Philippa Kaur

Lebrija-Trejos, E., Hernández, A. & Wright, S. J. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05717-1 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. J. Ecol. 106, 1773–1794 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barabás, G., D’Andrea, R. & Stump, S. M. Ecol. Monogr. 88, 277–303 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broekman, M. J. E. et al. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1957–1975 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Freckleton, R. P. & Lewis, O. T. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 2909–2916 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bagchi, R. et al. Nature 506, 85–88 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L. et al. Science 366, 124–128 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Milici, V. R., Dalui, D., Mickley, J. G. & Bagchi, R. J. Ecol. 108, 1800–1809 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, X. & Corlett, R. T. Oikos 2022, e08509 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engelbrecht, B. M. J. et al. Nature 447, 80–82 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krishnadas, M. & Stump, S. M. J. Ecol. 109, 2137–2151 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Dyke, M. N., Levine, J. M. & Kraft, N. J. B. Nature 611, 507–511 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Caughley, G. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 215 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. National recovery strategy for northern and southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada [proposed]. vol. Species at (2018).National Marine Fisheries Service. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). (2008).Barrett-Lennard, L. G. & Ellis, G. M. Population Structure and Genetic Variability in Northeastern Pacific Killer Whales: Towards an Assessment of Population Viability. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Secr. Res. Deocument 2001/065 65 (2001).DFO. Evaluation of the scientific evidence to inform the probability of effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing shipping-related noise levels received by southern resident killer whales. CSAS Science Advisory Report vol. 2017/041 (2017).Ross, P. S., Ellis, G. M., Ikonomou, M. G. & Addison, R. F. High PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific Killer Whales, Orcinus orca: Effects of age, sex and dietary preference. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 504–515 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, E. J., Holmes, E. E. & Balcomb, K. C. Quantifying the effects of prey abundance on killer whale reproduction. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 632–640 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, J. K. B., Ellis, G. M., Olesiuk, P. F. & Balcomb, K. C. Linking killer whale survival and prey abundance: Food limitation in the oceans’ apex predator ?. Biol. Lett. 6, 139–142 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ford, J. K. B. et al. Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 76, 1456–1471 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, J. K. B., Ellis, G. M. & Olesiuk, P. F. Linking Prey and Population Dynamics Did Food Limitation Cause Recent Declines of RKW in BC, vol. 3848 (2005).O’Neill, S. M., Ylitalo, G. M. & West, J. E. Energy content of Pacific salmon as prey of northern and southern resident killer whales. Endanger. Species Res. 25, 265–281 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, J. K. B. & Ellis, G. M. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316, 185–199 (2006).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jeffrey, K. M., Côté, I. M., Irvine, J. R. & Reynolds, J. D. Changes in body size of Canadian Pacific salmon over six decades. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 191–201 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ohlberger, J., Schindler, D. E., Ward, E. J., Walsworth, T. E. & Essington, T. E. Resurgence of an apex marine predator and the decline in prey body size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910930116 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ohlberger, J., Ward, E. J., Schindler, D. E. & Lewis, B. Demographic changes in Chinook salmon across the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish Fish. 19, 533–546 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bigler, B. S., Welch, D. W. & Helle, J. H. A review of size trends among North Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53, 455–465 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, M. B. et al. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by endangered southern resident killer whales in their summer range. Endanger. Species Res. 11, 69–82 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Losee, J. P., Kendall, N. W. & Dufault, A. Changing salmon: An analysis of body mass, abundance, survival, and productivity trends across 45 years in Puget Sound. Fish Fish. 20, 934–951 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, B. et al. Assessment of Status and Factors for Decline of Southern BC Chinook Salmon: Independent Panel’s Report (2013).DFO. Integrated Biological Status of Southern British Columbia Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Under the Wild Salmon Policy. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/042, 15 (2016).
Google Scholar 
COSEWIC. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Designatable Units in Southern British Columbia, in Canada. (2019).Pacific Salmon Commission Joint Chinook Technical Committee. Annual Report of Catch and Escapement for 2021. Tcchinook (13)-01 (2021).Quinn, T. P. Behavior and ecology of Pacific Salmon and trout. Fish Fish. 7, 75–76 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Brett, J. R. Energetics. In Phsyiological Ecology of Pacific Salmon (eds Groot, C. et al.) 1–68 (UBC Press, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, M. W. & Parken, C. Utilizing the Albion test fishery as an in-season predictor of run size of the Fraser River spring and summer age 52 Chinook. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012, 42 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Schoener, T. W. Theory of feeding strategies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 369–404 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, R. et al. Competing conservation objectives for predators and prey: Estimating Killer Whale prey requirements for Chinook Salmon. PLoS ONE 6, e26738 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Courtney, K. R., Falke, J. A., Cox, M. K. & Nichols, J. Energetic status of Alaskan Chinook Salmon: Interpopulation comparisons and predictive modeling using bioelectrical impedance analysis. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10398 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pothoven, S. A. et al. Reliability of bioelectrical impedance analysis for estimating whole-fish energy density and percent lipids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 137, 1519–1529 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crossin, G. T. & Hinch, S. G. A Nonlethal, rapid method for assessing the somatic energy content of migrating adult pacific salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134, 184–191 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colt, J. & Shearer, K. D. Evaluation of the Use of the Torry Fish Fatmeter to Non-Lethally Estimate Lipid in Adult Salmon (2001).Hanson, K. C., Ostrand, K. G., Gannam, A. L. & Ostrand, S. L. Comparison and validation of nonlethal techniques for estimating condition in Juvenile Salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 139, 1733–1741 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naughton, G., Caudill, C. & Clabough, T. Migration Behavior and Spawning Success of Spring Chinook Salmon in Fall Creek and the North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River: Relationship Among Fate, Fish Condition, and Environmental Factors, 2011. (2012).Folch, J., Lees, M. & Sloane Stanley, G. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226, 497–509 (1957).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Post, J. R. & Parkinson, E. A. Energy allocation strategy in young fish: Allometry and survival. Ecology 82, 1040–1051 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arrington, D. A., Davidson, B. K., Winemiller, K. O. & Layman, C. A. Influence of life history and seasonal hydrology on lipid storage in three neotropical fish species. J. Fish Biol. 68, 1347–1361 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Holty, B. L. & Ciruna, K. A. Conservation units for Pacific Salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc 2007/070, 350 (2007).
