Philippa Kaur

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

Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Linders, T. E. W. et al. Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: Biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning. J. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13268 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, F. T. The science of risk assessment for phytosanitary regulation and the impact of changing trade regulations. Bioscience https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0148:TSORAF]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paini, D. R. et al. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602205113 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westphal, M. I., Browne, M., MacKinnon, K. & Noble, I. The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biol. Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9138-5 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hennessey, M. et al. Phytosanitary Treatments. In The Handbook of Plant Biosecurity (eds Gordh, G. & Mckirdy, S.) 269–308 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Melvin Couey, H. & Chew, V. Confidence limits and sample size in quarantine research. J. Econ. Entomol. 79, 887–890 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Schortemeyer, M. et al. Appropriateness of probit-9 in the development of quarantine treatments for timber and timber commodities. J. Econ. Entomol. 104, 717–731 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haack, R. A., Uzunovic, A., Hoover, K. & Cook, J. A. Seeking alternatives to probit 9 when developing treatments for wood packaging materials under ISPM No. 15. EPPO Bull. 41, 39–45 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Liqudio, N. J., Griffin, R. L. & Vick, K. W. Quarantine security for commodities: current approaches and potential strategies. In Proceedings of Joint Workshops of the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, June 5–9 and July 31 -August 5, 1995 56 (1997).Follett, P. A. Phytosanitary irradiation for fresh horticultural commodities: Generic treatments, current issues, and next steps. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 3, 1–7 (2014).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Hallman, G. J. & Loaharanu, P. Generic ionizing radiation quarantine treatments against fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) proposed. J. Econ. Entomol. 95, 893–901 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. & Armstrong, J. W. Revised irradiation doses to control melon fly, mediterranean fruit fly, and oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) and a generic dose for tephritid fruit flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 1254–1262 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. & Snook, K. Irradiation for quarantine control of the invasive light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and a generic dose for tortricid eggs and larvae. J. Econ. Entomol. 105, 1971–1978 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hallman, G. J., Arthur, V., Blackburn, C. M. & Parker, A. G. The case for a generic phytosanitary irradiation dose of 250Gy for Lepidoptera eggs and larvae. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 89, 70–75 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hallman, G. J. Generic phytosanitary irradiation dose of 300 Gy proposed for the Insecta excluding pupal and adult Lepidoptera. Florida Entomol. 99, 206–210 (2016).
Google Scholar 
IPPC. ISPM 28. Annex 39. Irradiation treatment for the genus Anastrepha. 1–6 (2021).IPPC. ISPM 28. Annex 7. Irradiation Treatment for fruit flies of the family Tephritidae (generic). 1–6 (2021).Posthuma, L., Suter, G. W. & Traas, T. P. Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology (CRC Press, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420032314.Book 

Google Scholar 
Newman, M. C. et al. Applying species-sensitivity distributions in ecological risk assessment: Assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 508–515 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Straalen, N. M. & van Leeuwen, C. J. European history of species sensitivity distributions. In Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology 43–60 (CRC Press, 2001). Doi:https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420032314.ch3.ANZECC & ARMCANZ. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. aquatic ecosystems. Aust. New Zeal. Environ. Conserv. Counc. Agric. Resour. Manag. Counc. Aust. New Zeal. 1–103 (2000).Aldenberg, T. & Jaworska, J. S. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 46, 1–18 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hallman, G. J. Generic phytosanitary irradiation treatment for “true weevils” (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infesting fresh commodities. Florida Entomol. 99, 197–201 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. Irradiation for quarantine control of coffee berry borer, hypothenemus hampei (coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in coffee and a proposed generic dose for snout beetles (coleoptera: Curculionoidea). J. Econ. Entomol. 111, 1633–1637 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Earle, N. W., Simmons, L. A. & Nilakhe, S. S. Laboratory studies of sterility and competitiveness of boll weevils irradiated in an atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or air. J. Econ. Entomol. 72, 687–691 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A., McQuate, G. T., Sylva, C. D. & Swedman, A. Sensitivity of the quarantine pest rough Sweetpotato weevil, Blosyrus asellus to postharvest irradiation treatment. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 48, 23–27 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hallman, G. J. Ionizing irradiation quarantine treatment against plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 96, 1399–1404 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Jacklin, S. W., Richardson, E. C. & Yonce, C. E. Substerilizing doses of gamma irradiation to produce population suppression in plum curculio1. J. Econ. Entomol. 63, 1053–1057 (1970).
Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Fukami, J. I., Fukunaga, K. & Matsuyama, A. Control of harmful insects in timbers by irradiation: doses required for sterilization and inhibition of emergence of the minute pine bark beetle, Cryphalus fulvus. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 18, 52–58 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. Irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative for postharvest control of Omphisa anastomosalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and euscepes postfasciatus and cylas formicarius elegantulus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in sweet potatoes. J. Econ. Entomol. 99, 32–37 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gould, W. P. & Hallman, G. J. Irradiation disinfestation of diaprepes root weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and papaya fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomol. 87, 391–392 (2004).
Google Scholar 
van Haandel, A. et al. Tolerance of Hylurgus ligniperda (F.) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and Arhopalus ferus (Mulsant) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to ionising radiation: a comparison with existing generic radiation phytosanitary treatments. New Zeal. J. For. Sci. 47, 1–9 (2017).Burgess, E. E. & Bennett, S. E. Sterilization of the male alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica: Curculionidae) by X-Radiation. J. Econ. Entomol. 59, 268–270 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Wood, D. L. & Stark, R. W. The effects of gamma radiation on the biology and behavior of adult ips confusus (LeConte) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Entomol. 98, 1–10 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Effect of X-ray (9 MeV) irradiation on the development and propagation of Ips sexdentatus. Plant Quar. 25, 28–31 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Zhan, G. et al. Effect of irradiation on development and propagation of larch bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytoidea). J. Nucl. Agric. Sci. 25, 1200–1205 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Gerstle, C. & Sazo, L. Efecto de las radiaciones de Cesio 137 sobre la fertilidad de hembras de Naupactus xanthographus (Germar) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Cienc. e Investig. Agrar. 16, 69–73 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Manoto, E. C., Obra, G. B., Reyes, M. R. & Resilva, S. S. Irradiation as a quarantine treatment for ornamentals. IAEA-Tecdoc 1082, 81–91 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Duvenhage, A. J. & Johnson, S. A. The potential of irradiation as a postharvest disinfestation treatment against phlyctinus callosus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 107, 154–160 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jaynes, A. & Godwin, P. A. Sterilization of the white-pine weevil with gamma radiation. J. Econ. Entomol. 50, 393–395 (1957).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aldryhim, Y. N. & Adam, E. E. Efficacy of gamma irradiation against Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 35, 225–232 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. et al. Irradiation quarantine treatment for control of Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in rice. J. Stored Prod. Res. 52, 63–67 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hu, T., Chen, C. C. & Peng, W. K. Lethal effect of gamma irradiation on Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Formos. Entomol. 23, 145–150 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Arthur, V. & Wiendl, F. M. Comportamento e competitividade sexual de adultos de Sphenophorus levis Vaurie, 1978 (col., Curculionidae), uma praga da cana-de-açucar, irradiados com radiações gama do cobaldo-60. Brazilian J. Agric. 68, 57–66 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Obra, G. B., Resilva, S. S., Follett, P. A. & Lorenzana, L. R. J. Large-scale confirmatory tests of a phytosanitary irradiation treatment against Sternochetus frigidus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Philippine mango. J. Econ. Entomol. 107, 161–165 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Seo, S. T. et al. Mango weevil: Cobalt-60 γ-irradiation of packaged mangoes. J. Econ. Entomol. 67, 504–505 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Fukami, J. I., Fukunaga, K. & Matsuyama, A. Effects of gamma radiation on Xyleborus perforans (Wollaston) pupae and adults. J. Pestic. Sci. 2, 413–420 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Fukami, J. I., Fukunaga, K. & Matsuyama, A. Control of the harmful insects in timbers by irradiation: Doses required for kill, sterilization and inhibition of emergence in three species of ambrosia beetles (Xyleborini) in Japan. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 19, 193–202 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. & McQuate, G. T. Accelerated development of quarantine treatments for insects on poor hosts. J. Econ. Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.5.1005 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Plazzi, F., Ferrucci, R. R. & Passamonti, M. Phylogenetic representativeness: A new method for evaluating taxon sampling in evolutionary studies. BMC Bioinform. 11, 1–15 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Moore, D. R. J., Priest, C. D., Galic, N., Brain, R. A. & Rodney, S. I. Correcting for phylogenetic autocorrelation in species sensitivity distributions. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16, (2020).Carr, G. J. & Belanger, S. E. SSDs revisited: Part I—A framework for sample size guidance on species sensitivity distribution analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 38, 1514–1525 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wheeler, J. R., Grist, E. P. M., Leung, K. M. Y., Morritt, D. & Crane, M. Species sensitivity distributions: Data and model choice. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 45, 192–202 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Duboudin, C., Ciffroy, P. & Magaud, H. Acute-to-chronic species sensitivity distribution extrapolation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 1774–1785 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Esteves, S. M. et al. Can we predict diatoms herbicide sensitivities with phylogeny? Influence of intraspecific and interspecific variability. Ecotoxicology 26, 1065–1077 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hiki, K. & Iwasaki, Y. Can we reasonably predict chronic species sensitivity distributions from acute species sensitivity distributions?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 13131–13136 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baird, D. J. & Van den Brink, P. J. Using biological traits to predict species sensitivity to toxic substances. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 67, 296–301 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guénard, G., von der Ohe, P. C., Walker, S. C., Lek, S. & Legendre, P. Using phylogenetic information and chemical properties to predict species tolerances to pesticides. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Larras, F., Keck, F., Montuelle, B., Rimet, F. & Bouchez, A. Linking diatom sensitivity to herbicides to phylogeny: A step forward for biomonitoring?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1921–1930 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hayashi, T. I. & Kashiwagi, N. A bayesian method for deriving species-sensitivity distributions: Selecting the best-fit tolerance distributions of taxonomic groups. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 16, 251–263 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, F. L. et al. Key issues for the development and application of the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) model for ecological risk assessment. Ecol. Indic. 54, 227–237 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dowse, R., Tang, D., Palmer, C. G. & Kefford, B. J. Risk assessment using the species sensitivity distribution method: Data quality versus data quantity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32, 1360–1369 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dias, V. S. et al. Relative tolerance of three morphotypes of the anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) to cold phytosanitary Treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 113, 1176–1182 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Myers, S. W., Cancio-Martinez, E., Hallman, G. J., Fontenot, E. A. & Vreysen, M. J. B. Relative tolerance of six Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae) species to phytosanitary cold treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 109, 2341–2347 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gazit, Y., Akiva, R. & Gavriel, S. Cold tolerance of the Mediterranean fruit fly in date and mandarin. J. Econ. Entomol. 107, 1745–1750 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Gamma radiation as a phytosanitary treatment against larvae and pupae of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in guava fruits. Food Control 72, 360–366 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Thorley, J. & Schwarz, C. ssdtools: An R package to fit Species sensitivity distributions. J. Open Sour. Softw. 3, 1–2 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoritic Approach 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_7.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mazucheli, J., Menezes, A. F. B. & Nadarajah, S. mle.tools: An R package for maximum likelihood bias correction. R. J. 9, 268–290 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cox, D. R. & Snell, E. J. A general definition of residuals. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 30, 248–265 (1968).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Follett, P. A. Irradiation as a quarantine treatment for mango seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proc. Hawaii. Entomol. Soc. 35, 95–100 (2001).
