Philippa Kaur

The growth behaviour of Linnemannia is strain-specificMost strains showed comparable morphological characteristics on both media as well as in pure and co-culture. However, Linnemannia solitaria and Entomortierella galaxiae produced more aerial mycelium on PDA compared to LcA. There was more/less aerial mycelium in co-cultures with P. helmanticensis compared to pure cultures depending on the strain (Fig. 1, SI Fig. S3).The comparison of Linnemannia and E. galaxiae daily radial growth rates did not support a difference between these genera (p ≥ 0.3). The overall linear model indicated that the fungal daily growth rates mainly differed among species (Table 1). In addition, the effect of strains highlighted the heterogeneity among strains within species (Fig. 2, SI Figs. S4, S5). Although there was no relevant main effect of medium on the daily radial growth rate of the fungi, the medium did affect the fungi in a strain-specific manner (Table 1, Fig. 2, SI Figs. S4, S5). On nutrient poor LcA, the fungal daily radial growth rates were reduced for all species, except for L. solitaria, which grew better on LcA (SI Figs. S3, S4).Table 1 The effect of experimental factors on the fungal daily radial growth rate.Full size tableFigure 2Daily radial growth rate of pure Linnemannia and Entomortierella cultures as well as co-cultures with P. helmanticensis on nutrient rich PDA medium. (a) L. exigua, (b) L. gamsii, (c) L. hyalina, (d) L. sclerotiella, (e) L. solitaria, (f) E. galaxiae.Full size imageThe main effect of co-plating P. helmanticensis on radial growth rate was small, yet significant (0.7%, p  More

Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 (FAO, 2020).Taubert, F. et al. Global patterns of tropical forest fragmentation. Nature 554, 519–522 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vancutsem, C. et al. Long-term (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe1603 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Foley, J. A. et al. Amazonia revealed: Forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 25–32 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Barlow, J. et al. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brandon, K. Ecosystem services from tropical forests: Review of current science. SSRN J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622749 (2014). Article 

Google Scholar 
Indarto, J. & Mutaqin, D. J. An overview of theoretical and empirical studies on deforestation. MPRA. Paper No. 70178 (2016).Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: Tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. Bioscience 52, 143–150 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Angelsen, A. & Kaimowitz, D. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 73–98 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Contreras-Hermosilla, A. The Underlying Causes of Forest Decline (Center for International Forestry Research, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Turner, B. L. et al. Two types of global environmental change: Definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions. Glob. Environ. Change 1, 14–22 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Meyer, W. B. & Turner, B. L. Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2, 39–61 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Miyamoto, M., Mohd Parid, M., Noor Aini, Z. & Michinaka, T. Proximate and underlying causes of forest cover change in Peninsular Malaysia. For. Policy Econ. 44, 18–25 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Lim, C. L., Prescott, G. W., De Alban, J. D. T., Ziegler, A. D. & Webb, E. L. Untangling the proximate causes and underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1362–1372 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Carodenuto, S. et al. A methodological framework for assessing agents, proximate drivers and underlying causes of deforestation: Field test results from southern cameroon. Forests 6, 203–224 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Köthke, M., Leischner, B. & Elsasser, P. Uniform global deforestation patterns—An empirical analysis. For. Policy Econ. 28, 23–37 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Busch, J. & Ferretti-Gallon, K. What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 3–23 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ferrer Velasco, R. F., Köthke, M., Lippe, M. & Günter, S. Scale and context dependency of deforestation drivers: Insights from spatial econometrics in the tropics. PLoS One 15, e0226830 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. & Pfaff, A. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12, 45–64 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C. & Vedung, E. Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation (Transaction Publishers, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Seymour, F. & Harris, N. L. Reducing tropical deforestation. Science 365, 756–757 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lambin, E. F. et al. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 109–116 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wolff, S. & Schweinle, J. Effectiveness and economic viability of forest certification: A systematic review. Forests 13, 798 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Müller, R., Pistorius, T., Rohde, S., Gerold, G. & Pacheco, P. Policy options to reduce deforestation based on a systematic analysis of drivers and agents in lowland Bolivia. Land Use Policy 30, 895–907 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Tegegne, Y. T., Lindner, M., Fobissie, K. & Kanninen, M. Evolution of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Congo Basin forests: Exploring possible policy options to address forest loss. Land Use Policy 51, 312–324 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, C., García Márquez, J. R. & Krueger, T. A local perspective on drivers and measures to slow deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian foothills of Colombia. Land Use Policy 77, 379–391 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Henders, S., Ostwald, M., Verendel, V. & Ibisch, P. Do national strategies under the UN biodiversity and climate conventions address agricultural commodity consumption as deforestation driver?. Land Use Policy 70, 580–590 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Salvini, G. et al. How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for monitoring systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 074004 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bos, A. B. et al. Integrated assessment of deforestation drivers and their alignment with subnational climate change mitigation efforts. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 352–365 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fritz, S. et al. A continental assessment of the drivers of tropical deforestation with a focus on protected areas. Front. Conserv. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.830248 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawrence, D. & Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 27–36 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fedele, G., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H. & Colloff, M. J. Reducing risks by transforming landscapes: Cross-scale effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services. PLoS One 13, e0195895 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Yackulic, C. B. et al. Biophysical and socioeconomic factors associated with forest transitions at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04275-160315 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loran, C., Ginzler, C. & Bürgi, M. Evaluating forest transition based on a multi-scale approach: Forest area dynamics in Switzerland 1850–2000. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 1807–1818 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Moonen, P. C. et al. Actor-based identification of deforestation drivers paves the road to effective REDD+in DR Congo. Land Use Policy 58, 123–132 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Strassburg, B. The tragedy of the tropics: A dynamic, cross-scale analysis of deforestation incentives. Working Paper—Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment No. 07-02 (2007).López-Carr, D. et al. Space versus place in complex human–natural systems: Spatial and multi-level models of tropical land use and cover change (LUCC) in Guatemala. Ecol. Model. 229, 64–75 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Hoang, N. T. & Kanemoto, K. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 845–853 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Pendrill, F. et al. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 56, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Ferrer Velasco, R. et al. Towards accurate mapping of forest in tropical landscapes: A comparison of datasets on how forest transition matters. Remote Sens. Environ. 274, 112997 (2022).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jayathilake, H. M., Prescott, G. W., Carrasco, L. R., Rao, M. & Symes, W. S. Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes. Ambio 50, 215–228 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Minang, P. A. et al. REDD+Readiness progress across countries: Time for reconsideration. Clim. Policy 14, 685–708 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Current pledges | Bonn challenge. https://www.bonnchallenge.org/pledges. Accessed: 15th August 2022.Nansikombi, H. et al. Can de facto governance influence deforestation drivers in the Zambian Miombo?. For. Policy Econ. 120, 102309 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sullivan, A., York, A., White, D., Hall, S. & Yabiku, S. D. Jure versus de facto institutions: Trust, information, and collective efforts to manage the invasive mile-a-minute weed (Mikania micrantha). Int. J. Commons 11, 171–199 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Busch, J. & Amarjargal, O. Authority of second-tier governments to reduce deforestation in 30 tropical countries. Front. For. Glob. Change https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00001 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandström, C., Eckerberg, K. & Raitio, K. Studying conflicts, proposing solutions—Towards multi-level approaches to the analyses of forest conflicts. For. Policy Econ. 33, 123–127 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hoogstra-Klein, M. A., Permadi, D. B. & Yasmi, Y. The value of cultural theory for participatory processes in natural resource management. For. Policy Econ. 20, 99–106 (2012).