Google Scholar 
PSC. Catch and Escapement of Chinook Under Pacific Salmon Commission Jurisdiction, 2001 (PSC, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Waples, R. S., Teel, D. J., Myers, J. M. & Marshall, A. R. Life-history divergence in Chinook Salmon: Historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58, 386–403 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Beacham, T. D. et al. Pacific rim population structure of chinook salmon as determined from microsatellite analysis. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135, 1604–1621 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Crossin, G. T. et al. Energetics and morphology of sockeye salmon: Effects of upriver migratory distance and elevation. J. Fish Biol. 65, 788–810 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacDonald, B. In-Season Forecasting of Fraser Chinook Salmon Using Genetic Stock Identification of Test Fishery Data By (2016).Parken, C. K., Candy, J. R., Irvine, J. R. & Beacham, T. D. Genetic and coded wire tag results combine to allow more-precise management of a complex Chinook salmon aggregate. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 28, 328–340 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mann, R., Peery, C., Pinson, A. & Anderson, C. Energy use, migration times, and spawning success of adult spring–summer Chinook salmon returning to spawning areas in the South Fork Salmon River in Central Idaho: 2002–2007. Technical report 2009–4 http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/uiferl/pdfreports/SFS_Tech_Report_2009-4_Final.pdf (2009).Hearsey, J. W. & Kinziger, A. P. Diversity in sympatric chinook salmon runs: Timing, relative fat content and maturation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 98, 413–423 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arimitsu, M. L. et al. Heatwave-induced synchrony within forage fish portfolio disrupts energy flow to top pelagic predators. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 1859–1878 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lloret-Lloret, E. et al. Small pelagic fish fitness relates to local environmental conditions and trophic variables. Prog. Oceanogr. 202, 102745 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mesa, M. G. & Magie, C. D. Evaluation of energy expenditure in adult spring Chinook salmon migrating upstream in the Columbia River Basin: An assessment based on sequential proximate analysis. River Res. Appl. 22, 1085–1095 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crossin, G. T., Hinch, S. G., Farrell, A. P., Higgs, D. A. & Healey, M. C. Somatic energy of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka at the onset of upriver migration: A comparison among ocean climate regimes. Fish. Oceanogr. 13, 345–349 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roni, P. & Quinn, T. P. Geographic variation in size and age of North American Chinook salmon. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 15, 325–345 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hendry, A. P., Berg, O. K., Quinn, T. P. & Condition, T. P. Condition dependence and adaptation-by-time: Breeding date, life history, and energy allocation within a population of salmon. Oikos 85, 499–514 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, M. B. et al. Endangered predators and endangered prey: Seasonal diet of Southern Resident killer whales. PLoS ONE 16, e0247031 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Weitkamp, L. A. Marine distributions of Chinook Salmon from the West Coast of North America determined by coded wire tag recoveries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 139, 147–170 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shields, M. W., Lindell, J. & Woodruff, J. Declining spring usage of core habitat by endangered fish-eating killer whales reflects decreased availability of their primary prey. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 24, 189–193 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, G. S. et al. Pre-COSEWIC review of southern British Columbia Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) conservation units Part I: Background. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/11, 67 (2019).
Google Scholar 
NOAA Fisheries West Coast & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Southern Resident Killer Whale Priority Chinook Stocks Report. https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whales/recovery/srkw_priority_chinook_stocks_conceptual_model_report___list_22june2018.pdf (2018).Chalifour, L. et al. Chinook salmon exhibit long-term rearing and early marine growth in the fraser river, british columbia, a large urban estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 78, 539–550 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lamperth, J. S., Quinn, T. P. & Zimmerman, M. S. Levels of stored energy but not marine foraging patterns differentiate seasonal ecotypes of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) returning to the Kalama river, Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 157–167 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Von Biela, V. R. et al. Extreme reduction in nutritional value of a key forage fish during the pacific marine heatwave of 2014–2016. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 613, 171–182 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Healey, M. C. Life history of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In Pacific Salmon Life Histories (eds Groot, C. & Margolis, L.) 313–393 (University of British Columbia Press, 1991).
Google Scholar 
Freshwater, C. et al. An integrated model of seasonal changes in stock composition and abundance with an application to Chinook salmon. PeerJ 9, 1–27 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Couture, F., Oldford, G., Christensen, V., Barrett-lennard, L. & Walters, C. Requirements and availability of prey for northeastern pacific southern resident killer whales. PLoS ONE 17, e0270523 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
DFO. Government of Canada Takes Action to Address Fraser River Chinook Decline (DFO, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Brown, R. F. & Musgrave, M. M. Preliminary Catalogue of Salmon Steams and Escapements of Misson-Harrison Sub District. Fisheries and Marine Service Data Report No. 133 (1979).Manzon, C. I. & Marshall, D. E. Catalogue of salmon streams and spawning escapements of Cariboo subdistrict. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 211, 51 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Marshall, D. E. & Manzon, C. I. Catalogue of Salmon Streams and Spawning Escapements of the Prince George Subdistrict (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Marine Services Data Report N0o. 79, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Olmsted, W., Whelen, M. & Stewart, R. 1980 Investigations of fall-spawning chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Quesnel, blackwater (west road) and cottonwood river drainages, B.C. 34, 131–134 (1981).Brown, R. F., Musgrave, M. M. & Marshall, D. E. Catalogue of salmon streams and spawning escapements for Kamloops sub-district. Fish. Mar. Serv. Data Rep. 151, 226 (1979).
Google Scholar 
DFO. Information Document to Assist Development of a Fraser Chinook Management Plan 56 (DFO, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Kosakoski, G. T. & Hamilton, R. E. Water Requirements for the Fisheries Resource of the Nicola River, B.C. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 140 (1982). More

Study siteThe study was conducted in the Brasília National Park (PNB), Federal District, Brazil (15º39′57″ S; 47º59′38″ W), a 42.355 ha Protected Area with a typical vegetation configuration found in the Cerrado of the central highlands of Brazil, i.e., a mosaic of gallery forest patches along rivers surrounded by a matrix of savannas and grasslands34. The climate in the region falls into the Aw category in the Köppen scale, categorizing a tropical wet savanna, with marked rainy (October to March) and dry (April to September) seasons.We carried out the study in eight fixed sampling sites scattered evenly throughout the PNB and separated by at least two kilometers from one another (Supplementary Fig. S1). The sites consisted of four cerrado sensu stricto sites (bushy savanna containing low stature trees); two gallery forest edges sites (ca. 5 m from forest edges, containing a transitional community), and two gallery forest interior sites. These three types reflect the overall availability of habitat types in the reserve (excluding grasslands) and are the most appropriate foraging areas to sample interactions as bat-visited plants are either bushes, trees, or epiphytes, but rarely herbs35.Bat and interaction samplingsWe sampled bat-plant interactions using pollen loads collected from bat individuals captured in the course of one phenological year, thus configuring an animal-centered sampling. We carried out monthly field campaigns to capture bats from October 2019 to February 2020, from August to September 2020, and from March to July 2021. In each month, we carried out eight sampling nights during periods of low moonlight intensity, each associated with one of the eight sites. Each night, we set 10 mist nets (2.6 × 12 m, polyester, denier 75/2, 36 mm mesh size, Avinet NET-PTX, Japan) at ground level randomly within the site, which were opened at sunset and closed after six hours. We accumulated a total sampling effort of 552 net-hours, 28,704 m2 of net area, or 172,224 m2h sensu Straube and Bianconi36.All captured bats were sampled for pollen, irrespective of family or feeding guild. We used glycerinated and stained gelatin cubes to collect pollen grains from the external body of bats (head, torso, wings, and uropatagium). Samples were stored individually, and care was taken not to cross-contaminate samples. Pollen types were identified by light microscopy, and palynomorphs were identified to the lowest-possible taxonomical level using an extensive personal reference pollen collection from plants from the PNB (details in next section). Palynomorphs were sometimes classified to the genus or family level or grouped in entities representing more than one species. Any palynomorph numbering five or fewer grains in one sample was considered contamination, alongside any anemophilous species irrespective of pollen number.Bats were identified using a specialized key37 and four ecomorphological variables were measured for each individual. (i) Forearm length and (ii) body mass were used to calculate the body condition index (BCI), a proxy of body robustness38, where higher BCI values indicate larger and heavier bats, which are less effective in interacting with flowers in general due to a lack of hovering behavior, the incapability of interacting with delicate flowers that cannot sustain them, a lower maneuverability and higher energetic requirements39. Moreover, we measured (iii) longest skull length (distance from the edge of the occipital region to the anterior edge of the lower