Philippa Kaur

Ouellet, V. et al. Sci. Total Environ. 736, 139679 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sutadian, A. D., Muttil, N., Yilmaz, A. G. & Perera, B. J. C. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188, 58 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Murdoch, P. S., Baron, J. S. & Miller, T. L. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36, 347–366 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, D. M. & Garner, G. Prog Phys Geogr. 39, 68–92 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abbott, B. W. et al. Nat. Geosci. 12, 533–540 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grill, G. et al. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hermanson, L. et al. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 103, E1117–E1129 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Webb, B. W., Hannah, D. M., Moore, R. D., Brown, L. E. & Nobilis, F. Hydrol. Process. 22, 902–918 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hester, E. T. & Doyle, M. W. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 47, 571–587 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schliemann, S. A., Grevstad, N. & Brazeau, R. H. Hydrol. Process 35, e14001 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, F. L., Fryer, R. J., Hannah, D. M., Millar, C. P. & Malcolm, I. A. Sci. Total Environ. 612, 1543–1558 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
O’Sullivan, A. M., Devito, K. J. & Curry, R. A. Catena 177, 70–83 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chang, H. & Psaris, M. Sci. Total Environ. 461, 587–600 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hester, E. T. & Bauman, K. S. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 328–342 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Croghan, D., Van Loon, A. F., Sadler, J. P., Bradley, C. & Hannah, D. M. Hydrol. Process. 33, 144–159 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levia, D. F. et al. Nat. Geosci. 13, 656–658 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nelson, K. C. & Palmer, M. A. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc 43, 440–452 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heggenes, J. et al. River Res. Appl. 37, 743–765 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menberg, K., Blum, P., Kurylyk, B. L. & Bayer, P. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 4453–4466 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tissen, C., Benz, S. A., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104012 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, D. M. et al. Hydrol. Process. 36, e14525 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carothers, C. et al. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11972-260116 (2021).Dugdale, S. J., Hannah, D. M. & Malcolm, I. A. Earth Sci. Rev. 175, 97–113 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wanders, N., van Vliet, M. T. H., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2760–2778 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tavares, M. H. et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 241, 11172 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dugdale, S. J., Klaus, J. & Hannah, D. M. Water Resour. Res. 58, e2021WR031168 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, F. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 9145–9158 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, D. M. et al. Hydrol. Process. 25, 1191–1200 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Do, H. X., Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M. & Westra, S. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 765–785 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dakos, V. et al. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 14308–14312 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gasser, T. et al. Path-dependent reductions in CO2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release. Nat. Geosci. 11, 830–835 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Z. et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 791–795 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bastos, A. et al. Contrasting effects of CO2 fertilization, land-use change and warming on seasonal amplitude of Northern Hemisphere CO2 exchange. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 12361–12375 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4382–4387 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J. et al. Assessment of the impacts of climate change on Mediterranean terrestrial ecosystems based on data from field experiments and long-term monitored field gradients in Catalonia. Environ. Exp. Bot. 152, 49–59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gatti, L. V. et al. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595, 388–393 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecol. Lett. 9, 311–318 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dakos, V., Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Flickering as an early warning signal. Theor. Ecol. 6, 309–317 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sillmann, J., Daloz, A. S., Schaller, N. & Schwingshackl, C. in Climate Change 3rd edn (ed. Letcher, T. M.) 359–372 (Elsevier, 2021).Reichstein, M. et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287–295 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations. Nature 506, 212–215 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486, 52–58 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Buermann, W. et al. Climate-driven shifts in continental net primary production implicated as a driver of a recent abrupt increase in the land carbon sink. Biogeosciences 13, 1597–1607 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luyssaert, S. et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2509–2537 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J. et al. Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1438–1445 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest carbon balance. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 471–476 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Spatial variability and controls over biomass stocks, carbon fluxes and resource-use efficiencies in forest ecosystems. Trees Struct. Funct. 28, 597–611 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciais, P. et al. Five decades of northern land carbon uptake revealed by the interhemispheric CO2 gradient. Nature 568, 221–225 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Thomson, K. T. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1857–1861 (1997).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
de Mazancourt, C. et al. Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 16, 617–625 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sakschewski, B. et al. Resilience of Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1032–1036 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fernández‐Martínez, M. et al. The role of climate, foliar stoichiometry and plant diversity on ecosystem carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 7067–7078 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Musavi, T. et al. Stand age and species richness dampen interannual variation of ecosystem-level photosynthetic capacity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0048 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Hydraulic diversity of forests regulates ecosystem resilience during drought. Nature 561, 538–541 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IPBES: Summary for Policymakers. In The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S. et al.) 1–56 (IPBES, 2019).Heath, J. P. Quantifying temporal variability in population abundances. Oikos 115, 573–581 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M., Vicca, S., Janssens, I. A., Martín-Vide, J. & Peñuelas, J. The consecutive disparity index, D, as measure of temporal variability in ecological studies. Ecosphere 9, e02527 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kreft, H. & Jetz, W. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104, 5925–5930 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ackerman, D. E., Chen, X. & Millet, D. B. Global nitrogen deposition (2° × 2.5° grid resolution) simulated with GEOS-Chem for 1984–1986, 1994–1996, 2004–2006, and 2014–2016 (University of Minnesota, 2018); https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/197613.Harris, I., Jones, P. D. D., Osborn, T. J. J. & Lister, D. H. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Graven, H. D. et al. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science 341, 1085–1089 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, K. et al. Causes of slowing-down seasonal CO2 amplitude at Mauna Loa. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4462–4477 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liang, J. et al. Positive biodiversity–productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354, aaf8957–aaf8957 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gessner, M. O. et al. Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 372–380 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peguero, G. et al. Fast attrition of springtail communities by experimental drought and richness–decomposition relationships across Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2727–2738 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 646–655 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J. Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 472, 86–91 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Scheffer, M. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society (Princeton University Press, 2009).Ostfeld, R. & Keesing, F. Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 232–237 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chevallier, F. et al. CO2 surface fluxes at grid point scale estimated from a global 21 year reanalysis of atmospheric measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D21307 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chevallier, F. et al. Toward robust and consistent regional CO2 flux estimates from in situ and spaceborne measurements of atmospheric CO2. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1065–1070 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rödenbeck, C., Houweling, S., Gloor, M. & Heimann, M. CO2 flux history 1982–2001 inferred from atmospheric data using a global inversion of atmospheric transport. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 3, 1919–1964 (2003).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rödenbeck, C., Zaehle, S., Keeling, R. & Heimann, M. How does the terrestrial carbon exchange respond to interannual climatic variations? A quantification based on atmospheric CO2 data. Biogeosciences 15, 2481–2498 (2018).Sitch, S. et al. Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Biogeosciences 12, 653–679 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fernández‐Martínez, M. & Peñuelas, J. Measuring temporal patterns in ecology: the case of mast seeding. Ecol. Evol. 11, 2990–2996 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An introduction with R 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).Ohlson, J. A. & Kim, S. Linear Valuation Without OLS: The Theil–Sen Estimation Approach (SSRN, 2015); https://ssrn.com/abstract=2276927.Komsta, L. Package mblm, 0.12.1: Median-based linear models (2013).Keeling, C. D. et al. in A History of Atmospheric CO2 and its effects on Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems (eds Ehleringer, J. R. et al.) 83–113 (Springer Verlag, 2005).Leroux, B. G., Lei, X. & Breslow, N. in Statistical Models in Epidemiology, the Environment and Clinical Trials (eds Halloran, M. & Berry, D.) 179–191 (Springer-Verlag, 2000).Lee, D. CARBayes: an R package for Bayesian spatial modeling with conditional autoregressive priors. J. Stat. Softw. 55, 1–24 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling‐up biodiversity–ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 15, ele.13456 (2020).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

Pawlowski, J. et al. CBOL Protist working group: barcoding eukaryotic richness beyond the animal, plant, and fungal kingdoms. PLOS Biol. 10, e1001419 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
del Campo, J. et al. The others: our biased perspective of eukaryotic genomes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 252–259 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Handbook of the Protists (Springer, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28149-0.Lang, B. F., O’Kelly, C., Nerad, T., Gray, M. W. & Burger, G. The closest unicellular relatives of animals. Curr. Biol. 12, 1773–1778 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
del Campo, J. et al. Ecological and evolutionary significance of novel protist lineages. Eur. J. Protistol. 55, 4–11 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grau-Bové, X. et al. Dynamics of genomic innovation in the unicellular ancestry of animals. Life 6, e26036 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Gawryluk, R. M. R. et al. Non-photosynthetic predators are sister to red algae. Nature 572, 240–243 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gabr, A., Grossman, A. R. & Bhattacharya, D. Paulinella, a model for understanding plastid primary endosymbiosis. J. Phycol. 56, 837–843 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gao, Z., Karlsson, I., Geisen, S., Kowalchuk, G. & Jousset, A. Protists: Puppet masters of the rhizosphere microbiome. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 165–176 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Caron, D. A. New accomplishments and approaches for assessing protistan diversity and ecology in natural ecosystems. Bioscience 59, 287–299 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gooday, A. J., Schoenle, A., Dolan, J. R. & Arndt, H. Protist diversity and function in the dark ocean: Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology with special emphasis on foraminiferans and naked protists. Eur. J. Protistol. 75, 125721 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker, D. K., Johnson, M. D., de Vargas, C. & Not, F. Acquired phototrophy in aquatic protists. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 57, 279–310 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strom, S. L., Benner, R., Ziegler, S. & Dagg, M. J. Planktonic grazers are a potentially important source of marine dissolved organic carbon. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 1364–1374 (1997).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orsi, W. D. et al. Identifying protist consumers of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes in the surface ocean using stable isotope probing. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 815–827 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Corno, G. & Jürgens, K. Direct and indirect effects of protist predation on population size structure of a bacterial strain with high phenotypic plasticity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 78–86 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mahé, F. et al. Parasites dominate hyperdiverse soil protist communities in Neotropical rainforests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 91 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ruppert, K. M., Kline, R. J. & Rahman, M. S. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00547 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Epstein, S. & López-García, P. “Missing” protists: a molecular prospective. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 261–276 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-García, P., Rodríguez-Valera, F., Pedrós-Alió, C. & Moreira, D. Unexpected diversity of small eukaryotes in deep-sea Antarctic plankton. Nature 409, 603–607 (2001).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lovejoy, C., Massana, R. & Pedrós-Alió, C. Diversity and distribution of marine microbial eukaryotes in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 3085–3095 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Worden, A. Z., Cuvelier, M. L. & Bartlett, D. H. In-depth analyses of marine microbial community genomics. Trends Microbiol. 14, 331–336 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Countway, P. D. et al. Distinct protistan assemblages characterize the euphotic zone and deep sea (2500 m) of the western North Atlantic (Sargasso Sea and Gulf Stream). Environ. Microbiol. 9, 1219–1232 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massana, R. & Pedrós-Alió, C. Unveiling new microbial eukaryotes in the surface ocean. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 11, 213–218 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, E. et al. Microbial eukaryotes in the hypersaline anoxic L’Atalante deep-sea basin. Environ. Microbiol. 11, 360–381 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stoeck, T. et al. Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol. Ecol. 19, 21–31 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Logares, R. et al. Patterns of rare and abundant marine microbial eukaryotes. Curr. Biol. 24, 813–821 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Vargas, C. et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Science 348, 150 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fell, J. W., Scorzetti, G., Connell, L. & Craig, S. Biodiversity of micro-eukaryotes in Antarctic Dry Valley soils with More

Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E. & Harris, A. T. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 261–299 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water: Synthesis (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).Lind, J., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Caravani, M., Kuol, L. B. D. & Nightingale, D. M. Newly evolving pastoral and post-pastoral rangelands of Eastern Africa. Pastoralism 10, 24 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, T. & Vogel, C. Climate change impacts on African rangelands. Rangelands 30, 12–17 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joyce, L. A. et al. Climate change and North American rangelands: Assessment of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 66, 512–528 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stringer, L. C., Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., Seely, M. K. & Rokitzki, M. Implementing the UNCCD: Participatory challenges. Nat. Resour. Forum 31, 198–211 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vågen, T.-G., Winowiecki, L. A., Tondoh, J. E., Desta, L. T. & Gumbricht, T. Mapping of soil properties and land degradation risk in Africa using MODIS reflectance. Geoderma 263, 216–225 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, N., Lehmann, C. E. R., Murphy, B. P. & Durigan, G. Savanna woody encroachment is widespread across three continents. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 235–244 (2017).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz, P. et al. Land degradation, poverty and inequality (2019).Bond, W. & Keeley, J. Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 387–394 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lehmann, C. E. R., Archibald, S. A., Hoffmann, W. A. & Bond, W. J. Deciphering the distribution of the savanna biome. New Phytol. 191, 197–209 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Staver, A. C., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. A. The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230–232 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
MATH 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fuhlendorf, S. D., Fynn, R. W. S., McGranahan, D. A. & Twidwell, D. Heterogeneity as the basis for rangeland management in Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges, Springer Series on Environmental Management (ed. Briske, D. D.), 169–196 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).Liao, C., Agrawal, A., Clark, P. E., Levin, S. A. & Rubenstein, D. I. Landscape sustainability science in the drylands: mobility, rangelands and livelihoods. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 2433–2447 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galvin, K. A. Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 38, 185–198 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-i Gelats, F., Fraser, E. D. G., Morton, J. F. & Rivera-Ferre, M. G. What drives the vulnerability of pastoralists to global environmental change? A qualitative meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 258–274 (2016).Obiri, J. F. Invasive plant species and their disaster-effects in dry tropical forests and rangelands of Kenya and Tanzania. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 3, 417–428 (2011).Kioko, J., Kiringe, J. W. & Seno, S. O. Impacts of livestock grazing on a savanna grassland in Kenya. J. Arid Land 4, 29–35 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kotiaho, J. S. et al. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem (2018).Western, D., Mose, V. N., Worden, J. & Maitumo, D. Predicting extreme droughts in savannah Africa: A comparison of proxy and direct measures in detecting biomass fluctuations, trends and their causes. PLoS One 10, e0136516 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dai, A. Drought under global warming: a review. WIREs Climate Change 2, 45–65 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holechek, J. L., Cibils, A. F., Bengaly, K. & Kinyamario, J. I. Human population growth, African pastoralism, and rangelands: A perspective. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 70, 273–280 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Midgley, G. F. & Bond, W. J. Future of African terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems under anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 823–829 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hill, M. J. & Guerschman, J. P. The MODIS global vegetation fractional cover product 2001–2018: Characteristics of vegetation fractional cover in grasslands and savanna woodlands. Remote Sensing 12, 406 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lake, P. S. Resistance, resilience and restoration. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 14, 20–24 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, D., McDonald, J. L. & Hosken, D. J. What do you mean, ‘resilient’?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 503–506 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. & Downing, J. A. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367, 363–365 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fedrigo, J. K. et al. Temporary grazing exclusion promotes rapid recovery of species richness and productivity in a long-term overgrazed Campos grassland. Restor. Ecol. 26, 677–685 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruppert, J. C. et al. Quantifying drylands’ drought resistance and recovery: the importance of drought intensity, dominant life history and grazing regime. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1258–1270 (2015).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Homewood, K. M. Policy, environment and development in African rangelands. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 125–143 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caro, T. & Davenport, T. R. B. Wildlife and wildlife management in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 30, 716–723 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bollig, M. & Schulte, A. Environmental change and pastoral perceptions: degradation and indigenous knowledge in two African pastoral communities. Hum. Ecol. 27, 493–514 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veldhuis, M. P. et al. Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Science 363, 1424–1428 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nicholson, S. E. Climate and climatic variability of rainfall over Eastern Africa. Rev. Geophys. 55, 590–635 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2012 Population and Housing Census (National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, 2013).Kiffner, C., Nagar, S., Kollmar, C. & Kioko, J. Wildlife species richness and densities in wildlife corridors of Northern Tanzania. J. Nat. Conserv. 31, 29–37 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foley, C. A. H. & Faust, L. J. Rapid population growth in an elephant Loxodonta africana population recovering from poaching in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. Oryx 44, 205–212 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kebacho, L. L. Large-scale circulations associated with recent interannual variability of the short rains over East Africa. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 134, 10 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wainwright, C. M., Finney, D. L., Kilavi, M., Black, E. & Marsham, J. H. Extreme rainfall in East Africa, October 2019-January 2020 and context under future climate change. Weather 76, 26–31 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Abukari, H. & Mwalyosi, R. B. Comparing pressures on national parks in Ghana and Tanzania: The case of mole and Tarangire National Parks. Global Ecol. Conserv. 15, e00405 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaswamila, A. An analysis of the contribution of community wildlife management areas on livelihood in Tanzania. Sustain. Natl. Res. Manag. 139–54 (2012).NTRI. Maps | NTRI – Northern Tanzania Rangelands Initiative. https://www.ntri.co.tz/maps/ (2016). Accessed: 2021-3-29.Mworia, J., Kinyamario, J. & John, E. Impact of the invader Ipomoea hildebrandtii on grass biomass, nitrogen mineralisation and determinants of its seedling establishment in Kajiado, Kenya. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 25, 11–16 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manyanza, N. M. & Ojija, F. Invasion, impact and control techniques for invasive Ipomoea hildebrandtii on Maasai steppe rangelands. NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. E Appl. Sci. 17, 12 (2021).Thaiyah, A. G. et al. Acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity of Solanum incanum L in sheep in Kenya. Kenya Veterinarian 35, 1–8 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Roques, K. G., O’Connor, T. G. & Watkinson, A. R. Dynamics of shrub encroachment in an African savanna: relative influences of fire, herbivory, rainfall and density dependence. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 268–280 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riginos, C. & Herrick, J. E. Monitoring rangeland health: a guide for pastoralists and other land managers in Eastern Africa. Version II (2010).Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG2004 (2007).QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association (2022).Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Didan, K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250m SIN Grid V006 [Data set] (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2015).Friedl, M. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q1 MODIS/Terra+ Aqua Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2019).Vermote, E. MOD09A1 MODIS/Terra Surface Reflectance 8-day L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC 10 (2015).Funk, C. et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations–a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Scientific Data 2, 1–21 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeileis, A. & Grothendieck, G. zoo: S3 infrastructure for regular and irregular time series. arXiv:math/0505527 (2005).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2016).Scaramuzza, P. & Barsi, J. Landsat 7 scan line corrector-off gap-filled product development in Proceeding of Pecora 16, 23–27 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rikimaru, A., Roy, P. S. & Miyatake, S. Tropical forest cover density mapping. Trop. Ecol. 39–47 (2002).Diek, S., Fornallaz, F., Schaepman, M. E. & De Jong, R. Barest pixel composite for agricultural areas using landsat time series. Remote Sensing 9, 1245 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Qi, J., Chehbouni, A., Huete, A. R., Kerr, Y. H. & Sorooshian, S. A modified soil adjusted vegetation index. Remote Sens. Environ. 48, 119–126 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Adams, B. et al. Mapping forest composition with Landsat time series: An evaluation of seasonal composites and harmonic regression. Remote Sensing 12, 610 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Nwanganga, F. & Chapple, M. Practical machine learning in R (John Wiley and Sons, Indianapolis, 2020).Adam, E., Mutanga, O., Odindi, J. & Abdel-Rahman, E. M. Land-use/cover classification in a heterogeneous coastal landscape using RapidEye imagery: evaluating the performance of random forest and support vector machines classifiers. Int. J. Remote Sens. 35, 3440–3458 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mansour, K., Mutanga, O., Adam, E. & Abdel-Rahman, E. M. Multispectral remote sensing for mapping grassland degradation using the key indicators of grass species and edaphic factors. Geocarto Int. 31, 477–491 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hunter, F. D. L., Mitchard, E. T. A., Tyrrell, P. & Russell, S. Inter-Seasonal time series imagery enhances classification accuracy of grazing resource and land degradation maps in a savanna ecosystem. Remote Sensing 12, 198 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, L. et al. Estimating surface downward shortwave radiation over china based on the gradient boosting decision tree method. Remote Sensing 10, 185 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pham, T. D. et al. Estimating mangrove Above-Ground biomass using extreme gradient boosting decision trees algorithm with fused Sentinel-2 and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 data in Can Gio biosphere reserve, Vietnam. Remote Sensing 12, 777 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Adobe Inc. Adobe illustrator.Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka Least-Squares means. R package version 1.5.4 (2021).Royall, R. M. The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests. Am. Stat. 40, 313–315 (1986).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 71, 319–392 (2009).Lindgren, F. & Rue, H. Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. J. Stat. Softw. 63, 1–25 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bakka, H. et al. Spatial modelling with R-INLA: A review. arXiv:1802.06350 [stat] (2018).Lobora, A. L. et al. Modelling habitat conversion in Miombo woodlands: Insights from Tanzania. J. Land Use Sci. 1747423X.2017.1331271 (2017).Bright, E. A., Rose, A. N., Urban, M. L. & McKee, J. LandScan 2017 High-Resolution global population data set. Tech. Rep., Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States) (2018).Gilbert, M. et al. Global distribution data for cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Sci Data 5, 180227 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y., Fang, J., Ma, W. & Wang, W. Relationship between variability in aboveground net primary production and precipitation in global grasslands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 (2008).Guo, Q. et al. Spatial variations in aboveground net primary productivity along a climate gradient in Eurasian temperate grassland: effects of mean annual precipitation and its seasonal distribution. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 3624–3631 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X., Yue, Y. & Faraway, J. J. Bayesian Regression Modeling with INLA (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018).Côté, I. M. & Darling, E. S. Rethinking ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000438 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
O’Loughlin, J. et al. Climate variability and conflict risk in East Africa, 1990–2009. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 18344–18349 (2012).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ongoma, V., Chen, H., Gao, C., Nyongesa, A. M. & Polong, F. Future changes in climate extremes over Equatorial East Africa based on CMIP5 multimodel ensemble. Nat. Hazards 90, 901–920 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Homewood, K. & Rodgers, W. A. Pastoralism, conservation and the overgrazing controversy. Conservation in Africa: People, policies and practice 111–128 (1987).Scoones, I. Exploiting heterogeneity: habitat use by cattle in dryland Zimbabwe. J. Arid Environ. 29, 221–237 (1995).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Goldman, M. J. & Riosmena, F. Adaptive capacity in Tanzanian Maasailand: Changing strategies to cope with drought in fragmented landscapes. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 588–597 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Selemani, I. S. & Others. Communal rangelands management and challenges underpinning pastoral mobility in Tanzania: a review. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 26, 1–12 (2014).Middleton, N. Rangeland management and climate hazards in drylands: dust storms, desertification and the overgrazing debate. Nat. Hazards 92, 57–70 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sallu, S. M., Twyman, C. & Stringer, L. C. Resilient or vulnerable livelihoods? Assessing livelihood dynamics and trajectories in rural Botswana. Ecology and Society 15 (2010).Oba, G. & Lusigi, W. J. An overview of drought strategies and land use in African pastoral systems (Agricultural Administration Unit, Overseas Development Institute, 1987).Russell, S., Tyrrell, P. & Western, D. Seasonal interactions of pastoralists and wildlife in relation to pasture in an African savanna ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 154, 70–81 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Girvetz, E. et al. Future climate projections in Africa: Where are we headed? In The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers: Investigating the Business of a Productive, Resilient and Low Emission Future 15–27 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).Lyon, B. & DeWitt, D. G. A recent and abrupt decline in the East African long rains. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 (2012).Liebmann, B. et al. Climatology and interannual variability of boreal spring wet season precipitation in the Eastern Horn of Africa and implications for its recent decline. J. Clim. 30, 3867–3886 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Shongwe, M. E., van Oldenborgh, G. J., van den Hurk, B. & van Aalst, M. Projected changes in mean and extreme precipitation in Africa under global warming. part II: East Africa. J. Clim. 24, 3718–3733 (2011).Dunning, C. M., Black, E. & Allan, R. P. Later wet seasons with more intense rainfall over Africa under future climate change. J. Clim. 31, 9719–9738 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rowell, D. P., Booth, B. B. B., Nicholson, S. E. & Good, P. Reconciling past and future rainfall trends over East Africa. J. Clim. 28, 9768–9788 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vizy, E. K. & Cook, K. H. Mid-Twenty-First-Century changes in extreme events over Northern and Tropical Africa. J. Clim. 25, 5748–5767 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gebremeskel Haile, G. et al. Droughts in East Africa: Causes, impacts and resilience. Earth-Sci. Rev. 193, 146–161 (2019).Kendon, E. J. et al. Enhanced future changes in wet and dry extremes over Africa at convection-permitting scale. Nat. Commun. 10, 1794 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Finney, D. L. et al. Effects of explicit convection on future projections of mesoscale circulations, rainfall, and rainfall extremes over Eastern Africa. J. Clim. 33, 2701–2718 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Prins, H. H. T. & Loth, P. E. Rainfall patterns as background to plant phenology in Northern Tanzania. J. Biogeogr. 15, 451–463 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ngondya, I. B., Treydte, A. C., Ndakidemi, P. A. & Munishi, L. K. Invasive plants: ecological effects, status, management challenges in Tanzania and the way forward. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. (JBES) 10, 204–217 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Drusch, M. et al. Sentinel-2: ESA’s optical High-Resolution mission for GMES operational services. Remote Sens. Environ. 120, 25–36 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rapinel, S. et al. Evaluation of Sentinel-2 time-series for mapping floodplain grassland plant communities. Remote Sens. Environ. 223, 115–129 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Li, W. et al. Accelerating savanna degradation threatens the Maasai Mara socio-ecological system. Glob. Environ. Change 60, 102030 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wonkka, C. L., Twidwell, D., Franz, T. E., Taylor, C. A. & Rogers, W. E. Persistence of a severe drought increases desertification but not woody dieback in semiarid savanna. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 69, 491–498 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vierich, H. I. D. & Stoop, W. A. Changes in West African savanna agriculture in response to growing population and continuing low rainfall. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 31, 115–132 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fynn, R. W. S. & O’Connor, T. G. Effect of stocking rate and rainfall on rangeland dynamics and cattle performance in a semi-arid savanna, South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 37, 491–507 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Chen, W., Xie, S. M., Azzari, G. & Lobell, D. B. Weakly supervised deep learning for segmentation of remote sensing imagery. Remote Sensing 12, 207 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alananga, S., Makupa, E. R., Moyo, K. J., Matotola, U. C. & Mrema, E. F. Land administration practices in Tanzania: A replica of past mistakes. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law (2019).Huggins, C. Village land use planning and commercialization of land in Tanzania. LANDac Research Brief 1 (2016).Stein, H., Maganga, F. P., Odgaard, R., Askew, K. & Cunningham, S. The formal divide: Customary rights and the allocation of credit to agriculture in Tanzania. J. Dev. Stud. 52, 1306–1319 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, D. G. M., Reeve, M. J., Thomasson, A. J. & Wright, V. F. Water retention, porosity and density of field soils (No. Tech. Monograph N9, 1977).Moore, D. C. & Singer, M. J. Crust formation effects on soil erosion processes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 1117–1123 (1990).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cotler, H. & Ortega-Larrocea, M. P. Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico. Catena 65, 107–117 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bach, E. M., Baer, S. G., Meyer, C. K. & Six, J. Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 2182–2191 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Butz, R. J. Traditional fire management: historical fire regimes and land use change in pastoral East Africa. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18, 442–450 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Benson, E. S. Sci. Context 29, 107–128 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Buckmaster, C. A. Lab Anim. 44, 237 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, M. J. et al. J. Zool. 244, 473–488 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spagnuolo, O. S. B., Lemerle, M. A., Holekamp, K. E. & Wiesel, I. Mamm. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-022-00309-4 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mountain lion P-22 compassionately euthanized following complete health evaluation results. wildlife.ca.gov, https://wildlife.ca.gov/News/mountain-lion-p-22-compassionately-euthanized-following-complete-health-evaluation-results (17 December 2022).Road Ecology Center, UC Davis. California roadkill observation system, https://www.wildlifecrossing.net/california/ (accessed 19 December 2022).Wong-Parodi, G. & Feygina, I. Environ. Commun. 15, 571–593 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carmi, N., Arnon, S. & Orion, N. J. Environ. Educ. 46, 183–201 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manfredo, M. J., Urquiza-Haas, E. G., Don Carlos, A. W., Bruskotter, J. T. & Dietsch, A. M. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108297 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schueler, D. S. & Newberry, M. G. III Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 19, 259–273 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jennings, L. Public gets to name Dallas Zoo’s baby giraffe. Dallas Zoo https://zoohoo.dallaszoo.com/2014/11/05/public-gets-to-name-dallas-zoos-baby-giraffe/ (5 November 2014).Verma, A., van der Wal, R. & Fischer, A. Ambio 44(Suppl 4), 648–660 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Macdonald, D. W., Jacobsen, K. S., Burnham, D., Johnson, P. J. & Loveridge, A. J. Animals 6, 26 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. D., Shanahan, E. A. & McBeth, M. K. The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in Public Policy Analysis (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014). More

Strains belonging to the same species display distinct growth dynamics on the marine polysaccharide alginateWe first quantified the growth dynamics of the 12 Vibrionaceae strains (Supplementary Table 1) on alginate in well-mixed batch cultures. Growth of populations was initiated at approximately the same inoculum density (105 colony forming units (c.f.u.) ml−1). We tracked the growth dynamics by measuring the optical density at 600 nm and compared the maximum population size reached over the course of 36 h (Fig. 1 and S1). We found significant differences in the maximal optical density achieved by different strains within each species (Fig. 1 and S1). In V. splendidus, strains 12B01 and FF6 reached a lower maximum population size compared to strains 1S124 and 13B01 (Fig. 1 and S1A). In V. cyclitrophicus, strain ZF270 reached a lower maximum population size compared to strains 1F175, 1F111, and ZF28 (Fig. 1 and S1A). Similarly, in V. sp. F13, strain 9ZC77 reached a lower maximum population size than strains 9CS106, 9ZC13, and ZF57 (Fig. 1 and S1A). These findings suggest that some strains are limited in their growth abilities in well-mixed environments, perhaps as a consequence of differences in the amount and activity of enzymes they release (Supplementary Table 1).Fig. 1: Vibrionaceae strains differ in their growth dynamics on the marine polysaccharide alginate under well-mixed conditions.Maximum optical density (measured at 600 nm) achieved by populations of strains belonging to Vibrio splendidus, Vibrio cyclitrophicus, and Vibrio sp. F13 during the course of a 36 h growth cycle on the same concentration (0.1% weight/volume) of the polysaccharide alginate. Points and error bars indicate the mean of measurements across populations within each ecotype (npopulations = 3) and the 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between strains within one species (One-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s post-hoc test; V. splendidus: p  More