Google Scholar  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

This study provides quantitative data for Ocyropsis spp. feeding mechanisms and in situ data for gut contents during both day and night to begin assessing their trophic role in oceanic waters. Previous studies qualitatively described the feeding pattern of Ocyropsis spp.15 whereby this animal uses a unique capture mechanism among lobate ctenophores: direct transfer from lobe to mouth and encounters involving the mouth actively grabbing copepod prey24. These previous observations are confirmed as Ocyropsis spp. is able to deploy its dexterous, prehensile mouth to effectively capture prey within the lobes (Figs. 2, 3) and quantitative assessments of predation are also provided. It should be noted that while Ocyropsis spp. are known to occasionally consume a wide variety of prey types and sizes15, this study focuses only on copepod prey because our field data showed recognizable prey in Ocyropsis spp. guts was almost exclusively copepods.For example, mean speed of the mouth is less than 6 mm s−1 during predation events on copepods. Thus, while it may look rapid to the human eye, this is far below the escape swimming speeds exhibited by many copepods which are capable of moving at speeds of up to 500 mm s−125,26. Our observations show that the mechanism of capture is thus not reliant on grabbing copepods from the water between the ctenophore lobes with the mouth, but rather aided by copepod contact with the ctenophore lobes. Copepods between the lobes swam only with a speed of 7.94 mm s−1 (S.D. 7.25), to which the average mouth speed (5.83 mm s−1 (S.D. 1.68)) is comparable (Table 1). This suggests that Ocyropsis is able to reduce copepod swimming activity either by trapping them against the lobes (lobes respond to contact by prey) and/or the use of some form of adhesion or chemical that acts to reduce copepod activity. This unusual form of predation using a prehensile mouth allows Ocyropsis to be highly effective predators without the use of prey capturing tentillae seen in other lobate species.The presence of multiple prey has the potential to disrupt a raptorial type feeder such as Ocyropsis spp. more so than other lobates, since they lack tentillae, which would allow them to capture multiple prey simultaneously. Instead Ocyropsis spp. transfer one prey at a time directly from lobe to mouth15,27. So how is this ctenophore able to maintain such a high overall capture rate? The answer appears to be that Ocyropsis will modulate the number of attempts with the prehensile mouth depending on the number of prey present. For example, we did not observe any captures on the first attempt with the mouth with multiple prey, but the animals made up to 8 attempts at capturing the nearest copepod. This is in contrast to single copepod encounters in which ctenophores captured copepods on the first attempt 61% of the time and rarely made over 2 attempts, never exceeding 3 attempts (Figs. 3a, 5a, Table 1). This demonstrates Ocyropsis spp. can adjust its behavior to maintain high overall capture success when presented with multiple simultaneous prey. It is also interesting to note that the resulting increase in handling time due to making more attempts during multiple prey encounters is still lower than the handling time for most other lobates dealing with single prey27,28. It is not clear how often Ocyropsis spp. need to deal with multiple copepods simultaneously in nature, as oceanic waters contain characteristically low ctenophore prey densities compared to coastal zones9,29, however prey can be highly patchy and it appears that the unique prey capture mechanism of Ocyropsis spp. is still able to operate effectively in high density patches by increasing the number of attempts before aborting the attack which could serve as a means to maintain similar ingestion rates to single prey encounters.Typically, the feeding sequence of a ctenophore involves capture of prey in sticky colloblast cells and retraction of tentillae and/or ciliary transport of prey to the mouth15,27,30. These feeding mechanisms result in a range of handling times ranging from 2.5 s for Bolinopsis. infundibulum28 to nearly 22 min for Pleurobrachia bachei27. Capture rates can also be quite high, with overall capture success rates up to 74% for Mnemiopsis leidyi2,3. We found Ocyropsis has a relatively fast mean handling time of 6.3 s when a single copepod was present between the lobes, but handling time increased by approximately 2.5-fold if multiple prey were present. Overall capture success rates were comparable to the highly effective coastal ctenophore, M. leidyi, with a 71% success rate with single prey present and 81% capture rates if multiple prey were present between the lobes. Thus, Ocyropsis spp. are able to capture prey with high efficiency despite the differences in feeding mechanics compared to coastal lobate ctenophores. Additionally, since encounter rates of planktivores are directly related to the time spent searching for prey and time spent handling prey27, the relatively short handling time of Ocyropsis spp. and their direct feeding mechanism may allow them to sample more water and encounter a larger proportion of the available prey population than other species.Diel patterns of prey consumptionMany