Google Scholar 
de Jong, W., Ruiz, S. & Becker, M. Conflicts and communal forest management in northern Bolivia. For. Policy Econ. 8, 447–457 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Eckerberg, K. & Sandström, C. Forest conflicts: A growing research field. For. Policy Econ. 33, 3–7 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Sierra, R., Calva, O. & Guevara, A. La Deforestación en el Ecuador, 1990–2018. Factores promotores y tendencias recientes, 216 (2021).Wasserstrom, R. & Southgate, D. Deforestation, agrarian reform and oil development in Ecuador, 1964–1994. Nat. Resour. 04, 31 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Wiebe, P. C., Zhunusova, E., Lippe, M., Ferrer Velasco, R. & Günter, S. What is the contribution of forest-related income to rural livelihood strategies in the Philippines’ remaining forested landscapes?. For. Policy Econ. 135, 102658 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Le, H. D., Smith, C. & Herbohn, J. What drives the success of reforestation projects in tropical developing countries? The case of the Philippines. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 334–348 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Carandang, A. P. et al. Analysis of key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Philippines. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (2013).Phiri, D., Morgenroth, J. & Xu, C. Four decades of land cover and forest connectivity study in Zambia—An object-based image analysis approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 79, 97–109 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Nansikombi, H., Fischer, R., Kabwe, G. & Günter, S. Exploring patterns of forest governance quality: Insights from forest frontier communities in Zambia’s Miombo ecoregion. Land Use Policy 99, 104866 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, H., Wang, P. & Wood, J. Does institutional quality matter for the nexus between environmental quality and economic growth?: A tropics perspective. In Business, Industry, and Trade in the Tropics (eds Wood, J. et al.) (Routledge, 2022).
Google Scholar 
Reed, J., Van Vianen, J., Deakin, E. L., Barlow, J. & Sunderland, T. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: Learning from the past to guide the future. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2540–2554 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, R. et al. Interplay of governance elements and their effects on deforestation in tropical landscapes: Quantitative insights from Ecuador. World Dev. 148, 105665 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Torres, B., Vasco, C., Günter, S. & Knoke, T. Determinants of agricultural diversification in a hotspot area: Evidence from colonist and indigenous communities in the Sumaco biosphere reserve Ecuadorian Amazon. Sustainability 10, 1432 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Ojeda Luna, T., Zhunusova, E., Günter, S. & Dieter, M. Measuring forest and agricultural income in the Ecuadorian lowland rainforest frontiers: Do deforestation and conservation strategies matter?. For. Policy Econ. 111, 102034 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kazungu, M. et al. Effects of household-level attributes and agricultural land-use on deforestation patterns along a forest transition gradient in the Miombo landscapes Zambia. Ecol. Econ. 186, 107070 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kleemann, J. et al. Deforestation in continental ecuador with a focus on protected areas. Land 11, 268 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Mulenga, M. M. & Roos, A. Assessing the awareness and adoptability of pellet cookstoves for low-income households in Lusaka, Zambia. J. Energy South. Afr. 32, 52–61 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Eguiguren, P., Ojeda Luna, T., Torres, B., Lippe, M. & Günter, S. Ecosystem service multifunctionality: Decline and recovery pathways in the amazon and chocó lowland rainforests. Sustainability 12, 7786 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vasco, C., Torres, B., Pacheco, P. & Griess, V. The socioeconomic determinants of legal and illegal smallholder logging: Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon. For. Policy Econ. 78, 133–140 (2017).