Animal collection and holding for this project was conducted under Marine Research Permit RE-19–28 issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment, and Tourism of the Republic of Palau (10.03.2019), Marine Research/Collection Permit and Agreement 62 issued by the Koror State Government (08.10.2019), Queensland Government GBRMPA Marine Parks Permit G14/36689.1, Queensland Government DNPRSR Marine Parks Permits QS2014/MAN247 and QS2014/MAN247a, Queensland Government General Fisheries Permit 168991, Queensland Government DAFF Animal Ethics approval CA2013/11/733, approval by The Bahamas Department of Marine Resources, approval by the Animal Care Officer of both the University of Bremen and the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), and in accordance with UK and Germany animal care guidelines.Sample collectionWe collected fish carbonate samples at four study locations across three tropical and subtropical regions: Eleuthera (24°50’N, 76°20’W), The Bahamas, between 2009 and 201127,37; Heron Reef (23°27’S, 151°55’E) and Moreton Bay (27°29’S, 153°24’E) in Queensland, Australia, in 2014 and 201528; and Koror (7°20’N, 134°28’E), Palau, during November and December 2019. These are located within four distinct marine biogeographic provinces and three realms (Tropical Atlantic, Central Indo-Pacific, and Temperate Australasia)43. At each location fish were collected using barrier nets, dip nets, clove oil or hook and line, and immediately transferred to aquaria facilities at the Cape Eleuthera Institute, Heron Island and Moreton Bay Research Stations, and the Palau International Coral Reef Center. Fish were held in a range of tanks (60, 400, or 1400 L in the Bahamas, 10, 60, 100, 120, or 400 L in Heron Island and Moreton Bay, and 8, 80, 280, or 400 L in Palau) of suitable dimensions for different fish sizes ( 5). Each sample was titrated with 0.01–0.5 N HCl (with continuous aeration with CO2-free air) until the end point (grey-lavender; pH~4.80) was reached and stable for at least 10 min. If the sample was over-titrated (pink), 0.01–0.1 N NaOH was added to titrate back to the end point and the amount of base used was subtracted from the amount of acid. Acid and base were added using an electronic multi-dispenser pipette (Eppendorf Repeater ®E3X, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) with a precision of  ± 1 ({{{{{rm{mu }}}}}})L. Additionally, the pH of several samples was monitored using a pH microelectrode (Mettler Toledo InLab Micro) to ascertain the correctness of the colorimetric end point. The amount of carbonate in the sample was then calculated using Eq. (1). The method was validated using certified reference material (Alkalinity Standard Solution, 25,000 mg/L as CaCO3, HACH) and the accuracy in the determination of solid samples was verified using certified CaCO3 powder (Suprapur, ≥ 99.95% purity, Merck) samples (60–500 ({{{{{rm{mu }}}}}})g) and resulted in 96.53 ± 1.94% accuracy (mean ± SE; n = 8).To compare values obtained with the two titration methods we further analysed 12 samples collected at Lizard Island, Australia, in February 2016. Samples were collected at 24 h intervals from one individual of Lethrinus atkinsoni (f. Lethrinidae, body mass: 245 g), a group of five Lutjanus fulvus (f. Lutjanidae, mean body mass: 21 g), and an individual of Cephalopholis cyanostigma (f. Serranidae, body mass: 295 g), following the procedures described above. During sample collection water temperature ranged from 29.1 °C during the night to 32.6 °C during the day, with an average of ~31 °C, mean salinity was 35.4, and pHNBS ranged from 8.13 to 8.21. To compare the amount of carbonate measured by the two methods we added carbonate samples to 20 ml ultrapure water and disaggregated crystals via sonication. We then used a Metrohm Titrando autotitrator and Metrohm Aquatrode pH electrode to measure initial pH of the suspension of carbonates, then titrated each sample of carbonate in two stages. Firstly, they were titrated down to pH 4.80 using 0.1 M HCl, adding 20 µl increments of acid until this was sufficient to keep pH below 4.80 for 10 min whilst bubbling with CO2-free air. This first stage was comparable to the single end point titration used for samples collected in Palau. Secondly, whilst continuing to bubble with CO2-free air, further acid was added to the sample until it reached pH 3.89 and was stable for 1 min. Then 0.1 M NaOH was added to the samples to return them to the initial pH. For all samples the first end point titration (to pH 4.80) yielded slightly higher values for carbonate content than the second double titration. The ratio between the two methods (single end point/double titration) was 1.08 ± 0.01 (mean ± SE; range: 1.04–1.14; Supplementary Table 2). As we found a small but consistent difference between the two methods, all following analyses were initially performed on the actual data obtained with the double titration for samples from Australia and The Bahamas, and the single end point titration for samples from Palau. Then, to assess the robustness of the results, we repeated the analyses after applying a correction factor of 1.08 to the excretion rates of Palauan fishes (that used the single end point titration method). All results were consistent and robust to the measured difference between the titration methods (Supplementary Figs. 8, 9).Finally, measurements of multiple samples from each individual collected over periods of 18–169 h (median: 64 h) were combined to produce an average individual excretion rate in ({{{{{rm{mu }}}}}})mol h−1. For fish held in groups, carbonate excretion rates per individual (of average biomass) were obtained by averaging the total excretion rate of the group across the sampling period and dividing it by the number of individuals in the tank. Excretion rates obtained from fish groups thus evened the intraspecific variability within tanks, and are therefore more robust than those directly obtained from fish held individually. This aspect was considered in our models by fitting weighted regressions (see the “Statistical modelling” section). In total, we measured the carbonate excretion rates of 382 individual fishes arranged in 192 groups (i.e., independent observations), representing 85 species from 35 families across three tropical regions (180 individuals from 29 species in Australia, 90 individuals from 10 species in the Bahamas, and 112 individuals from 46 species in Palau; Supplementary Table 1).We assume that during the sampling of carbonates fishes were close to their resting metabolic rate and that their carbonate excretion rates are representative of fish at rest. Although the ratio of tank volume to fish volume in our study (median ~660; inter-quartile range ~180–1700) typically greatly exceeds the guideline ideal range for measuring resting metabolic rate (20–50)85, fishes were fasted prior to and throughout sampling, and in most instances their movement was somewhat constrained by tank volume. Fasting reduces metabolic rate in all animals, including fish, as they do not undergo energy-intensive digestive processes and use energy reserves to support vital processes, triggering metabolic changes in many tissues and reducing activity levels86,87. Additionally, other than the carbonate syphoning ( More