planktivorous species exhibit higher gut fullness at night31,32, due to higher prey availability in surface waters as a result of a diel vertical migration33,34. In situ gut content images showed that Ocyropsis spp. had a significantly higher gut fullness at night (12.4%) compared to during the day (4.2%) (Fig. 7). Ocyropsis spp. also had higher numbers of prey per individual gut at night, although overall biomass was not significantly different between night and day (Fig. 7). This can be explained by differences in prey characteristics; prey observed in the gut during the day were significantly larger (Table 2). This may be due to an ability to feed more selectively during the day since overall prey densities are lower. It should also be considered that turbulence in surface waters is, on average, much lower at night compared to daytime35 and that even small amounts of turbulence can negatively impact ctenophore feeding36,37. Therefore, smaller prey may have a higher likelihood of evading detection of Ocyropsis during the day compared to night, especially since these animals are most frequently observed in the upper 15 m of oceanic waters.Kremer, et al.38 estimates that O. crystallina requires 252 prey items to sustain itself. On average, Ocyropsis spp. in this study consume over 500 prey d−1. This exceeds their metabolic demands and suggests the observed population, on the western edge of the Gulf Stream, are likely to be actively growing and reproducing. The time required to digest prey items averaged 44 min for Ocyropsis which is faster than many, but not all, gelatinous zooplankton39,40,41. Digestion times of other gelatinous taxa span a range of times from 15 min to over 7 h at 20 °C40 and are impacted by size and number of prey per gut as well as temperature39,42,43. Digestion observations were performed at an ambient temperature of 25 °C and thus, these numbers represent a conservative estimate because the temperature of the water from which the animals were collected was 26.7–27.4 °C. Ocyropsis spp. would likely experience an increase in digestion rate with increased temperature.Digestion time was not impacted by the number of prey in the gut or by ctenophore body length. This differs from trends seen in other gelatinous taxa, such as A. aurita, M. leidyi, and B. infundibulum, where increasing body size resulted in faster digestion time39,40 and where increasing number of prey in the gut leads to longer digestion times39,40,41. In this study however, ctenophores were offered only a few copepods to ingest, thus it is likely they were not fed enough prey to satiate and slow the digestion process. Also worth considering is that the metabolic rate of O. crystallina does not appear to be affected by body size38. Though metabolic rates were not measured, this aligns with our finding that body size had no significant effect on digestion time. Analysis of in situ gut contents showed a significant positive logarithmic relationship between ctenophore length and total prey biomass per gut (Fig. 8). Individuals smaller than 20 mm in this study typically had fewer than the average number of copepods per gut (19), and larger individuals were the main driver of this relationship. This suggests that small Ocyropsis ( 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

Teuling, A. J., Seneviratne, S. I., Williams, C. & Troch, P. A. Observed timescales of evapotranspiration response to soil moisture. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L23403 (2006).Gao, H. et al. Climate controls how ecosystems size the root zone storage capacity at catchment scale. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7916–7923 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milly, P. C. D. Climate, soil water storage, and the average annual water balance. Water Resour. Res. 30, 2143–2156 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hahm, W. J. et al. Low subsurface water storage capacity relative to annual rainfall decouples Mediterranean plant productivity and water use from rainfall variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6544–6553 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, S. E. et al. Comparative hydrology across AmeriFlux sites: the variable roles of climate, vegetation, and groundwater. Water Resour. Res. 47, W00J07 (2011).Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Otero-Casal, C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10572–10577 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hain, C. R., Crow, W. T., Anderson, M. C. & Tugrul Yilmaz, M. Diagnosing neglected soil moisture source–sink processes via a thermal infrared-based two-source energy balance model. J. Hydrometeorol. 16, 1070–1086 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rempe, D. M. & Dietrich, W. E. Direct observations of rock moisture, a hidden component of the hydrologic cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2664–2669 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dawson, T. E., Jesse Hahm, W. & Crutchfield-Peters, K. Digging deeper: what the critical zone perspective adds to the study of plant ecophysiology. N. Phytol. 