lip) and (iv) rostrum length (distance from the anterior edge of the eye to the anterior edge of the lower lip) to calculate the rostrum-skull ratio (RSR), a proxy of morphological specialization to nectar consumption23. Higher RSR values indicate bats with proportionally longer rostra in relation to total skull length. Longer rostra in bats are associated with a weaker bite force and thus less effective in consuming harder food items such as fruits and insects, thus suggesting a higher adaptation to towards nectar40,41. Bats were then tagged with aluminum bands for individualization and released afterward. To evaluate the sampling completeness of the bat community and of the pollen types found on bats, we employed the Chao1 asymptotic species richness estimator and an individual-based sampling effort to estimate and plot rarefaction curves, calculating sampling completeness according to Chacoff et al.42.All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The permits to capture, handle and collect bats were granted by the Ethical Council for the Usage of Animals (CEUA) of the University of Brasília (permit 23106.119660/2019-07) and the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) (permit: SISBIO 70268). Vouchers of each species, when the collection was possible, were deposited in the Mammal Collection of the University of Brasília.Assessment of the plant communityIn each of the eight sampling sites, we delimited a 1000 × 10 m transect, each of which was walked monthly for one phenological year (January and February 2020, August to December 2020, and March to July 2021) to build a floristic inventory of plants of interest and to estimate their monthly abundance of flowering individuals. Plant species of interest were any potential partner for bats, which included species already known to be pollinated by bats, presenting chiropterophilous traits sensu Faegri and Van Der Pijl43, or any plant that could be accessed by and reward bats, whose flowers passes all the three following criteria:(i) Nectar or pollen is presented as the primary reward to visitors. (ii) Corolla diameter of 1 cm or more. This criterion excludes small generalist and insect-pollinated flowers where the visitation by bats is mechanically unlikely. It applies to the corolla diameter in non-tubular flowers or the diameter of the tube opening. Exceptions were small and actinomorphic flowers aggregated in one larger pollination unit (pseudanthia) where the 1 cm threshold was applied to inflorescence diameter. (iii) Reward must be promptly available for bats. This criterion excludes species with selective morphological mechanisms, such as quill-shaped bee-pollinated flowers or flowers with long and narrow calcars.All flowering individuals of interest species found in the transects were registered. A variable number of flowers/inflorescences (n = 5–18) were collected per species for morphometric analysis. For each species, we calculated floral tube length (FTL), corresponding to the distance between the base of the corolla, calyx, or hypanthium (depending on the species) to its opening, and the corolla’s outermost diameter (COD), which corresponds to the diameter of the corolla opening (tubular flowers) or simply the corolla diameter (non-tubular flowers). For pseudanthia-forming species, inflorescence width was measured. Pseudanthia and non-tubular flowers received a dummy FTL value of 0.1 mm to represent low restriction and enable later calculations. Finally, we collected reference pollen samples from all species from anthers of open flowers, which were used to identify pollen types found on bats. For plant species found in pollen loads but not in the PNB, measures were taken from plants found either on the outskirts of the site (Inga spp.) or from dried material in an online database (Ceiba pentandra, in https://specieslink.net/) using the ImageJ software44. Vouchers were deposited in the Herbarium of the Botany Department, University of Brasília.Data analysisNetwork macrostructureWe built a weighted adjacency matrix i x j, where cells corresponded to the number of individuals of bat species i that interacted with plant species or morphotype j. All edges corresponding to legitimate interactions were included. With this matrix, we calculated three structural metrics to describe the network’s macrostructure. First, weighted modularity (Qw), calculated by the DIRTLPAwb + algorithm45. A modular network comprises subgroups of species in which interactions are stronger and more frequent than species out of these subgroups10, which may reveal functional groups in the network9. Qw varies from zero to one, the latter representing a perfectly modular network.Second, complementary specialization through the H2′ metric46. It quantifies how unique, on average, are the interactions made by species in the network, considering interaction weights and correcting for network size. It varies from zero to one, the latter corresponding to a specialized network where interactions perfectly complement each other because species do not share partners.Lastly, nestedness, using the weighted WNODA metric25. Nested networks are characterized by interaction asymmetries, where peripheral species are only a subset of the pool of species with which generalists interact47. The index was normalized to vary from zero to one, with one representing a perfectly nested network. Given that the network has a modular structure, we also tested for a compound topology, i.e., the existence of distinct network patterns within network modules, by calculating intra-module WNODA and between-module WNODA36. Internally nested modules appear in networks in which consumers specialize in groups of dissimilar or clustered resources and suggest the existence of distinct functional groups of consumers25,48. Metric significance (Qw, H2′, and WNODA) was assessed using a Monte Carlo procedure based on a null model. We used the vaznull model3, where random matrices are created by preserving the connectance of the observed matrix but allowing marginal totals to vary. One thousand matrices were generated and metrics were calculated for each of them. Metric significance (p) corresponded to the number of times the null model delivered a value equal to or higher than the observed metric, divided by the number of matrices. The significance threshold was considered p ≤ 0.05.Given a modular structure, we followed the framework of Phillips et al.49 that correlates network concepts (especially modularity) with the distribution of morphological variables of pollinators to unveil patterns of niche divergence in pollination networks. Given the most parsimonious module configuration suggested by the algorithm, we compared modules in terms of the distribution of morphological variables of the bat (RCR and BCI) and plant (FTL and COD) species that composed the module. Differences between modules means were tested with one-way ANOVAs.Drivers of network microstructureThe role of different ecological variables in determining pairwise interaction frequencies was assessed using a probability matrices approach3. This framework considers that an interaction matrix Y is a product of several probability matrices of the same size as Y, with each matrix representing the probability of species interacting based on an ecological mechanism. Thus, adapting it to our objectives, we have Eq. (1):$$mathrm{Y}=mathrm{f}(mathrm{A},mathrm{ M },mathrm{P},mathrm{ S})$$
(1)
where Y is the observed interaction matrix, and a function of interaction probability matrices based on species relative abundances (A), representing neutrality as species interact by chance; species morphological specialization (M), phenological overlap (P), and spatial overlap (S). We built models containing each of these matrices in the following ways:Relative abundance (A): matrix cells were the products of the relative abundances of bat and plant species. The relative abundances of bats were determined through capture frequencies (each species’ capture frequency divided by all captures, excluding recaptures) and the relative abundances of plants were determined by the number of flowering individuals recorded in transections (each species’ summed abundance in all transects and all months divided by the pooled abundance of all species in the network). Cell values were normalized to sum one.Morphological specialization (M): cells were the probability of species interacting based on their matching degree of morphological specialization. Morphologically specialized bats (i.e., longer rostra and smaller size) are more likely to interact with morphologically specialized flowers (i.e., longer tubes and narrower corollas), while unspecialized bats are more likely to interact with unspecialized, accessible flowers. For this purpose, we calculated a bat specialization index (BSI) as the ratio between RCR and BCI, where higher BSI values indicate overall lower body robustness and longer snout length. Likewise, the flower specialization index (FSI) was calculated for plants as the ratio between FTL and COD, where higher values indicate smaller, narrower, long-tubed flowers that require specialized morphology and behavior from bats for visitation. BSI and FTL were normalized to range between zero and one and were averaged between individuals of each species of bat or plant. Therefore, interaction probabilities were calculated as in Eq. (2):$${P}_{i,j}=1-|{BSI}_{i}-{FSI}_{j}|$$
(2)
where Pi,j is the interaction probability between bat species i and plant species j and |BSIi – FSIj| is the absolute difference between bat and plant specialization indexes. Similar index values (two morphologically specialized or unspecialized species interacting) lead to a low difference in specialization and thus to a high probability of interaction (Pi,j → 1), whereas the interaction between a morphologically specialized and a morphologically unspecialized species leads to a high absolute difference and thus lower probability of interaction (Pi,j → 0). Cell values of the resulting matrix were normalized to sum one.Phenological overlap (P): cells were the probability of species interacting based on temporal synchrony, calculated as the number of months that individuals of bat species i and flowering individuals of plant species j co-occurred in the research site, pooling all capture sites/transections. Cell values were normalized to sum one.Spatial overlap (S): cells were the probability of species interacting based on their co-occurrence over small-scale distances and vegetation types, calculated as the number of individuals from a bat species i captured in sampling sites where the plant species j was registered in the transection, considering all capture months. Cell values were normalized to sum one.Because more than one ecological mechanism may simultaneously drive interactions3,9, we built an additional set of seven models resultant from the element-wise multiplication of individual probability matrices:

SP: The spatial and temporal distribution of species work simultaneously in driving a resource turnover in the community, driving interactions.

