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

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

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

Aylward, F. O. et al. Microbial community transcriptional networks are conserved in three domains at ocean basin scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5443–5448 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A. Microbial community structure and its functional implications. Nature 459, 193–199 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amin, S. A., Parker, M. S. & Armbrust, E. V. Interactions between diatoms and bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 76, 667–684 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mayali, X. Metabolic interactions between bacteria and phytoplankton. Front. Microbiol. 9, 727 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amin, S. A. et al. Photolysis of iron–siderophore chelates promotes bacterial–algal mutualism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 17071–17076 (2009).Amin, S. A. et al. Interaction and signalling between a cosmopolitan phytoplankton and associated bacteria. Nature 522, 98 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durham, B. P. et al. Cryptic carbon and sulfur cycling between surface ocean plankton. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 453 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, R. Marine microbes see a sea of gradients. Science 338, 628 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bell, W. & Mitchell, R. Chemotactic and growth responses of marine bacteria to algal extracellular products. Biol. Bull. 143, 265–277 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
Azam, F. & Ammerman, J. W. in Flows of Energy and Materials in Marine Ecosystems 345–360 (Springer, 1984).Mitchell, J. G., Okubo, A. & Fuhrman, J. A. Microzones surrounding phytoplankton form the basis for a stratified marine microbial ecosystem. Nature 316, 58–59 (1985).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seymour, J. R., Amin, S. A., Raina, J.-B. & Stocker, R. Zooming in on the phycosphere: the ecological interface for phytoplankton–bacteria relationships. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17065 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sonnenschein, E. C., Syit, D. A., Grossart, H.-P. & Ullrich, M. S. Chemotaxis of Marinobacter adhaerens and its impact on attachment to the diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 6900–6907 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raina, J.-B., Fernandez, V., Lambert, B., Stocker, R. & Seymour, J. R. The role of microbial motility and chemotaxis in symbiosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 284–294 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seymour, J. R., Ahmed, T., Durham, W. M. & Stocker, R. Chemotactic response of marine bacteria to the extracellular products of Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 59, 161–168 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smriga, S., Fernandez, V. I., Mitchell, J. G. & Stocker, R. Chemotaxis toward phytoplankton drives organic matter partitioning among marine bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1576–1581 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P., Wang, W.-L., Primeau, F. W. & Martiny, A. C. Global picophytoplankton niche partitioning predicts overall positive response to ocean warming. Nat. Geosci. 13, 116–120 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christie-Oleza, J. A., Sousoni, D., Lloyd, M., Armengaud, J. & Scanlan, D. J. Nutrient recycling facilitates long-term stability of marine microbial phototroph–heterotroph interactions. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17100 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. J., Kirkegaard, R., Szul, M. J., Johnson, Z. I. & Zinser, E. R. Facilitation of robust growth of Prochlorococcus colonies and dilute liquid cultures by ‘helper’ heterotrophic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 4530–4534 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sher, D., Thompson, J. W., Kashtan, N., Croal, L. & Chisholm, S. W. Response of Prochlorococcus ecotypes to co-culture with diverse marine bacteria. ISME J. 5, 1125–1132 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aharonovich, D. & Sher, D. Transcriptional response of Prochlorococcus to co-culture with a marine Alteromonas: differences between strains and the involvement of putative infochemicals. ISME J. 10, 2892–2906 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, G. A. Simulating chemosensory responses of marine microorganisms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 1253–1266 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gärdes, A., Iversen, M. H., Grossart, H.-P., Passow, U. & Ullrich, M. S. Diatom-associated bacteria are required for aggregation of Thalassiosira weissflogii. ISME J. 5, 436–445 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Al-Wahaib, D., Al-Bader, D., Al-Shaikh Abdou, D. K., Eliyas, M. & Radwan, S. S. Consistent occurrence of hydrocarbonoclastic Marinobacter strains in various cultures of picocyanobacteria from the Arabian Gulf: promising associations for biodegradation of marine oil pollution. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26, 261–268 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raina, J.-B. et al. Subcellular tracking reveals the location of dimethylsulfoniopropionate in microalgae and visualises its uptake by marine bacteria. eLife 6, e23008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brumley, D. R. et al. Cutting through the noise: bacterial chemotaxis in marine microenvironments. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 527 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gärdes, A. et al. Complete genome sequence of Marinobacter adhaerens type strain (HP15), a diatom-interacting marine microorganism. Stand. Genom. Sci. 3, 97–107 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, L. R., Post, A. F., Rocap, G. & Chisholm, S. W. Utilization of different nitrogen sources by the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 989–996 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wawrik, B., Callaghan, A. V. & Bronk, D. A. Use of inorganic and organic nitrogen by Synechococcus spp. and diatoms on the West Florida shelf as measured using stable isotope probing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 6662–6670 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lambert, B. S. et al. A microfluidics-based in situ chemotaxis assay to study the behaviour of aquatic microbial communities. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1344–1349 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raina, J.-B. et al. Chemotaxis shapes the microscale organization of the ocean’s microbiome. Nature 605, 132–138 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brumley, D. R. et al. Bacteria push the limits of chemotactic precision to navigate dynamic chemical gradients. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10792–10797 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Myklestad, S. M. in Marine Chemistry (ed. Wangersky, P. J.) 111–148 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000).Ni, B., Colin, R., Link, H., Endres, R. G. & Sourjik, V. Growth-rate dependent resource investment in bacterial motile behavior quantitatively follows potential benefit of chemotaxis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 595–601 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, R., Seymour, J. R., Samadani, A., Hunt, D. E. & Polz, M. F. Rapid chemotactic response enables marine bacteria to exploit ephemeral microscale nutrient patches. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4209–4214 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buitenhuis, E. et al. MAREDAT: towards a world atlas of MARine Ecosystem DATa. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 227–239 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raina, J.-B. et al. Symbiosis in the microbial world: from ecology to genome evolution. Biol. Open 7, bio032524 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giardina, M. et al. Quantifying inorganic nitrogen assimilation by Synechococcus using bulk and single-cell mass spectrometry: a comparative study. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2847 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berges, J. A., Franklin, D. J. & Harrison, P. J. Evolution of an artificial seawater medium: improvements in enriched seawater, artificial water over the last two decades. J. Phycol. 37, 1138–1145 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guillard, R. R. L. in Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals: Proceedings—1st Conference on Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals Greenport (eds Walter, L. S. & Matoira, H. C.) 29–60 (Springer US, 1975).Kaeppel, E. C., Gärdes, A., Seebah, S., Grossart, H.-P. & Ullrich, M. S. Marinobacter adhaerens sp. nov., isolated from marine aggregates formed with the diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii. Int. J. Syst. Evolut. Microbiol. 62, 124–128 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sonnenschein, E. C. et al. Development of a genetic system for Marinobacter adhaerens HP15 involved in marine aggregate formation by interacting with diatom cells. J. Microbiol. Methods 87, 176–183 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marie, D., Partensky, F., Jacquet, S. & Vaulot, D. Enumeration and cell cycle analysis of natural populations of marine picoplankton by flow cytometry using the nucleic acid stain SYBR Green I. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 186–193 (1997).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hillion, F., Kilburn, M., Hoppe, P., Messenger, S. & Weber, P. K. The effect of QSA on S, C, O and Si isotopic ratio measurements. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 72, A377 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Popa, R. et al. Carbon and nitrogen fixation and metabolite exchange in and between individual cells of Anabaena oscillarioides. ISME J. 1, 354–360 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sumner, L. W. et al. Proposed minimum reporting standards for chemical analysis. Metabolomics 3, 211–221 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clerc, E. E., Raina, J.-B., Lambert, B. S., Seymour, J. & Stocker, R. In situ chemotaxis assay to examine microbial behavior in aquatic ecosystems. JoVE https://doi.org/10.3791/61062 (2020).Ihaka, R. & Gentleman, R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5, 299–314 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Xie, L., Lu, C. & Wu, X.-L. Marine bacterial chemoresponse to a stepwise chemoattractant stimulus. Biophys. J. 108, 766–774 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Son, K., Guasto, J. S. & Stocker, R. Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction. Nat. Phys. 9, 494–498 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee, C. & Bada, J. L. Amino acids in equatorial Pacific Ocean water. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26, 61–68 (1975).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yamashita, Y. & Tanoue, E. Distribution and alteration of amino acids in bulk DOM along a transect from bay to oceanic waters. Mar. Chem. 82, 145–160 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Menden-Deuer, S. & Lessard, E. J. Carbon to volume relationships for dinoflagellates, diatoms, and other protist plankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 569–579 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mullin, M. M., Sloan, P. R. & Eppley, R. W. Relationship between carbon content, cell volume and area in phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11, 307–311 (1966).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

Castillo, C. P. et al. Agricultural Land Abandonment in the EU within 2015-2030. (Joint Research Centre (Seville site), 2018).van der Zanden, E. H., Verburg, P. H., Schulp, C. J. E. & Verkerk, P. J. Trade-offs of European agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy 62, 290–301 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, Z. et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat. Food 3, 29–37 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rasmussen, L. V. et al. Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustainability 1, 275–282 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arneth, A. et al. Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 30882–30891 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rey Benayas, J. M. & Bullock, J. M. Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems 15, 883–899 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y. et al. The role of large wild animals in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Current Biology 32, R181–R196 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perino, A. et al. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364, eaav5570 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Y. et al. Limited increases in savanna carbon stocks over decades of fire suppression. Nature 603, 445–449 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Svenning, J.-C. Rewilding should be central to global restoration efforts. One Earth 3, 657–660 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dandy, N. & Wynne-Jones, S. Rewilding forestry. Forest Policy Econ. 109, 101996 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reino, L. et al. Does afforestation increase bird nest predation risk in surrounding farmland. Forest Ecol. Manag. 