. Climate change, keystone predation, and biodiversity loss. Science 334, 1124–1127 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C. & Nyström, M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827–833 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat. Commun. 8, 14163 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newman, E. A. Disturbance ecology in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 147 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mittelbach, G. G. et al. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity?. Ecology 82, 2381–2396 (2001).
Google Scholar 
van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Implications of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems. Ecology 86, 1797–1807 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Tylianakis, J. M. et al. Resource heterogeneity moderates the biodiversity-function relationship in real world ecosystems. Plos Biol. 6, e122 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. In Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities (eds Holyoak, M. et al.) (The University of Chicago Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. From Populations to Ecosystems (Princeton University Press, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400834167.vii.Book 

Google Scholar 
Moreira, E. F., Boscolo, D. & Viana, B. F. Spatial heterogeneity regulates plant-pollinator networks across multiple landscape scales. PLoS ONE 10, e0123628 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Costanza, J. K., Moody, A. & Peet, R. K. Multi-scale environmental heterogeneity as a predictor of plant species richness. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 851–864 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nyström, M., Graham, N. A. J., Lokrantz, J. & Norström, A. V. Capturing the cornerstones of coral reef resilience: Linking theory to practice. Coral Reefs 27, 795–809 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Virah-Sawmy, M., Gillson, L. & Willis, K. J. How does spatial heterogeneity influence resilience to climatic changes? Ecological dynamics in southeast Madagascar. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 557–574 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, D. S. Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73, 1984–2000 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Briggs, C. J. & Hoopes, M. F. Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: A review. Theor. Popul. Biol. 65, 299–315 (2004).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Haegeman, B. & Loreau, M. Dispersal and metapopulation stability. PeerJ 3, e1295 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 12765–12770 (2003).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 1463–1468 (1999).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bouvier, T. et al. Contrasted effects of diversity and immigration on ecological insurance in marine bacterioplankton communities. PLoS ONE 7, e37620 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hammond, M., Loreau, M., Mazancourt, C. & Kolasa, J. Disentangling local, metapopulation, and cross-community sources of stabilization and asynchrony in metacommunities. Ecosphere 11, e03078 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Lamy, T., Legendre, P., Chancerelle, Y., Siu, G. & Claudet, J. Understanding the spatio-temporal response of coral reef fish communities to natural disturbances: Insights from beta-diversity decomposition. PLoS ONE 10, e0138696 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Lamy, T. et al. Species insurance trumps spatial insurance in stabilizing biomass of a marine macroalgal metacommunity. Ecology 100, e02719 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Stier, A. C., Shelton, A. O., Samhouri, J. F., Feist, B. E. & Levin, P. S. Fishing, environment, and the erosion of a population portfolio. Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3283 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, S. C. et al. Beyond connectivity: How empirical methods can quantify population persistence to improve marine protected-area design. Ecol. Appl. 24, 257–270 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Saenz-Agudelo, P., Jones, G. P., Thorrold, S. R. & Planes, S. Connectivity dominates larval replenishment in a coastal reef fish metapopulation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 2954–2961 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wood, S., Paris, C. B., Ridgwell, A. & Hendy, E. J. Modelling dispersal and connectivity of broadcast spawning corals at the global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1–11 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity as insurance: From concept to measurement and application. Biol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12756 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thibaut, L. M. & Connolly, S. R. Understanding diversity–stability relationships: Towards a unified model of portfolio effects. Ecol. Lett. 16, 140–150 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Wilcox, K. R. et al. Asynchrony among local communities stabilises ecosystem function of metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1534–1545 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Species synchrony and its drivers: Neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 172, E48–E66 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: A synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Gross, K. et al. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: A new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am. Nat. 183, 1–12 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Sullaway, G. H., Shelton, A. O. & Samhouri, J. F. Synchrony erodes spatial portfolios of an anadromous fish and alters availability for resource users. J. Anim. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13575 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Augustin, D., Galzin, R. & Salvat, B. Natural disturbances and interannual variability of coral reef communities on the outer slope of Tiahura (Moorea, French Polynesia): 1991 to 1997. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 237, 121–131 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M. et al. Recurrent disturbances, recovery trajectories, and resilience of coral assemblages on a South Central Pacific reef. Coral Reefs 28, 775–780 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pratchett, M. S., Trapon, M., Berumen, M. L. & Chong-Seng, K. Recent Disturbances Augment Community Shifts in Coral Assemblages in Moorea, French Polynesia (SpringerLink, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0678-2.Book 