AS: Abundance drives interactions between bats and plants, but within spatially clustered resources in the landscape caused by a turnover in species distributions.

AP: Abundance drives interactions between bats and plants, but within temporally clustered resources caused by a seasonal distribution of resources.

APS: Abundance drives interactions between bats and plants, but within resource clusters that emerge by a simultaneous temporal and spatial aggregation.

MS: Similar to AS, but morphology drives interactions within spatial clusters.

MP: Similar to MP, but morphology drives interactions within temporal clusters.

MPS: Similar to APS, but morphology drives interactions within spatiotemporal clusters.

Finally, we created a benchmark null model in which all cells in the matrix had the same probability value. All the compound matrices and the null model were also normalized to sum one.To compare the fit of these probability models with the real data, we conducted a maximum likelihood analysis3,9. We calculated the likelihood of each of these models in predicting the observed interaction matrix, assuming a multinomial distribution for the probability of interaction between species12. To compare model fit, we calculated the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for each model and their variation in AIC (ΔAIC) in relation to the best-fitting model. The number of species used in the probability matrices was considered the number of model parameters to penalize model complexity. Intending to assess whether nectarivorous bats and non-nectarivorous bats assembly sub-networks with different assembly rules, we created two partial networks from the observed matrix. One contained nectarivores only (subfamilies Glossophaginae and Lonchophyllinae) and their interactions, and the other contained frugivore and insectivore bats and their interactions. We repeated the likelihood procedure for these two partial networks.To conduct the likelihood analysis, we excluded plant species from the network that could not have their interaction probabilities measured, such as species found in pollen samples but not registered in the park or pollen types that could not be identified to the species level. Therefore, the interaction network Y and probability matrices did not include these species (details in Supplementary Table S1).SoftwareAnalyses were performed in R 3.6.050. Network metrics and null models were generated with the bipartite package51, and the sampling completeness analysis was performed with the vegan package52. Gephi 0.9.253 was used to draw the graph. More

Gentry, A. H. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75, 1–34 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Givnish, T. J. On the causes of gradients in tropical tree diversity. J. Ecol. 87, 193–210 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. Am. Nat. 104, 501–528 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. in Dynamics of Populations (eds Den Boer, P. J. & Gradwell, G. R.) 298–312 (PUDOC, 1971).Esquivel-Muelbert, A. et al. Seasonal drought limits tree species across the Neotropics. Ecography 40, 618–629 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillett, J. B. Pest pressure, an underestimated factor in evolution. Syst. Assoc. Publ. 4, 37–46 (1962).
Google Scholar 
Engelbrecht, B. M. J. et al. Drought sensitivity shapes species distribution patterns in tropical forests. Nature 447, 80–82 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Condit, R., Engelbrecht, B. M. J., Pino, D., Pérez, R. & Turner, B. L. Species distributions in response to individual soil nutrients and seasonal drought across a community of tropical trees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5064–5068 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Allen, C. D. et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 660–684 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, S., Spasojevic, M. J. & Li, D. Climate and plant community diversity in space and time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4464–4470 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Milici, V. R., Dalui, D., Mickley, J. G. & Bagchi, R. Responses of plant–pathogen interactions to precipitation: Implications for tropical tree richness in a changing world. J. Ecol. 108, 1800–1809 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mangan, S. A. et al. Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature 466, 752–755 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gripenberg, S. et al. Testing for enemy-mediated density-dependence in the mortality of seedlings: field experiments with five Neotropical tree species. Oikos 123, 185–193 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bagchi, R. et al. Pathogens and insect herbivores drive rainforest plant diversity and composition. Nature 506, 85–88 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fricke, E. C., Tewksbury, J. J. & Rogers, H. S. Multiple natural enemies cause distance-dependent mortality at the seed-to-seedling transition. Ecol. Lett. 17, 593–598 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Augspurger, C. K. & Kelly, C. K. Pathogen mortality of tropical tree seedlings: experimental studies of the effects of dispersal distance, seedling density, and light conditions. Oecologia 61, 211–217 (1984).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, L. et al. Differential soil fungus accumulation and density dependence of trees in a subtropical forest. Science 366, 124–128 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eck, J. L., Stump, S. M., Delavaux, C. S., Mangan, S. A. & Comita, L. S. Evidence of within-species specialization by soil microbes and the implications for plant community diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7371–7376 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kishimoto-Yamada, K. & Itioka, T. How much have we learned about seasonality in tropical insect abundance since Wolda (1988)? Entomol. Sci. 18, 407–419 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huberty, A. F. & Denno, R. F. Plant water stress and its consequences for herbivorous insects: a new synthesis. Ecology 85, 1383–1398 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. & Hallwachs, W. To us insectometers, it is clear that insect decline in our Costa Rican tropics is real, so let’s be kind to the survivors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002546117 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Castañeda, G. The world and its shades of green: a meta-analysis on trophic cascades across temperature and precipitation gradients. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 118–130 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. & Schoener, T. W. Differences in insect abundance and diversity between wetter and drier sites during a tropical dry season. Ecology 49, 96–110 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sturrock, R. N. et al. Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol 60, 133–149 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desprez-Loustau, M.-L., Marçais, B., Nageleisen, L.-M., Piou, D. & Vannini, A. Interactive effects of drought and pathogens in forest trees. Ann. For. Sci. 63, 597–612 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swinfield, T., Lewis, O. T., Bagchi, R. & Freckleton, R. P. Consequences of changing rainfall for fungal pathogen-induced mortality in tropical tree seedlings. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1408–1413 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jactel, H. et al. Drought effects on damage by forest insects and pathogens: a meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 267–276 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Maharjan, S. K. et al. Plant functional traits and the distribution of West African rain forest trees along the rainfall gradient. Biotropica 43, 552–561 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klironomos, J. N. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417, 67–70 (2002).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Petermann, J. S., Fergus, A. J. F., Turnbull, L. A. & Schmid, B. Janzen–Connell effects are widespread and strong enough to maintain diversity in grasslands. Ecology 89, 2399–2406 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. J. Ecol. 106, 1773–1794 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J. & Allesina, S. The effect of intra- and interspecific competition on coexistence in multispecies communities. Am. Nat. 188, E1–E12 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lebrija-Trejos, E., Wright, S. J., Hernández, A. & Reich, P. B. Does relatedness matter? Phylogenetic density-dependent survival of seedlings in a tropical forest. Ecology 95, 940–951 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lebrija-Trejos, E., Reich, P. B., Hernández, A. & Wright, S. J. Species with greater seed mass are more tolerant of conspecific neighbours: a key driver of early survival and future abundances in a tropical forest. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1071–1080 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Green, P. T., Harms, K. E. & Connell, J. H. Nonrandom, diversifying processes are disproportionately strong in the smallest size classes of a tropical forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18649–18654 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Comita, L. S. et al. Testing predictions of the Janzen–Connell hypothesis: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence for distance- and density-dependent seed and seedling survival. J. Ecol. 102, 845–856 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moles, A. T. & Westoby, M. What do seedlings die from and what are the implications for evolution of seed size? Oikos 106, 193–199 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paine, C. E. T., Harms, K. E., Schnitzer, S. A. & Carson, W. P. Weak competition among tropical tree seedlings: implications for species coexistence. Biotropica 40, 432–440 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weissflog, A., Markesteijn, L., Lewis, O. T., Comita, L. S. & Engelbrecht, B. M. J. Contrasting patterns of insect herbivory and predation pressure across a tropical rainfall gradient. Biotropica 50, 302–311 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brenes-Arguedas, T., Coley, P. D. & Kursar, T. A. Pests vs. drought as determinants of plant distribution along a tropical rainfall gradient. Ecology 90, 1751–1761 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gaviria, J. & Engelbrecht, B. M. J. Effects of drought, pest pressure and light availability on seedling establishment and growth: their role for distribution of tree species across a tropical rainfall gradient. PLoS ONE 10, e0143955 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Spear, E. R., Coley, P. D. & Kursar, T. A. Do pathogens limit the distributions of tropical trees across a rainfall gradient? J. Ecol. 103, 165–174 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, J. S. et al. The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2329–2352 (2016).