260, 1359–1366 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pausas, J. G. & Bond, W. J. Alternative biome states in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 250–263 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bakker, E. S. et al. Combining paleo-data and modern exclosure experiments to assess the impact of megafauna extinctions on woody vegetation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 847–855 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, C. M. T. & Radeloff, V. C. Global mitigation potential of carbon stored in harvested wood products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 14526–14531 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shukla, P. R. et al. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, landdegradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019).Hong, S. et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat. Sustainability 3, 694–700 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 6550–6555 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rohatyn, S., Yakir, D., Rotenberg, E. & Carmel, Y. Limited climate change mitigation potential through forestation of the vast dryland regions. Science 377, 1436–1439 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beer, C., Zimov, N., Olofsson, J., Porada, P. & Zimov, S. Protection of permafrost soils from thawing by increasing herbivore density. Sci Rep-Uk 10, 4170 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, C. N. et al. Can trophic rewilding reduce the impact of fire in a more flammable world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biological Sci. 373, 20170443 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kristensen, J. A., Svenning, J.-C., Georgiou, K. & Malhi, Y. Can large herbivores enhance ecosystem carbon persistence? Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.09.006 (2021).Granado-Díaz, R., Villanueva, A. J. & Gómez-Limón, J. A. Willingness to accept for rewilding farmland in environmentally sensitive areas. Land Use Policy 116, 106052 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broughton, R. K. et al. Long-term woodland restoration on lowland farmland through passive rewilding. PloS one 16, e0252466 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carver, S. et al. Guiding principles for rewilding. Conserv. Biology 35, 1882–1893 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Biodiversity on Earth is threatened by land-use changes, overexploitation of resources, pollution, biological invasions, and current and projected climate change. Understanding how species will respond to these stressors is difficult, in part because stressors don’t occur in isolation, and because responses can trickle through ecological networks due to interactions among species. More

Gartland, L. A., Firth, J. A., Laskowski, K. L., Jeanson, R. & Ioannou, C. C. Sociability as a personality trait in animals: Methods, causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12823 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bergmüller, R. & Taborsky, M. Adaptive behavioural syndromes due to strategic niche specialization. BMC Ecol. 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-7-12 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Massen, J. J. M., Sterck, E. H. M. & de Vos, H. Close social associations in animals and humans: Functions and mechanisms of friendship. Behaviour 147, 1379–1412. https://doi.org/10.1163/000579510X528224 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haller, J., Harold, G., Sandi, C. & Neumann, I. D. Effects of adverse early-life events on aggression and anti-social behaviours in animals and humans. J. Neuroendocrinol. 26, 724–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12182 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carlson Bruce, A. Early life experiences have complex and long-lasting effects on behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11571–11573. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716037114 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zablocki-Thomas, P. B. et al. Personality and performance are affected by age and early life parameters in a small primate. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4598–4605. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3833 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langenhof, M. R. & Komdeur, J. Why and how the early-life environment affects development of coping behaviours. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 34–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2452-3 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daros, R. R., Costa, J. H. C., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Hötzel, M. J. & Weary, D. M. Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves. PLoS One 9, e98429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098429 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grześkowiak, ŁM. et al. Impact of early-life events on the susceptibility to Clostridium difficile colonisation and infection in the offspring of the pig. Gut Microbes 10, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2018.1518554 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmauss, C., Lee-McDermott, Z. & Medina, L. R. Trans-generational effects of early life stress: The role of maternal behavior. Sci. Rep. 4, 4873. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04873 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brask, J. B., Ellis, S. & Croft, D. P. Animal social networks: An introduction for complex systems scientists. J. Complex Netw. 9, cnab001. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnab001 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Almeling, L., Hammerschmidt, K., Sennhenn-Reulen, H., Freund, A. M. & Fischer, J. Motivational shifts in aging monkeys and the origins of social selectivity. Curr. Biol. 26, 1744–1749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.066 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Borgeaud, C., Sosa, S., Sueur, C. & Bshary, R. The influence of demographic variation on social network stability in wild vervet monkeys. Anim. Behav. 134, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.09.028 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cantor, M. et al. The importance of individual-to-society feedbacks in animal ecology and evolution. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13336 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sosa, S., Sueur, C. & Puga-Gonzalez, I. Network measures in animal social network analysis: Their strengths, limits, interpretations and uses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13366 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farine, D. R. & Whitehead, H. Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1144–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12418 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neethirajan, S. & Kemp, B. Social network analysis in farm animals: Sensor-based approaches. Animals 11, 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020434 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitehead, H. Analyzing Animal Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA (2008).