Google Scholar 
van der Ploeg, J., van Weerd, M., Masipiqueña, A. B. & Persoon, G. A. Illegal logging in the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, the Philippines. Conserv. Soc. 9, 202–215 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Liu, D. S., Iverson, L. R. & Brown, S. Rates and patterns of deforestation in the Philippines: Application of geographic information system analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 57, 1–16 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Boquet, Y. Environmental challenges in the Philippines. In The Philippine Archipelago (ed. Boquet, Y.) 779–829 (Springer International Publishing, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51926-5_22.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
MAGAP. ATPA: Reconversión Agro productiva Sostenible en la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (2014).Jones, K. W. et al. Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ. Conserv. 44, 56–65 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A. et al. Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: Insights from Zambia. PLoS One 9, e94109 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, R. et al. Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – a stakeholder perspective from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia. Land Use Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106546 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurney, G. G. et al. Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: Use OECMs. Nature 595, 646–649 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Priebe, J. et al. Transformative change in context—Stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus. Sustain. Sci. 17, 1921–1938 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Höhl, M. et al. Forest landscape restoration—What generates failure and success?. Forests 11, 938 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Köthke, M., Ahimbisibwe, V. & Lippe, M. The evidence base on the environmental, economic and social outcomes of agroforestry is patchy—An evidence review map. Front. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.925477 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, R., Giessen, L. & Günter, S. Governance effects on deforestation in the tropics: A review of the evidence. Environ. Sci. Policy 105, 84–101 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bare, M., Kauffman, C. & Miller, D. C. Assessing the impact of international conservation aid on deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125010 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vuohelainen, A. J., Coad, L., Marthews, T. R., Malhi, Y. & Killeen, T. J. The effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios. Peru. Environ. Manag. 50, 645–663 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hull, V. & Liu, J. Telecoupling: A new frontier for global sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 23, 41 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Aitchison, J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 44, 139–160 (1982).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 625–632 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Day, M., Gumbo, D., Moombe, K. B., Wijaya, A. & Sunderland, T. Zambia Country Profile: Monitoring, Reporting and Verification for REDD+ Vol. 113 (CIFOR, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Piotrowski, M. Nearing the tipping point. Drivers of Deforestation in the Amazon Region (2019).Sarker, P. K., Fischer, R., Tamayo, F., Navarrete, B. T. & Günter, S. Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador. For. Policy Econ. 144, 102838 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 55–55 (1932).
Google Scholar 
Altinsoy, M. et al. Ambulatory ECG monitoring for syncope and collapse in United States, Europe, and Japan: The patients’ viewpoint. J. Arrhythm. 37, 1023–1030 (2021).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2022).Kassambara, A. rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version 0.7.0 (2021).Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.7 (2020).Komsta, L. & Novometsky, F. moments: Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R package version 0.14.1 (2022).Zhang, Y., Zhou, M. & Shao, Y. mvnormalTest: Powerful tests for multivariate normality. R package version 1.0.0 (2020).Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0 (2020).Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. JOSS 4, 1686 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bache, S. M. & Wickham, H. magrittr: A Forward-Pipe Operator for R. R package version 2.0.3 (2022).Ushey, K., Allaire, J., Wickham, H. & Ritchie, G. rstudioapi: Safely Access the RStudio API. R package version 0.13 (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer International Publishing, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins, D. treemapify: Draw Treemaps in ‘ggplot2’. R package version 2.5.5 (2021).Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk, M. B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591–611 (1965).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mardia, K. V. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57, 519–530 (1970).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 583–621 (1952).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, O. J. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6, 241–252 (1964).