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Riutta, T. et al. Experimental evidence for the interacting effects of forest edge, moisture and soil macrofauna on leaf litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 49, 124–131 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lebrija-Trejos, E., Pérez-García, E. A., Meave, J. A., Poorter, L. & Bongers, F. Environmental changes during secondary succession in a tropical dry forest in Mexico. J. Trop. Ecol. 27, 477–489 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krishnadas, M. & Comita, L. S. Edge effects on seedling diversity are mediated by impacts of fungi and insects on seedling recruitment but not survival. Front. Glob. Chang. 2, 76 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uriarte, M., Muscarella, R. & Zimmerman, J. K. Environmental heterogeneity and biotic interactions mediate climate impacts on tropical forest regeneration. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, e692–e704 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bachelot, B., Kobe, R. K. & Vriesendorp, C. Negative density-dependent mortality varies over time in a wet tropical forest, advantaging rare species, common species, or no species. Oecologia 179, 853–861 (2015).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Y. et al. Density‐dependent survival varies with species life‐history strategy in a tropical forest. Ecol. Lett. 21, 506–515 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, S. J., Calderón, O., Hernandéz, A. & Muller-Landau, H. C. Annual and spatial variation in seedfall and seedling recruitment in a neotropical forest. Ecology 86, 848–860 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Condit, R. Tropical Forest Census Plots https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03664-8 (Springer, 1998).Kupers, S. J., Wirth, C., Engelbrecht, B. M. J. & Rüger, N. Dry season soil water potential maps of a 50 hectare tropical forest plot on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Sci. Data 6, 63 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Garwood, N. C. in The Ecology of a Tropical Forest: Seasonal Rhythms and Long-term Changes (eds Leigh, E. G., Rand, A. S. & Windsor, D. M.) 173–185 (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1982).Jost, L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113, 363–375 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636 (Springer, 2004).Muller-Landau, H. C. et al. Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 9, 575–588 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Detto, M., Visser, M. D., Wright, S. J. & Pacala, S. W. Bias in the detection of negative density dependence in plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1923–1939 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255–278 (2013).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Bates, D. et al. Package ‘lme4’ Reference Manual https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf (2021).Wilkinson, G. N. & Rogers, C. E. Symbolic description of factorial models for analysis of variance. Appl. Stat. 22, 392 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Afshartous, D. & Preston, R. A. Key results of interaction models with centering. J. Stat. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2011.11889620 (2011).Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10517-X (Elsevier, 1977).Steiger, J. H. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol. Bull. 87, 245–251 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/ (2016).Pinheiro, J. et al. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme (2020).Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-level/Mixed) Regression Models https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (2021).Lebrija-Trejos, E., Wright, S. J. & Hernández, A. Moisture, Density-dependent Interactions, and Tropical Tree Diversity https://figshare.com/s/a4d2dbb2a73b3eb09f9f (2022).Kupers, S. J., Wirth, C., Engelbrecht, B. M. J. & Rüger, N. Dry Season Soil Water Potential Maps of a 50 Hectare Tropical Forest Plot on Barro Colorado Island, Panama https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611005.v1 (2019).Paton, S. Barro Colorado Island, Lutz Catchment, Soil Moisture, Manual https://doi.org/10.25573/data.10042517.v1 (2019). More

Wallace, A. R. Tropical Nature and Other Essays (Macmillan, 1878).
Google Scholar 
von Humboldt, A. Ansichten der Natur: mit wissenschaftlichen Erläuterungen (Cotta, 1808).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H. J. Biogeogr. 41, 8–22 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fenton, I. S., Aze, T., Farnsworth, A., Valdes, P. & Saupe, E. E. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05712-6 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodhouse, A., Swain, A., Fagan, W. F., Fraass, A. J. & Lowery, C. M. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05694-5 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M., Tittensor, D. P., Hillebrand, H. & Worm, B. Biol. Rev. 92, 199–215 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 12891–12896 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Song, H. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 17578–17583 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Penn, J. L., Deutsch, C., Payne, J. L. & Sperling, E. A. Science 362, eaat1327 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. Am. Nat. 101, 233–249 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hahn, L. C., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Bitz, C. M. & Donohoe, A. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 710036 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Penn, J. L. & Deutsch, C. Science 376, 524–526 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Fine, P. V. Ecological and evolutionary drivers of geographic variation in species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 369–392 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163, 192–211 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mittelbach, G. G. et al. Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography. Ecol. Lett. 10, 315–331 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Willig, M. R., Kaufman, D. M. & Stevens, R. D. Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 273–309 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pontarp, M. et al. The latitudinal diversity gradient: novel understanding through mechanistic eco-evolutionary models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 211–223 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crame, J. A. Taxonomic diversity gradients through geological time. Divers Distrib. 7, 175–189 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mannion, P. D., Upchurch, P., Benson, R. B. J. & Goswami, A. The latitudinal biodiversity gradient through deep time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 42–50 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Powell, M. G. Latitudinal diversity gradients for brachiopod genera during late Palaeozoic time: links between climate, biogeography and evolutionary rates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 519–528 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, M. G., Beresford, V. P. & Colaianne, B. A. The latitudinal position of peak marine diversity in living and fossil biotas. J. Biogeogr. 39, 1687–1694 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. Strength, slope and variability of marine latitudinal gradients. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 273, 251–267 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G., Rombouts, I. & Kirby, R. R. Towards an understanding of the pattern of biodiversity in the oceans. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 440–449 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pianka, E. R. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. Am. Nat. 100, 33–46 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saupe, E. E. et al. Spatio-temporal climate change contributes to latitudinal diversity gradients. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1419–1429 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stehli, F. G., Douglas, R. G. & Newell, N. D. Generation and maintenance of gradients in taxonomic diversity. Science 164, 947–949 (1969).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rutherford, S., D’Hondt, S. & Prell, W. Environmental controls on the geographic distribution of zooplankton diversity. Nature 4000, 749–752 (1999).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Klopfer, P. H. Environmental determinants of faunal diversity. Am. Nat. 93, 337–342 (1959).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haffer, J. & Prance, G. T. Climatic forcing of evolution in Amazonia during the Cenozoic: on the refuge theory of biotic differentiation. Amazoniana 16, 579–607 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Dynesius, M. & Jansson, R. Evolutionary consequences of changes in species’ geographical distributions driven by Milankovitch climate oscillations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9115–9120 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dobzhansky, T. Evolution in the tropics. Am. Sci. 38, 209–221 (1950).