Google Scholar 
Kayal, M. et al. Predator crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreak, mass mortality of corals, and cascading effects on reef fish and benthic communities. PLoS ONE 7, e47363 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McWilliam, M., Pratchett, M. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Hughes, T. P. Deficits in functional trait diversity following recovery on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192628 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Penin, L., Adjeroud, M., Schrimm, M. & Lenihan, H. S. High spatial variability in coral bleaching around Moorea (French Polynesia): Patterns across locations and water depths. C. R. Biol. 330, 171–181 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Adam, T. C. et al. Herbivory, connectivity, and ecosystem resilience: Response of a coral reef to a large-scale perturbation. PLoS ONE 6, e23717 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. et al. Why more comparative approaches are required in time-series analyses of coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 608, 297–306 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Rosales, G. et al. Documenting decadal disturbance dynamics reveals archipelago-specific recovery and compositional change on Polynesian reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 170, 112659 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bruno, J. F. & Selig, E. R. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2, e711 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Status and trends of Caribbean coral reefs. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland (2014)Edmunds, P. J. Implications of high rates of sexual recruitment in driving rapid reef recovery in Mo’orea, French Polynesia. Sci. Rep. 8, 16615 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, S. C., Johnston, E. C., Wyatt, A. S. J., Leichter, J. J. & Edmunds, P. J. Response diversity in corals: Hidden differences in bleaching mortality among cryptic Pocillopora species. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3324 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holbrook, S. J. et al. Recruitment drives spatial variation in recovery rates of resilient coral reefs. Sci. Rep. 8, 7338 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Guest, J. R. et al. A framework for identifying and characterising coral reef “oases” against a backdrop of degradation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2865–2875 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hench, J. L., Leichter, J. J. & Monismith, S. G. Episodic circulation and exchange in a wave-driven coral reef and lagoon system. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 2681–2694 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barry, J. P. & Dayton, P. K. Ecological heterogeneity. Ecol. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3062-5_14 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. & Bruno, J. The importance of sampling scale in ecology: Kilometer-wide variation in coral reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143, 165–171 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lough, J. M., Anderson, K. D. & Hughes, T. P. Increasing thermal stress for tropical coral reefs: 1871–2017. Sci. Rep. 8, 6079 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Oppen, M. J. H. & Lough, J. M. Coral bleaching, patterns, processes, causes and consequences. Ecol. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75393-5_14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monismith, S. G. Hydrodynamics of coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 37–55 (2007).ADS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds P. Of Moorea Coral Reef LTER. MCR LTER: Coral Reef: Long-term Population and Community Dynamics: Corals, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.4.33 https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/1f05f1f52a2759dc096da9c24e88b1e8 (2020).Cowles, J. et al. Resilience: insights from the U.S. Long-term ecological research network. Ecosphere 12, e03434 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Beijbom, O. et al. Towards automated annotation of benthic survey images: Variability of human experts and operational modes of automation. PLoS ONE 10, e0130312 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Veron, J. E. N. Corals of the world, v. 1–3. Australian Institute of Marine Science (2000)Washburn, L of Moorea Coral Reef LTER. MCR LTER: Coral Reef: Ocean Currents and Biogeochemistry: salinity, temperature and current at CTD and ADCP mooring FOR01 from 2004 ongoing. knb-lter-mcr.30.36doi:10.6073/pasta/124d19950c5234bf1937661989dcced7 (2021).Safaie, A. et al. High frequency temperature variability reduces the risk of coral bleaching. Nat. Commun. 9, 1671 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dean, R. G. & Dalrymple, R. A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering Vol. 2 (World Scientific, 1991).
Google Scholar 
Carroll, A., Harrison, P. & Adjeroud, M. Sexual reproduction of Acropora reef corals at Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 25, 93–97 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Han, X., Adam, T. C., Schmitt, R. J., Brooks, A. J. & Holbrook, S. J. Response of herbivore functional groups to sequential perturbations in Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 35, 999–1009 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R., Somerfield, P. J. & Chapman, M. G. On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 330, 55–80 (2006).
Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/ (2021).Oksanen J. et al. vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.5–7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2020).Wickham, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Corlett, R. T. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 36–41 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Williams, G. J. et al. Coral reef ecology in the Anthropocene. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1014–1022 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Walther, G.-R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walther, G.-R. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2019–2024 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Cinner, J. E. et al. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grman, E., Lau, J. A., Schoolmaster, D. R. & Gross, K. L. Mechanisms contributing to stability in ecosystem function depend on the environmental context. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1400–1410 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schindler, D. E. et al. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465, 609–612 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability-diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. I., Polley, H. W. & Wilsey, B. J. Biodiversity, productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: Patterns and processes. Ecol. Lett. 12, 443–451 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs author. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Plaisance, L., Caley, M. J., Brainard, R. E. & Knowlton, N. The diversity of coral reefs: What are we missing?. PLoS ONE 6, e25026 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, G. J. et al. Biophysical drivers of coral trophic depth zonation. Mar. Biol. 165, 60 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Moritz, C. et al. Long-term monitoring of benthic communities reveals spatial determinants of disturbance and recovery dynamics on coral reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 672, 141–152 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dietzel, A. et al. The spatial footprint and patchiness of large scale disturbances on coral reefs. Global Change Biol. 27, 4825–4838 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leichter, J. et al. Biological and physical interactions on a tropical island coral reef: Transport and retention processes on Moorea, French Polynesia. Oceanography 26, 52–63 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Porter, J. W. et al. Population trends among Jamaican reef corals. Nature 294, 249–250 (1981).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Graham, N. A. J., Jennings, S., MacNeil, M. A., Mouillot, D. & Wilson, S. K. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature 518, 94–97 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Whittaker, R. H. & Levin, S. A. The role of mosaic phenomena in natural communities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12, 117–139 (1977).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karlson, R. H. & Hurd, L. E. Disturbance, coral reef communities, and changing ecological paradigms. Coral Reefs 12, 117–125 (1993).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stoddart, D. R. Effects of Hurricane Hattie on the British Honduras reefs and cays, October 30–31, 1961. Atoll Res. Bull. 95, 1–142 (1963).
Google Scholar 
Witman, J. D. Physical disturbance and community structure of exposed and protected reefs: A case study from St. John U.S. Virgin Islands. Integr. Comp. Biol. 32, 641–654 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Thorson, J. T., Scheuerell, M. D., Olden, J. D. & Schindler, D. E. Spatial heterogeneity contributes more to portfolio effects than species variability in bottom-associated marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180915 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mellin, C., MacNeil, M. A., Cheal, A. J., Emslie, M. J. & Caley, M. J. Marine protected areas increase resilience among coral reef communities. Ecol. Lett. 19, 629–637 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Beyer, H. L. et al. Risk-sensitive planning for conserving coral reefs under rapid climate change. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12587 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Harrison, H. B., Bode, M., Williamson, D. H., Berumen, M. L. & Jones, G. P. A connectivity portfolio effect stabilizes marine reserve performance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 25595–25600 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walter, J. A. et al. The spatial synchrony of species richness and its relationship to ecosystem stability. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3486 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Lamy, T., Hallett, L. M. & Loreau, M. Stability and synchrony across ecological hierarchies in heterogeneous metacommunities: Linking theory to data. Ecography 42, 1200–1211 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Catano, C. P., Fristoe, T. S., LaManna, J. A. & Myers, J. A. Local species diversity, β-diversity and climate influence the regional stability of bird biomass across North America. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192520 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Roscher, C. et al. Identifying population- and community-level mechanisms of diversity–stability relationships in experimental grasslands. J. Ecol. 99, 1460–1469 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Downing, A. L., Brown, B. L. & Leibold, M. A. Multiple diversity–stability mechanisms enhance population and community stability in aquatic food webs. Ecology 95, 173–184 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Moran, P. The statistical analysis of the Canadian Lynx cycle. Aust. J. Zool. 1, 291–298 (1953).
Google Scholar 
Townsend, D. L. & Gouhier, T. C. Spatial and interspecific differences in recruitment decouple synchrony and stability in trophic metacommunities. Theor. Ecol. 12, 319–327 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Yeager, M. E., Gouhier, T. C. & Hughes, A. R. Predicting the stability of multitrophic communities in a variable world. Ecology 101, e02992 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Emergent properties in the responses of tropical corals to recurrent climate extremes. Curr. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.046 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. B. C. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. In Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms (eds Larwood, G. & Rosen, B. R.) 499–555 (Academic, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Sammarco, P. W. & Andrews, J. C. Localized dispersal and recruitment in Great Barrier Reef Corals: The helix experiment. Science 239, 1422–1424 (1988).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Unusually high coral recruitment during the 2016 El Niño in Mo’orea, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 12, e0185167 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bull, G. Distribution and abundance of coral plankton. Coral Reefs 4, 197–200 (1986).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, G. Abundance and distribution of planktonic coral larvae in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 26, 61–71 (1985).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Vital rates of small reef corals are associated with variation in climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 901–913 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar  More