Smith, J. E. & Pinter-Wollman, N. Observing the unwatchable: Integrating automated sensing, naturalistic observations and animal social network analysis in the age of big data. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13362 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, S., Ilany, A., White, B. J., Sanderson, M. W. & Lanzas, C. Spatial-temporal dynamics of high-resolution animal networks: What can we learn from domestic animals?. PLoS One 10, e0129253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129253 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Atton, N., Galef, B. J., Hoppitt, W., Webster, M. M. & Laland, K. N. Familiarity affects social network structure and discovery of prey patch locations in foraging stickleback shoals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20140579. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0579 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ilany, A. & Akçay, E. Personality and social networks: A generative model approach. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56, 1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icw068 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Romano, V. et al. Modeling infection transmission in primate networks to predict centrality-based risk. Am. J. Primatol. 78, 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22542 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ren, K., Bernes, G., Hetta, M. & Karlsson, J. Tracking and analysing social interactions in dairy cattle with real-time locating system and machine learning. J. Syst. Archit. 116, 102139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102139 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyland, N. K., Mlynski, D. T., James, R., Brent, L. J. N. & Croft, D. P. The social network structure of a dynamic group of dairy cows: From individual to group level patterns. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 174, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.016 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chopra, K. et al. Proximity interactions in a permanently housed dairy herd: Network structure, consistency, and individual differences. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 583715 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Šárová, R. et al. Pay respect to the elders: Age, more than body mass, determines dominance in female beef cattle. Anim. Behav. 86, 1315–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.10.002 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foris, B., Haas, H. G., Langbein, J. & Melzer, N. Familiarity influences social networks in dairy cows after regrouping. J. Dairy Sci. 104, 3485–3494. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18896 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Foris, B., Zebunke, M., Langbein, J. & Melzer, N. Comprehensive analysis of affiliative and agonistic social networks in lactating dairy cattle groups. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 210, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.016 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Freslon, I., Martínez-López, B., Belkhiria, J., Strappini, A. & Monti, G. Use of social network analysis to improve the understanding of social behaviour in dairy cattle and its impact on disease transmission. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 213, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.01.006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolt, S. L., Boyland, N. K., Mlynski, D. T., James, R. & Croft, D. P. Pair housing of dairy calves and age at pairing: Effects on weaning stress, health production and social networks. PLoS One 12, e0166926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166926 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koene, P. & Ipema, B. Social networks and welfare in future animal management. Animals (Basel) 4, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4010093 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raussi, S. et al. The formation of preferential relationships at early age in cattle. Behav. Proc. 84, 726–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.05.005 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weary, D. M., Jasper, J. & Hötzel, M. J. Understanding weaning distress. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.025 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lopes, P. C., Block, P. & König, B. Infection-induced behavioural changes reduce connectivity and the potential for disease spread in wild mice contact networks. Sci. Rep. 6, 31790. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31790 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ripperger, S. P., Stockmaier, S. & Carter, G. G. Tracking sickness effects on social encounters via continuous proximity sensing in wild vampire bats. Behav. Ecol. 31, 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/araa111 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGuirk, S. M. & Peek, S. F. Timely diagnosis of dairy calf respiratory disease using a standardized scoring system. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 15, 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1466252314000267 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callan, R. J. & Garry, F. B. Biosecurity and bovine respiratory disease. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 18, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(02)00004-X (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sewio. Tag Leonardo iMU/Personal. https://docs.sewio.net/docs/tag-leonardo-imu-personal-30146967.html (2022).Barker, Z. E. et al. Use of novel sensors combining local positioning and acceleration to measure feeding behavior differences associated with lameness in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 6310–6321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12172 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i02 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franks, D. W., Weiss, M. N., Silk, M. J., Perryman, R. J. Y. & Croft, D. P. Calculating effect sizes in animal social network analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13429 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