Google Scholar 
Williams, C. B. Patterns in the Balance of Nature (Academic Press, 1964).Paine, R. T. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100, 65–75 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schemske, D. W., Mittelbach, G. G., Cornell, H. V., Sobel, J. M. & Roy, K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 245–269 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Currie, D. J. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant species richness. Am. Nat. 137, 27–49 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. & Orias, E. The ecological regulation of species diversity. Am. Nat. 98, 399–414 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).Fenton, I. S. et al. The impact of Cenozoic cooling on assemblage diversity in planktonic foraminifera. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150224 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M. et al. Past and future decline of tropical pelagic biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 12891–12896 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M., Hunt, G., Dowsett, H. J., Robinson, M. M. & Stoll, D. K. Latitudinal species diversity gradient of marine zooplankton for the last three million years. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1174–1179 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jablonski, D., Roy, K. & Valentine, J. W. Out of the tropics: evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314, 102–106 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M., Tittensor, D. P., Hillebrand, H. & Worm, B. Combining marine macroecology and palaeoecology in understanding biodiversity: microfossils as a model. Biol. Rev. 92, 199–215 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fenton, I. S. et al. Triton, a new species-level database of Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal occurrences. Sci. Data 8, 160 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M. & Deutsch, C. A. Paleobiology provides glimpses of future ocean. Science 375, 25–26 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yasuhara, M. et al. Time machine biology cross-timescale integration of ecology, evolution, and oceanography. Oceanography 33, 16–28 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westerhold, T. et al. An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years. Science 369, 1383–1387 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Al-Sabouni, N., Kucera, M. & Schmidt, D. N. Vertical niche separation control of diversity and size disparity in planktonic foraminifera. Mar. Micropaleontol. 63, 75–90 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lowery, C. M., Bown, P. R., Fraass, A. J. & Hull, P. M. Ecological response of plankton to environmental change: thresholds for extinction. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 403–429 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lear, C. H., Elderfield, H. & Wilson, P. A. Cenozoic deep-sea temperatures and global ice volumes from Mg/Ca in benthic foraminiferal calcite. Science 287, 269–272 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Weiner, A., Aurahs, R., Kurasawa, A., Kitazato, H. & Kučera, M. Vertical niche partitioning between cryptic sibling species of a cosmopolitan marine planktonic protist. Mol. Ecol. 21, 4063–4073 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, E. & Kennett, J. P. Segregation and speciation in the Neogene planktonic foraminiferal clade Globoconella. Paleobiology 25, 383–395 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raja, N. B. & Kiessling, W. Out of the extratropics: the evolution of the latitudinal diversity gradient of Cenozoic marine plankton. Proc. Biol. Sci. 288, 20210545 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Allen, A. P. & Gillooly, J. F. Assessing latitudinal gradients in speciation rates and biodiversity at the global scale. Ecol. Lett. 9, 947–954 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Irigoien, X., Huisman, J. & Harris, R. P. Global biodiversity patterns of marine phytoplankton and zooplankton. Nature 429, 863–886 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schiebel, R. & Hemleben, C. Planktic Foraminifers in the Modern Ocean (Springer-Verlag, 2017).Ruddimann, W. F. Recent planktonic foraminifera: dominance and diversity in North Atlantic surface sediments. Science 164, 1164–1167 (1969).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bé, A. W. H. & Tolderlund, D. S. in Micropaleontology of Marine Bottom Sediments (eds Funnell, B. M. & Riedel, W. K.) 105–149 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971).Sibert, E., Norris, R., Cuevas, J. & Graves, L. Eighty-five million years of Pacific Ocean gyre ecosystem structure: long-term stability marked by punctuated change. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20160189 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, C., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S. & Costello, M. J. Global warming is causing a more pronounced dip in marine species richness around the equator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015094118 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. & Tittensor, D. P. A Theory of Global Biodiversity (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).Boscolo-Galazzo, F. et al. Temperature controls carbon cycling and biological evolution in the ocean twilight zone. Science 371, 1148–1152 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boscolo-Galazzo, F. et al. Late Neogene evolution of modern deep-dwelling plankton. Biogeosciences 19, 743–762 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aze, T. et al. A phylogeny of Cenozoic macroperforate planktonic foraminifera from fossil data. Biol. Rev. 86, 900–927 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matthews, K. J. et al. Global plate boundary evolution and kinematics since the late Paleozoic. Glob. Planet. Change 146, 226–250 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gyldenfeldt, A.-B. V., Carstens, J. & Meincke, J. Estimation of the catchment area of a sediment trap by means of current meters and foraminiferal tests. Deep Sea Res. Part II 47, 1701–1717 (2000).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, Z., Doglioli, A. M. & Carlotti, F. Using a Lagrangian model to estimate source regions of particles in sediment traps. Sci. China Earth Sci. 57, 2447–2456 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Siegel, D. A. & Deuser, W. G. Trajectories of sinking particles in the Sargasso Sea: modeling of statistical funnels above deep-ocean sediment traps. Deep Sea Res. Part I 44, 1519–1541 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waniek, J., Koeve, W. & Prien, R. D. Trajectories of sinking particles and the catchment areas above sediment traps in the Northeast Atlantic. J. Mar. Res. 58, 983–1006 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Alroy, J. The fossil record of North American mammals: evidence for a Paleocene evolutionary radiation. Syst. Biol. 48, 107–118 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marcot, J. D. The fossil record and macroevolutionary history of North American ungulate mammals: standardizing variation in intensity and geography of sampling. Paleobiology 40, 238–255 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Williams, P. H., Eggleton, P. & Humphries, C. J. Large scale patterns of biodiversity: spatial variation in family richness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 149–154 (1995).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Valdes, P. J. et al. The BRIDGE HadCM3 family of climate models: HadCM3@Bristol v1.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 3715–3743 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cox, P. M. et al. The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity. Clim. Dyn. 15, 183–203 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sagoo, N., Valdes, P., Flecker, R. & Gregoire, L. J. The Early Eocene equable climate problem: can perturbations of climate model parameters identify possible solutions? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20130123 (2013).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kiehl, J. T. & Shields, C. A. Sensitivity of the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum climate to cloud properties. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20130093 (2013).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cox, M. D. A Primitive Equation, 3-Dimensional Model of the Ocean. GFDL Ocean Group Technical Report No. 1 (GFDL Princeton Univ., 1984).Collins, M., Tett, S. F. B. & Cooper, C. The internal climate variability of HadCM3, a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim. Dyn. 17, 61–81 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farnsworth, A. et al. Climate sensitivity on geological timescales controlled by nonlinear feedbacks and ocean circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 9880–9889 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Valdes, P. J., Scotese, C. R. & Lunt, D. J. Deep ocean temperatures through time. Clim. Past 17, 1483–1506 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farnsworth, A. et al. Past East Asian monsoon evolution controlled by paleogeography, not CO2. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax1697 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jones, L. A., Mannion, P. D., Farnsworth, A., Bragg, F. & Lunt, D. J. Climatic and tectonic drivers shaped the tropical distribution of coral reefs. Nat. Commun. 