Darwin, C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. (John Murray, 1871).Andersson, M. Sexual Selection. (Princeton University Press, 1994).Shuster, S. & Wade, M. J. Mating Systems and Strategies. (Princeton University Press, 2003).Gosden, T. P. & Svensson, E. I. Spatial and temporal dynamics in a sexual selection mosaic. Evolution 62, 845–856 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kasumovic, M. M., Bruce, M. J., Andrade, M. C. B. & Herberstein, M. E. Spatial and temporal demographic variation drives within-season fluctuations in sexual selection. Evolution 62, 2316–2325 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mobley, K. B. & Jones, A. G. Environmental, demographic, and genetic mating system variation among five geographically distinct dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae) populations. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1476–1490 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoffer, J. N., Mariën, J., Ellers, J. & Koene, J. M. Sexual selection gradients change over time in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. eLife 6, e25139 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sih, A., Montiglio, P.-O., Wey, T. W. & Fogarty, S. Altered physical and social conditions produce rapidly reversible mating systems in water striders. Behav. Ecol. 28, 632–639 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Preston, B. T., Stevenson, I. R., Pemberton, J. M. & Wilson, K. Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion. Nature 409, 681–682 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cornwallis, C. K. & Uller, T. Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 145–152 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, A. A. & Bjelvenmark, J. Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature 429, 551–554 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hare, R. M. & Simmons, L. W. Sexual selection maintains a female-specific character in a species with dynamic sex roles. Behav. Ecol. 32, 609–616 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, R. J., Donelson, J. M., Schunter, C., Ravasi, T. & Gaitán-Espitia, J. D. Beyond buying time: the role of plasticity in phenotypic adaptation to rapid environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20180174 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ingleby, F. C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D. J. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2031–2045 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lindström, J., Pike, T. W., Blount, J. D. & Metcalfe, N. B. Optimization of resource allocation can explain the temporal dynamics and honesty of sexual signals. Am. Nat. 174, 515–525 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Janicke, T., David, P. & Chapuis, E. Environment-dependent sexual selection: Bateman’s parameters under varying levels of food availability. Am. Nat. 185, 756–768 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morimoto, J., Pizzari, T. & Wigby, S. Developmental environment effects on sexual selection in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 11, e0154468 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cattelan, S., Evans, J. P., Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Morbiato, E. & Pilastro, A. Dietary stress increases the total opportunity for sexual selection and modifies selection on condition-dependent traits. Ecol. Lett. 23, 447–456 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Glavaschi, A., Cattelan, S., Grapputo, A. & Pilastro, A. Imminent risk of predation reduces the relative strength of postcopulatory sexual selection in the guppy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20200076 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, D. C., DeBano, S. J. & Moore, A. J. The influence of environmental quality on sexual selection in Nauphoeta cinerea (Dictyoptera: Blaberidae). Behav. Ecol. 8, 46–53 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Emlen, S. & Oring, L. Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223 (1977).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P. & Székely, T. The evolution of sex roles in birds is related to adult sex ratio. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–6 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wacker, S. et al. Operational sex ratio but not density affects sexual selection in a fish. Evolution 67, 1937–1949 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wacker, S., Ness, M. H., Östlund-Nilsson, S. & Amundsen, T. Social structure affects mating competition in a damselfish. Coral Reefs 36, 1279–1289 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Janicke, T. & Morrow, E. H. Operational sex ratio predicts the opportunity and direction of sexual selection across animals. Ecol. Lett. 21, 384–391 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Procter, D. S., Moore, A. J. & Miller, C. W. The form of sexual selection arising from male-male competition depends on the presence of females in the social environment. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 803–812 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eldakar, O. T., Dlugos, M. J., Pepper, J. W. & Wilson, D. S. Population structure mediates sexual conflict in Water striders. Science 326, 816–816 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Coltman, D. W. & Pelletier, F. Demographic drivers of age-dependent sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 1437–1446 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pilakouta, N. & Ålund, M. Sexual selection and environmental change: what do we know and what comes next? Curr. Zool. 67, 293–298 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kahn, A. T., Dolstra, T., Jennions, M. D. & Backwell, P. R. Y. Strategic male courtship effort varies in concert with adaptive shifts in female mating preferences. Behav. Ecol. 24, 906–913 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordan, L. A. & Brooks, R. C. Recent social history alters male courtship preferences. Evolution 66, 280–287 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, D. R., Nelson, X. J. & Evans, C. S. Seizing the opportunity: Subordinate male fowl respond rapidly to variation in social context. Ethology 115, 996–1004 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gwynne, D. T., Bailey, W. J. & Annells, A. The sex in short supply for matings varies over small Spatial scales in a Katydid (Kawanaphila nartee, Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42, 157–162 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fedina, T. Y. & Lewis, S. M. Female mate choice across mating stages and between sequential mates in flour beetles. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 2138–2143 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clark, H. L. & Backwell, P. R. Y. Temporal and spatial variation in female mating preferences in a fiddler crab. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 1779–1784 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Serbezov, D., Bernatchez, L., Olsen, E. M. & Vøllestad, L. A. Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population. Mol. Ecol. 19, 3193–3205 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gerlach, N. M., McGlothlin, J. W., Parker, P. G. & Ketterson, E. D. Reinterpreting Bateman gradients: multiple mating and selection in both sexes of a songbird species. Behav. Ecol. 23, 1078–1088 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dubuc, C., Ruiz-Lambides, A. & Widdig, A. Variance in male lifetime reproductive success and estimation of the degree of polygyny in a primate. Behav. Ecol. 25, 878–889 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Breuer, T. et al. Variance in the male reproductive success of western gorillas: acquiring females is just the beginning. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 515–528 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Germain, R. R., Hallworth, M. T., Kaiser, S. A., Sillett, T. S. & Webster, M. S. Variance in within-pair reproductive success influences the opportunity for selection annually and over the lifetimes of males in a multi-brooded songbird. Evolution 75, 915–930 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210–1226 (1983).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Klug, H., Heuschele, J., Jennions, M. D. & Kokko, H. The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 447–462 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jennions, M. D., Kokko, H. & Klug, H. The opportunity to be misled in studies of sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 25, 591–598 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krakauer, A. H., Webster, M. S., Duval, E. H., Jones, A. G. & Shuster, S. M. The opportunity for sexual selection: not mismeasured, just misunderstood. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2064–2071 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hebets, E. A., Stafstrom, J. A., Rodriguez, R. L. & Wilgers, D. J. Enigmatic ornamentation eases male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Anim. Behav. 81, 963–972 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick, J. L. & Lüpold, S. Sexual selection and the evolution of sperm quality. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 20, 1180–1189 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jones, A. G. On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63, 1673–1684 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Henshaw, J. M., Kahn, A. T. & Fritzsche, K. A rigorous comparison of sexual selection indexes via simulations of diverse mating systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E300–E308 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Evans, J. P. & Garcia-Gonzalez, F. The total opportunity for sexual selection and the integration of pre- and post-mating episodes of sexual selection in a complex world. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 2338–2361 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Downhower, J. F., Blumer, L. S. & Brown, L. Opportunity for selection: an appropriate measure for evaluating variation in the potential for selection? Evolution 41, 1395–1400 (1987).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Klug, H. & Stone, L. More than just noise: Chance, mating success, and sexual selection. Ecol. Evol. 11, 6326–6340 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anthes, N., Häderer, I. K., Michiels, N. K. & Janicke, T. Measuring and interpreting sexual selection metrics: evaluation and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 918–931 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klug, H., Lindström, K. & Kokko, H. Who to include in measures of sexual selection is no trivial matter. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1094–1102 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Collet, J. M., Dean, R. F., Worley, K., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. The measure and significance of Bateman’s principles. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132973 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Collet, J., Richardson, D. S., Worley, K. & Pizzari, T. Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8641–8645 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, G. C., Spurgin, L. G., Fairfield, E. A., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. Pre- and postcopulatory sexual selection favor aggressive, young males in polyandrous groups of red junglefowl. Evolution 71, 1653–1669 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morimoto, J. et al. Sex peptide receptor-regulated polyandry modulates the balance of pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 10, 283 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shuster, S. M., Willen, R. M., Keane, B. & Solomon, N. G. Alternative mating tactics in socially monogamous prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dowling, J. & Webster, M. S. Working with what you’ve got: unattractive males show greater mate-guarding effort in a duetting songbird. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160682 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pizzari, T. & McDonald, G. C. Sexual selection in socially structured, polyandrous populations: Some insights from the fowl. Adv. Study Behav. 51, 77–141 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Archer, M. S. & Elgar, M. A. Female preference for multiple partners: sperm competition in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus (DeGeer). Anim. Behav. 58, 669–675 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qvarnström, A. & Forsgren, E. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 498–501 (1998).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Webster, M. S., Tarvin, K. A., Tuttle, E. M. & Pruett-Jones, S. Promiscuity drives sexual selection in a socially monogamous bird. Evolution 61, 2205–2211 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brunton, D. H. Energy expenditure in reproductive effort of male and female Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Auk 105, 553–564 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, L. S., Hicks, B. G. & Masters, B. S. Increased cuckoldry as a cost of breeding late for male house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). Behav. Ecol. 13, 670–675 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boinski, S. Mating patterns in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedi): implications for seasonal sexual dimorphism. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21, 13–21 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, G. C., Spurgin, L. G., Fairfield, E. A., Richardson, D. S. & Pizzari, T. Differential female sociality is linked with the fine-scale structure of sexual interactions in replicate groups of red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191734 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carleial, R. et al. Temporal dynamics of competitive fertilization in social groups of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) shed new light on avian sperm competition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20200081 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lessells, C. M. & Birkhead, T. R. Mechanisms of sperm competition in birds: mathematical models. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 325–337 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taborsky, T., Oliveira, R. F. & Brockmann, H. J. The Evolution of Alternative Reproductive Tactics: Concepts and Questions. in Alternative Reproductive Tactics: An Integrative Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2008).Ghislandi, P. G. et al. Resource availability, mating opportunity and sexual selection intensity influence the expression of male alternative reproductive tactics. J. Evol. Biol. 31, 1035–1046 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lehtonen, T. K., Wong, B. B. M. & Lindström, K. Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biol. Lett. 6, 21–23 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chaine, A. S. & Lyon, B. E. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319, 459–462 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oklander, L. I., Kowalewski, M. & Corach, D. Male reproductive strategies in black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya). Am. J. Primatol. 76, 43–55 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pröhl, H. & Hödl, W. Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46, 215–220 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turnell, B. R. & Shaw, K. L. High opportunity for postcopulatory sexual selection under field conditions. Evolution 69, 2094–2104 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gill, L. F., van Schaik, J., von Bayern, A. M. P. & Gahr, M. L. Genetic monogamy despite frequent extrapair copulations in “strictly monogamous” wild jackdaws. Behav. Ecol. 31, 247–260 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carleial, R., McDonald, G. C. & Pizzari, T. Dynamic phenotypic correlates of social status and mating effort in male and female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. J. Evol. Biol. 33, 22–40 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, G. C. & Pizzari, T. Structure of sexual networks determines the operation of sexual selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E53–E61 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Anthes, N. Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500983 (2016).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Webster, M. S., Pruett-Jones, S., Westneat, D. F. & Arnold, S. J. Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49, 1147–1157 (1995).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Etches, R. J. Reproduction in Poultry. (CABI, 1996).Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients: Interpretation of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 103–113 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Løvlie, H., Cornwallis, C. K. & Pizzari, T. Male mounting alone reduces female promiscuity in the fowl. Curr. Biol. 15, 1222–1227 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berglund, A. Many mates make male pipefish choosy. Behaviour 132, 213–218 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carleial, R., Pizzari, T., Richardson, D. S. & McDonald, G. C. Data for: Disentangling the causes of temporal variation in the opportunity for sexual selection. figshare Dataset (2023) https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21902133.v1.McLain, D. K., Burnette, L. B. & Deeds, D. A. Within season variation in the intensity of sexual selection on body size in the bug Margus obscurator (Hemiptera Coreidae). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 5, 75–86 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlicht, E. & Kempenaers, B. Effects of social and extra-pair mating on sexual selection in Blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus). Evolution 67, 1420–1434 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar  More