226, 666–671 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCormick, E. L. et al. Widespread woody plant use of water stored in bedrock. Nature 597, 225–229 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, R. M. & Condon, L. E. Connections between groundwater flow and transpiration partitioning. Science 353, 377–380 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlemmer, L., Schär, C., Lüthi, D. & Strebel, L. A groundwater and runoff formulation for weather and climate models. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 10, 1809–1832 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teuling, A. J. et al. Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nat. Geosci. 3, 722–727 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koirala, S. et al. Global distribution of groundwater–vegetation spatial covariation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4134–4142 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Esteban, E. J. L., Castilho, C. V., Melgaço, K. L. & Costa, F. R. C. The other side of droughts: wet extremes and topography as buffers of negative drought effects in an Amazonian forest. N. Phytol. 229, 1995–2006 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Konings, A. G., Kennedy, D. & Gentine, P. Global coordination in plant physiological and rooting strategies in response to water stress. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006758 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schenk, H. J. & Jackson, R. B. The global biogeography of roots. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 311–328 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Canadell, J. et al. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 108, 583–595 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, J. E. & Darland, R. W. Soil–root relationships of certain native grasses in various soil types. Ecol. Monogr. 19, 303–338 (1949).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chitra-Tarak, R. et al. Hydraulically-vulnerable trees survive on deep-water access during droughts in a tropical forest. N. Phytol. 231, 1798–1813 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schenk, H. J. & Jackson, R. B. Mapping the global distribution of deep roots in relation to climate and soil characteristics. Geoderma 126, 129–140 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, O. et al. Organizing principles for vegetation dynamics. Nat. Plants 6, 444–453 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleidon, A. & Heimann, M. A method of determining rooting depth from a terrestrial biosphere model and its impacts on the global water and carbon cycle. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 275–286 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schymanski, S. J., Sivapalan, M., Roderick, M. L., Hutley, L. B. & Beringer, J. An optimality-based model of the dynamic feedbacks between natural vegetation and the water balance. Water Resour. Res. 45, W01412 (2009).Wang-Erlandsson, L. et al. Global root zone storage capacity from satellite-based evaporation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1459–1481 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knapp, A. K. & Smith, M. D. Variation among biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground primary production. Science 291, 481–484 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, M. A two-source time-integrated model for estimating surface fluxes using thermal infrared remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 60, 195–216 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hain, C. R. & Anderson, M. C. Estimating morning change in land surface temperature from MODIS day/night observations: applications for surface energy balance modeling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9723–9733 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tumber-Dávila, S. J., Schenk, H. J., Du, E. & Jackson, R. B. Plant sizes and shapes above- and belowground and their interactions with climate. New Phytol. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nph.18031 (2022).Harmonized World Soil Database Version 1.0 (FAO, 2008).Wieder, W. Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database Version 1.2 (ORNL DAAC, 2014); https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247Balland, V., Pollacco, J. A. P. & Arp, P. A. Modeling soil hydraulic properties for a wide range of soil conditions. Ecol. Model. 219, 300–316 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agee, E. et al. Root lateral interactions drive water uptake patterns under water limitation. Adv. Water Resour. 151, 103896 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krakauer, N. Y., Li, H. & Fan, Y. Groundwater flow across spatial scales: importance for climate modeling. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034003 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stoy, P. C. et al. Reviews and syntheses: turning the challenges of partitioning ecosystem evaporation and transpiration into opportunities. Biogeosciences 16, 3747–3775 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, R. B., Moore, L. A., Hoffmann, W. A., Pockman, W. T. & Linder, C. R. Ecosystem rooting depth determined with caves and DNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 11387–11392 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelletier, J. D. et al. A gridded global data set of soil, intact regolith, and sedimentary deposit thicknesses for regional and global land surface modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 8, 41–65 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. & Hanley, M. E. Plants and climate change: complexities and surprises. Ann. Bot. 116, 849–864 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pendergrass, A. G., Knutti, R., Lehner, F., Deser, C. & Sanderson, B. M. Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep. 7, 17966 (2017).Siebert, S. et al. Development and validation of the global map of irrigation areas. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 535–547 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedl, M. A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 168–182 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mu, Q., Heinsch, F. A., Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sens. Environ. 111, 519–536 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisher, J. B. et al. ECOSTRESS: NASA’s next generation mission to measure evapotranspiration from the international space station. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026058 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, T. W. et al. Simple process-led algorithms for simulating habitats (SPLASH v.1.0): robust indices of radiation, evapotranspiration and plant-available moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 689–708 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH forcing data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7505–7514 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orth, R., Koster, R. D. & Seneviratne, S. I. Inferring soil moisture memory from streamflow observations using a simple water balance model. J. Hydrometeorol. 14, 1773–1790 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. cwd v.1.0: R package for cumulative water deficit calculation. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5359053 (2021).Zhang, Y. et al. Model-based analysis of the relationship between sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and gross primary production for remote sensing applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 187, 145–155 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duveiller, G. et al. A spatially downscaled sun-induced fluorescence global product for enhanced monitoring of vegetation productivity. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1101–1116 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joiner, J. et al. Global monitoring of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from moderate-spectral-resolution near-infrared satellite measurements: methodology, simulations, and application to GOME-2. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 6, 2803–2823 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Köhler, P., Guanter, L. & Joiner, J. A linear method for the retrieval of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from GOME-2 and SCIAMACHY data. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 8, 2589–2608 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, B. et al. Validation of the surface daytime net radiation product from version 4.0 GLASS product suite. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 16, 509–513 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muggeo, V. M. R. Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat. Med. 22, 3055–3071 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilleland, E. & Katz, R. W. extRemes 2.0: an extreme value analysis package in R. J. Stat. Softw. 72, 1–39 (2016).Marthews, T. R., Dadson, S. J., Lehner, B., Abele, S. & Gedney, N. High-resolution global topographic index values for use in large-scale hydrological modelling. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 91–104 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Etopo1, Global 1 Arc-Minute Ocean Depth and Land Elevation from the US National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) (National Geophysical Data Center, NESDIS, NOAA and US Department of Commerce, 2011); https://doi.org/10.5065/D69Z92Z5Beven, K. J. & Kirkby, M. J. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. J. 24, 43–69 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C., Townshend, J. R. G., DeFries, R. S. & Carroll, M. Estimation of tree cover using MODIS data at global, continental and regional/local scales. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 4359–4380 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. D. Global rooting zone water storage capacity and rooting depth estimates. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5515246 (2021).Stocker, B. stineb/mct: v3.0: re-submission to Nature Geoscience. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6239187 (2022). More

Differences in mucus physicochemical factors and nutrient elements among electrical stimuliPhysical and chemical factorsMucus contains electrolytes, such as potassium and multivalent calcium and magnesium ions, which participate in the osmoregulation of the earthworm body to maintain the metabolic balance of the organism7,23. When earthworms are subjected to different stimuli, the mucus composition changes10. As shown in Fig. 1a, earthworms produced mucus with significant (P  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