13, 3120 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scotese, C. R. & Wright, N. PALEOMAP paleodigital elevation models (PaleoDEMS) for the Phanerozoic. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5460860 (2018).Foster, G. L., Royer, D. L. & Lunt, D. J. Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nat. Commun. 8, 14845 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gough, D. O. Solar interior structure and luminosity variations. Sol. Phys. 74, 21–34 (1981).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farnsworth, A. et al. Paleoclimate model-derived thermal lapse rates: towards increasing precision in paleoaltimetry studies. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 564, 116903 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H. & Basu, S. Solar models: current epoch and time dependences, neutrinos, and helioseismological properties. Astrophys. J. 555, 990–1012 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 1095–1108 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kraus, E. B. & Turner, J. S. A one-dimensional model of the seasonal thermocline II. The general theory and its consequences. Tellus 19, 98–105 (1967).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Foreman, S. J. The Ocean Model Report. Unified Model Documentaiton Paper Number 40 (The Met Office, 2005).HH: Statistical Analysis and Data Display: Heiberger and Holland. R package version 3.1-47 (2022).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bivand, R., Millo, G. & Piras, G. A review of software for spatial econometrics in R. Mathematics 9, 1276 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Cooper, N. & Purvis, A. Body size evolution in mammals: complexity in tempo and mode. Am. Nat. 175, 727–738 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry. R package version 1.5-14 (2021).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7 (2020).Wade, B. S., Pearson, P. N., Berggren, W. A. & Pälike, H. Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and astronomical time scale. Earth Sci. Rev. 104, 111–142 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

Reilly, S. M. & Lauder, G. V. The evolution of tetrapod feeding behavior: kinematic homologies in prey transport. Evolution 44, 1542–1557 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iwasaki, S. Evolution of the structure and function of the vertebrate tongue. J. Anat. 201, 1–13 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitch, W. T. & Suthers, R. A. In Vertebrate Sound Production and Acoustic Communication (eds Suthers, R. A., Fitch, W. T., Fay, R. R., & Popper, A. N.) 1–18 (Springer, 2016).Carroll, R. L. The Palaeozoic ancestry of salamanders, frogs and caecilians. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 150, 1–140 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwenk, K. in Feeding: Form, Function and Evolution in Tetrapod Vertebrates (ed. Schwenk, K.) 175–291 (Academic Press, 2000).Schwenk, K. & Rubega, M. In Physiological and ecological adaptations to feeding in vertebrates, (eds. Starck, M. & Wang, T.) 1–41 (Science Pub. Inc., 2005).Schumacher, G. H. In Biology of the Reptilia, 4 (ed Gans, C.) 101–200 (Academic Press, 1973).Reese, A. M. The laryngeal region of Alligator mississippiensis. Anat. Rec. 92, 273–277 (1945).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riede, T., Li, Z., Tokuda, I. & Farmer, C. G. Functional morphology of the Alligator mississippiensis larynx with implications for vocal production. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 991–998 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
McLelland, J. In Form and Function in Birds, 4 (eds King, A. S. & McLelland, J.) 69–103 (Academic Press, 1989).Homberger, D. G. In The Biology of the Avian Respiratory System (ed Maina, J. N.) 27–97 (Springer, 2017).Fitch, W. T. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (ed Brown, K.) 115–121 (Elsevier, 2006).Clarke, J. A. et al. Fossil evidence of the avian vocal organ from the Mesozoic. Nature 538, 502–505 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsley, E. P. et al. Identity and novelty in the avian syrinx. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 10209–10217 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Riede, T., Thomson, S. L., Titze, I. R. & Goller, F. The evolution of the syrinx: an acoustic theory. PLoS Biol. 17, e2006507 (2019).Nowicki, S. Vocal tract resonances in oscine bird sound production: evidence from birdsongs in a helium atmosphere. Nature 325, 53–55 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hill, R. V. et al. A complex hyobranchial apparatus in a Cretaceous dinosaur and the antiquity of avian paraglossalia. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 175, 892–909 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Z. H., Zhou, Z. H. & Clarke, J. A. Convergent evolution of a mobile bony tongue in flighted dinosaurs and pterosaurs. PLoS One 13, e0198078 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonaparte, J. F., Novas, F. E. & Coria, R. A. Carnotaurus sastrei Bonaparte, the horned, lightly built carnosaur from the Middle Cretaceous of Patagonia. Contrib. in Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. L. A. 416, 1–42 (1990).Maryanska, T. Ankylosauridae (Dinosauria) from Mongolia. Palaeontol. Pol. 37, 85–151 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Mori, C. A comparative anatomical study on the laryngeal cartilages and laryngeal muscles of birds, and a developmental study on the larynx of the domestic fowl. Acta Med. 27, 2629–2678 (1957).
Google Scholar 
Siebenrock, F. Über den Kehlkopf und die Luftröhre der Schildkröten. Sitzungsberichte Der Kais. 108, 581–595 (1899).
Google Scholar 
Soley, J. T., Tivane, C. & Crole, M. R. Gross morphology and topographical relationships of the hyobranchial apparatus and laryngeal cartilages in the ostrich (Struthio camelus). Acta Zool. 96, 442–451 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olson, S. L. & Feduccia, A. Presbyornis and the origin of the Anseriformes (Aves: Charadriomorphae). Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 323, 1–24 (1980).Soley, J. T., Tivane, C. & Crole, M. R. A Gross morphology and topographical relationships of the hyobranchial apparatus and laryngeal cartilages in the ostrich (Struthio camelus). Acta Zool. 94, 442–451 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hogg, D. A. Ossification of the laryngeal, tracheal and syringeal cartilages in the domestic fowl. J. Anat. 134, 57–71 (1982).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gaunt, A. S., Stein, R. C. & Gaunt, S. L. Pressure and air flow during distress calls of the starling, Sturnus vulgaris (Aves; Passeriformes). J. Exp. Zool. 183, 241–261 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sacchi, R., Galeotti, P., Fasola, M. & Gerzeli, G. Larynx morphology and sound production in three species of Testudinidae. J. Morphol. 261, 175–183 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Titze, I. R. The physics of small-amplitude oscillation of the vocal folds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 1536–1552 (1988).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Russell, A. P., Hood, H. A. & Bauer, A. M. Laryngotracheal and cervical muscular anatomy in the genus Uroplatus (Gekkota: Gekkonidae) in relation to distress call emission. Afr. J. Herpetol. 63, 127–151 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Russell, A. P., Rittenhouse, D. R. & Bauer, A. M. Laryngotracheal morphology of Afro‐Madagascan Geckos: a comparative survey. J. Morphol. 245, 241–268 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gans, C. & Maderson, P. F. Sound producing mechanisms in recent reptiles: review and comment. Am. Zool. 13, 1195–1203 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galeotti, P., Sacchi, R., Fasola, M. & Ballasina, D. Do mounting vocalisations in tortoises have a communication function? A comparative analysis. Herpetol. J. 15, 61–71 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Fletcher, N. H. Bird song—a quantitative acoustic model. J. Theor. Biol. 135, 455–481 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vergne, A. L., Pritz, M. B. & Mathevon, N. Acoustic communication in crocodilians: from behaviour to brain. Biol. Rev. 84, 391–411 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marler, P. R. & Slabbekoorn, H. Nature’s music: The science of birdsong (Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 2004).White, S. S. In Sisson and Grossman’s The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 2 (ed Getty, R.) 1891–1897 (Saunders, Philadelphia, USA 975).Kirchner, J. A. The vertebrate larynx: adaptations and aberrations. Laryngoscope 103, 1197–1201 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mackelprang, R. & Goller, F. Ventilation patterns of the songbird lung/air sac system during different behaviors. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 3611–3619 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Brocklehurst, R. J., Schachner, E. R. & Sellers, W. I. Vertebral morphometrics and lung structure in non-avian dinosaurs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 180983 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cerda, I. A., Salgado, L. & Powell, J. E. Extreme postcranial pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs from South America. Paläontol. Z. 86, 441–449 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sereno, P. C. et al. Evidence for avian intrathoracic air sacs in a new predatory dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS One 3, e3303 (2008).Chiari, Y., Cahais, V., Galtier, N. & Delsuc, F. Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria). BMC Biol. 10, 65 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Chromosomal-scale genome assembly and full spidroin gene set of T. clavata