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 
Bell, D. C., Atkinson, J. S. & Carlson, J. W. Centrality measures for disease transmission networks. Soc. Netw. 21, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(98)00010-0 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x (1995).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
PercieduSert, N. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hulbert, L. E. & Moisá, S. J. Stress, immunity, and the management of calves. J. Dairy Sci. 99, 3199–3216. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10198 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sweeney, B. C., Rushen, J., Weary, D. M. & de Passillé, A. M. Duration of weaning, starter intake, and weight gain of dairy calves fed large amounts of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2427 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rault, J.-L. Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 136, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.002 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ishiwata, T., Kilgour, R. J., Uetake, K., Eguchi, Y. & Tanaka, T. Choice of attractive conditions by beef cattle in a Y-maze just after release from restraint. J. Anim. Sci. 85, 1080–1085. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-405 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ede, T., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. & Weary, D. M. Social approach and place aversion in relation to conspecific pain in dairy calves. PLoS One 15, e0232897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232897 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cantor, M. C., Renaud, D. L., Neave, H. W. & Costa, J. H. C. Feeding behavior and activity levels are associated with recovery status in dairy calves treated with antimicrobials for Bovine Respiratory Disease. Sci. Rep. 12, 4854. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08131-1 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kappeler, P. M., Cremer, S. & Nunn, C. L. Sociality and health: Impacts of sociality on disease susceptibility and transmission in animal and human societies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140116. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0116 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ezenwa, V. O. et al. Host behaviour–parasite feedback: An essential link between animal behaviour and disease ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20153078. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.3078 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Klein, S. L. Parasite manipulation of the proximate mechanisms that mediate social behavior in vertebrates. Physiol. Behav. 79, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00163-X (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
LavistaFerres, J. M. et al. Social connectedness and movements among communities of giraffes vary by sex and age class. Anim. Behav. 180, 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.08.008 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
VanderWaal, K. L., Wang, H., McCowan, B., Fushing, H. & Isbell, L. A. Multilevel social organization and space use in reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). Behav. Ecol. 25, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art061 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sato, S. & Wood-Gush, D. G. Observations on creche behaviour in suckler calves. Behav. Process. 15, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(87)90017-9 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lecorps, B., Kappel, S., Weary, D. M. & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. Social proximity in dairy calves is affected by differences in pessimism. PLoS One 14, e0223746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223746 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carslake, C., Occhiuto, F., Vázquez-Diosdado, J. A. & Kaler, J. Repeatability and predictability of calf feeding behaviors—Quantifying between- and within-individual variation for precision livestock farming. Front. Vet. Sci. 9, 827124 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Occhiuto, F., Vázquez-Diosdado, J. A., Carslake, C. & Kaler, J. Personality and predictability in farmed calves using movement and space-use behaviours quantified by ultra-wideband sensors. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 212019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.212019 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Carslake, C., Occhiuto, F., Vázquez-Diosdado, J. A. & Kaler, J. Indication of a personality trait in dairy calves and its link to weight gain through automatically collected feeding behaviours. Sci. Rep. 12, 19425. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24076-x (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Planas-Sitjà, I., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Cronin, A. L. Variation in personality can substitute for social feedback in coordinated animal movements. Commun. Biol. 4, 469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01991-9 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stockmaier, S., Bolnick, D. I., Page, R. A. & Carter, G. G. Sickness effects on social interactions depend on the type of behaviour and relationship. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13193 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, L. A., Swain, D. L., Innocent, G. T., Nevison, I. & Hutchings, M. R. Considering appropriate replication in the design of animal social network studies. Sci. Rep. 9, 7208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43764-9 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shin, D. H., Kang, H. M. & Seo, S. Social relationships enhance the time spent eating and intake of a novel diet in pregnant Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae) heifers. PeerJ 5, e3329. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3329 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More