To explore dragline silk production in T. clavata, we sought to assemble a high-quality genome of this species. Thus, we first performed a cytogenetic analysis of T. clavata captured from the wild in Dali City, Yunnan Province, China, and found a chromosomal complement of 2n = 26 in females and 2n = 24 in males, comprising eleven pairs of autosomal elements and unpaired sex chromosomes (X1X1X2X2 in females and X1X2 in males) (Fig. 1a). Then, DNA from adult T. clavata was used to generate long-read (Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)), short-read (Illumina), and Hi-C data (Supplementary Data 1). A total of 349.95 Gb of Nanopore reads, 199.55 Gb of Illumina reads, and ~438.41 Gb of Hi-C raw data were generated. Our sequential assembly approach (Supplementary Fig. 1c) resulted in a 2.63 Gb genome with a scaffold N50 of 202.09 Mb and a Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Ortholog (BUSCO) genome completeness score of 93.70% (Table 1; Supplementary Data 3). Finally, the genome was assembled into 13 pseudochromosomes. Sex-specific Pool-Seq analysis of spiders indicated that Chr12 and Chr13 were sex chromosomes (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Fig. 2). Based on the MAKER2 pipeline34 (Supplementary Fig. 1e), we annotated 37,607 protein-encoding gene models and predicted repetitive elements with a collective length of 1.42 Gb, accounting for 53.94% of the genome.Table 1 Characteristics of the T. clavata genome assemblyFull size tableTo identify T. clavata spidroin genes, we searched the annotated gene models for sequences similar to 443 published spidroins (Supplementary Data 6) and performed a phylogenetic analysis of the putative spidroin sequences for classification (Supplementary Fig. 12a). Based on the knowledge that a typical spidroin gene consists of a long repeat domain sandwiched between the nonrepetitive N/C-terminal domains16, 128 nonrepetitive hits were primarily identified. These candidates were further validated and reconstructed using full-length transcript isoform sequencing (Iso-seq) and transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) data. We thus identified 28 spidroin genes, among which 26 were full-length (Supplementary Fig. 11a), including 9 MaSps, 5 minor ampullate spidroins (MiSps), 2 flagelliform spidroins (FlSps), 1 tubuliform spidroin (TuSp), 2 aggregate spidroins (AgSp), 1 aciniform spidroin (AcSp), 1 pyriform spidroin (PySp), and 5 other spidroins. This full set of spidroin genes was located across nine of the 13 T. clavata chromosomes. Interestingly, we found that the MaSp1a–c & MaSp2e, MaSp2a–d, and MiSp-a–e genes were distributed in three independent groups on chromosomes 4, 7, and 6, respectively (Fig. 1c). Notably, using the genomic data of another orb-weaving spider species, Trichonephila antipodiana35, we identified homologous group distributions of spidroin genes on T. antipodiana chromosomes (Fig. 1d), which indicated the reliability of the grouping results of our study. When we compared the spidroin gene catalog of T. clavata and those of five other orb-web spider species with genomic data28,29,36,37, we found that T. clavata and Trichonephila clavipes possessed the largest number of spidroin genes (28 genes in both species; Fig. 1e).To further explore the expression of spidroin genes in different glands, all morphologically distinct glands (major and minor ampullate- (Ma and Mi), flagelliform- (Fl), tubuliform- (Tu), and aggregate (Ag) glands) were cleanly and separately dissected from adult female T. clavata spiders except for the aciniform and pyriform glands, which could not be cleanly separated because of their proximal anatomical locations and were therefore treated as a combined sample (aciniform & pyriform gland (Ac & Py)). After RNA sequencing of these silk glands, we performed expression clustering analysis of transcriptomic data and found that the Ma and Mi glands showed the closest relationship in terms of both morphological structure (Fig. 1g) and gene expression (Fig. 1f, h). We noted that the expression profiles of spidroin genes were largely consistent with their putative roles in the corresponding morphologically distinct silk glands; for example, MaSp expression was found in the Ma gland (Fig. 1h). However, some spidroin transcripts, such as MiSps and TuSp, were expressed in several silk glands (Fig. 1h). Unclassified spidroin genes, such as Sp-GP-rich, did not appear to show gland-specific expression (Fig. 1h).In summary, the chromosomal-scale genome of T. clavata allowed us to obtain detailed structural and location information for all spidroin genes of this species. We also found a relatively diverse set of spidroin genes and a grouped distribution of MaSps and MiSps in T. clavata.Dragline silk origin and the functional character of the Ma gland segmentsTo further evaluate the detailed molecular characteristics of the Ma gland-mediated secretion of dragline silk, we performed integrated analyses of the transcriptomes of the three T. clavata Ma gland segments and the proteome and metabolome of T. clavata dragline silk (Fig. 2a). Sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE) analysis of dragline silk mainly showed a thick band above 240 kDa, suggesting a relatively small variety of total proteins (Fig. 2b). Subsequent liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) analysis identified 28 proteins, including ten spidroins (nine MaSps and one MiSp) and 18 nonspidroin proteins (one glucose dehydrogenase (GDH), one mucin-19, one venom protein, and 15 SpiCEs of dragline silk (SpiCE-DS)) (Fig. 2b; Supplementary Data 10). Among these proteins, we found that the core protein components of dragline silk in order of intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ) percentages were MaSp1c (37.7%), MaSp1b (12.2%), SpiCE-DS1 (11.9%, also referred to as SpiCE-NMa1 in a previous study28), MaSp1a (10.4%), and MaSp-like (7.2%), accounting for approximately 80% of the total protein abundance in dragline silk (Fig. 2b). These results revealed potential protein components that might be highly correlated with the excellent strength and toughness of dragline silk.Fig. 2: Dragline silk origin and the functional character of the Ma gland segments.a Schematic illustration of Ma gland segmentation. b Sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE) (left) and LC–MS (right) analyses of dragline silk protein. iBAQ, intensity-based absolute quantification. Similar results were obtained in three independent experiments and summarized in Source data. c Classification of the identified metabolites in dragline silk. d LC–MS analyses of the metabolites. e LC–MS analyses of the golden extract from T. clavata dragline silk. The golden pigment was extracted with 80% methanol. The extracted ion chromatograms (EICs) showed a peak at m/z 206 [M + H]+ for xanthurenic acid. f Pearson correlation of different Ma gland segments (Tail, Sac, and Duct). g Expression clustering of the Tail, Sac, and Duct. The transcriptomic data were clustered according to the hierarchical clustering (HC) method. h Combinational analysis of the transcriptome and proteome showing the expression profile of the dragline silk genes in the Tail, Sac, and Duct. i Concise biosynthetic pathway of xanthurenic acid (tryptophan metabolism) in the T. clavata Ma gland. Gene expression levels mapped to tryptophan metabolism are shown in three segments of the Ma gland. Enzymes involved in the pathway are indicated in red, and the genes encoding the enzymes are shown beside them. j Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of Ma gland segment-specific genes indicating the biological functions of the Tail, Sac, and Duct. The top 12 significantly enriched GO terms are shown for each segment of the Ma gland. A P-value  2) were identified in the 2 kb regions upstream and downstream of genes, and 10,501,151 (Tail), 11,356,55 (Sac), and 9,778,368 (Duct) significant ATAC peaks (RPKM  > 2) were identified at the whole-genome level. The Tail (mean RPKM: 1.78) and Sac (mean RPKM: 2.04) plots showed genes with more accessible chromatin than the Duct (mean RPKM: 1.59) plots (Fig. 3a). We then analyzed the genome-wide DNA methylation level in the Tail, Sac, and Duct. We found the highest levels of DNA methylation in the CG context (beta value: 0.12 in Tail, 0.13 in Sac, and 0.10 in Duct) and only a small amount in the CHH (beta value: 0.04 in Tail, 0.05 in Sac, and 0.03 in Duct) and CHG (beta value: 0.04 in Tail, 0.05 in Sac, and 0.04 in Duct) contexts (Fig. 3b). Overall, there was no significant difference in methylation levels among the Tail, Sac, and Duct. Taken together, our results suggest a potential regulatory role of CA rather than DNA methylation in the transcription of dragline silk genes.Fig. 3: Comprehensive epigenetic features and ceRNA network of the tri-sectional Ma gland.a Metagene plot of ATAC-seq signals and heatmap of the ATAC-seq read densities in the Tail, Sac, and Duct. The chromatin accessibility was indicated by the mean RPKM value (upper) and the blue region (bottom). b Metagene plot of DNA methylation levels in CG/CHG/CHH contexts in the Tail, Sac, and Duct. (c, d) Screenshots of the methylation and ATAC-seq tracks of the MaSp1b (c) and MaSp2b (d) genes within the Tail, Sac, and Duct. The potential TF motifs (E-value More