Google Scholar 
Conover, W. J. & Iman, R. L. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am. Stat. 35, 124–129 (1981).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Student,. The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 6, 1–25 (1908).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Tukey, J. W. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5, 99–114 (1949).MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jolliffe, I. T. Principal Component Analysis (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Kennedy, E. V. et al. Avoiding coral reef functional collapse requires local and global action. Curr. Biol. 23, 912–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.020 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beck, M. W. et al. The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nat. Commun. 9, 2186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04568-z (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuffner, I. B. & Toth, L. T. A geological perspective on the degradation and conservation of western Atlantic coral reefs. Conserv. Biol. 30, 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12725 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allemand, D. et al. Biomineralisation in reef-building corals: From molecular mechanisms to environmental control. C. R. Palevol. 3, 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2004.07.011 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. Bioerosion and coral-reef growth: A dynamic balance. In Life and Death of Coral Reefs (ed Birkeland, C.) 68–95 (Chapman & Hall, 1997).Eyre, B. D., Andersson, A. J. & Cyronak, T. Benthic coral reef calcium carbonate dissolution in an acidifying ocean. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 969–976. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2380 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enochs, I. C. et al. Upwelling and the persistence of coral-reef frameworks in the eastern tropical Pacific. Ecol. Monogr. 91, e01482. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1482 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alvarado, J. J., Grassian, B., Cantera-Kintz, J. R., Carballo, J. L. & Londoño-Cruz, E. Coral reef bioerosion in the eastern tropical Pacific. In Coral Reefs of the Eastern Tropical Pacific (eds Glynn, P. W., Manzello, D. P., Enochs, I. C.) 369–403 (Springer, 2017).Perry, C. T. et al. Caribbean-wide decline in carbonate production threatens coral reef growth. Nat. Commun. 4, 1402. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2409 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oppenheimer, M. et al. Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and communities. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019).Alvarez-Filip, L., González-Barrios, F. J., Pérez-Cervantes, E., Molina-Hernández, A. & Estrada-Saldívar, N. Stony coral tissue loss disease decimated Caribbean coral populations and reshaped reef functionality. Commun. Biol. 5, 440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03398-6 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. et al. Loss of coral reef growth capacity to track future increases in sea level. Nature 558, 396–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0194-z (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Woesik, R. & Cacciapaglia, C. W. Carbonate production of Micronesian reefs suppressed by thermal anomalies and Acanthaster as sea-level rises. PLoS ONE 14, e0224887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224887 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Woesik, R. & Cacciapaglia, C. W. Thermal stress jeopardizes carbonate production of coral reefs across the western and central Pacific Ocean. PLoS ONE 16, e0249008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249008 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Woesik, R. & Cacciapaglia, C. W. Keeping up with sea-level rise: Carbonate production rates in Palau and Yap, western Pacific Ocean. PLoS ONE 13, e0197077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197077 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M. Where have all the carbonates gone? A model comparison of calcium carbonate budgets before and after the 1982–1983 El Niño at Uva Island in the eastern Pacific. Coral Reefs 15, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01771900 (1996).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. & Morgan, K. M. Bleaching drives collapse in reef carbonate budgets and reef growth potential on southern Maldives reefs. Sci. Rep. 7, 40581. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40581 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Disturbance and recovery of coral assemblages. Coral Reefs 16, S101–S113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050246 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8048 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dana, T. F. Development of contemporary eastern Pacific coral reefs. Mar. Biol. 33, 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00390574 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cortés, J. Eastern tropical Pacific coral reefs. In The Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs: Structure, Form and Process. 351–358 (2011).O’Dea, A., Hoyos, N., Rodríguez, F., Degracia, B. & de Gracia, C. History of upwelling in the tropical eastern Pacific and the paleogeography of the Isthmus of Panama. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 348–349, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.06.007 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. & Colgan, M. W. Sporadic disturbances in fluctuating coral reef environments: El Niño and coral reef development in the Eastern Pacific. Am. Zool. 32, 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/32.6.707 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manzello, D. P. et al. Poorly cemented coral reefs of the eastern tropical Pacific: Possible insights into reef development in a high-CO2 world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10450–10455. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0712167105 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M. & Glynn, P. W. Low tidal exposures and reef mortalities in the eastern Pacific. Coral Reefs 15, 120 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. Some physical and biological determinants of coral community structure in the eastern pacific. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 431–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942565 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toth, L. T., Macintyre, I. G. & Aronson, R. B. Holocene reef development in the eastern tropical Pacific. In Coral Reefs of the Eastern Tropical Pacific (eds Glynn, P. W., Manzello, D. P., Enochs, I. C.) 177–201 (Springer, 2017).Cortés, J., Macintyre, I. G. & Glynn, P. W. Holocene growth history of an eastern Pacific fringing reef, Punta Islotes, Costa Rica. Coral Reefs 13, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300763 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. et al. Eastern pacific coral reef provinces, coral community structure and composition: An overview. In Coral Reefs of the Eastern Tropical Pacific (eds Glynn, P. W., Manzello, D. P., Enochs, I. C.) 107–176 (Springer, 2017).Glynn, P. W. & Macintyre, I. G. Growth rate and age of coral reefs on the Pacific coast of Panama. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium, Miami, vol. 2, 251–259 (1977).Glynn, P. W. & Stewart, R. H. Distribution of coral reefs in the Pearl Islands (Gulf of Panama) in relation to thermal conditions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1973.18.3.0367 (1973).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W., Druffel, E. M. & Dunbar, R. B. A dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the Little Ice Age (Costa Rica, Gulf of Papagayo, Gulf of Panama). J. Mar. Res. 41, 605–637. https://doi.org/10.1357/002224083788519740 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. & Leyte Morales, G. E. Coral reefs of Huatulco, west México: Reef development in upwelling Gulf of Tehuantepec. Rev. Biol. Trop. 45, 1033–1047 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Tribollet, A. & Golubic, S. Cross-shelf differences in the pattern and pace of bioerosion of experimental carbonate substrates exposed for 3 years on the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs 24, 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-005-0003-7 (2005).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
D’Croz, L. & O’Dea, A. Variability in upwelling along the Pacific shelf of Panama and implications for the distribution of nutrients and chlorophyll. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S. 73, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.01.013 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Randall, C. J., Toth, L. T., Leichter, J. J., Maté, J. L. & Aronson, R. B. Upwelling buffers climate change impacts on coral reefs of the eastern tropical Pacific. Ecology 101, e02918. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2918 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tyberghein, L. et al. Bio-ORACLE: A global environmental dataset for marine species distribution modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00656.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Assis, J. et al. Bio-ORACLE v2.0: Extending marine data layers for bioclimatic modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12693 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. R Foundation for Statistical Computing vol. 2.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer, 2016). ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.Dunnington, D. ggspatial: Spatial Data Framework for ggplot2. (2022). https://paleolimbot.github.io/ggspatial/, https://github.com/paleolimbot/ggspatial.Toth, L. T. et al. ENSO drove 2500-year collapse of eastern Pacific coral reefs. Science 336, 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1221168 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Toth, L. T. et al. Climatic and biotic thresholds of coral-reef shutdown. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2541 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Guzman, H. & Cortés, J. Arrecifes coralinos del Pacífico oriental tropical: revisión y perspectivas. Rev. Biol. Trop. 41, 535–557 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Chollett, I., Mumby, P. J. & Cortés, J. Upwelling areas do not guarantee refuge for coral reefs in a warming Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 416, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08775 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W., Maté, J. L., Baker, A. C. & Calderón, M. O. Coral bleaching and mortality in Panama and Ecuador during the 1997–1998 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event: Spatial/temporal patterns and comparisons with the 1982–1983 event. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69, 79–109 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Paz-García, D. A., Hellberg, M. E., García-de-León, F. J. & Balart, E. F. Switch between morphospecies of Pocillopora corals. Am. Nat. 186, 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1086/682363 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tortolero-Langarica, J. J. A., Rodríguez-Troncoso, A. P., Cupul-Magaña, A. L. & Carricart-Ganivet, J. P. Calcification and growth rate recovery of the reef-building Pocillopora species in the northeast tropical Pacific following an ENSO disturbance. PeerJ 2017, e3191. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3191 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Medellín-Maldonado, F. et al. Calcification of the main reef-building coral species on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Cienc. Mar. 42, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v42i3.2650 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cabral-Tena, R. A. et al. Calcification of coral assemblages in the eastern Pacific: Reshuffling calcification scenarios under climate change. Ecol. Indic. 95, 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.021 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. Coral growth in upwelling and nonupwelling areas off the Pacific coast of Panama. J. Mar. Res. 35, 567–585 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Guzman, H. M. & Cortes, J. Growth rates of eight species of scleractinian corals in the eastern Pacific (Costa Rica). Bull. Mar. Sci. 44, 1186–1194 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Cabral-Tena, R. A. et al. Functional potential of coral assemblages along a typical eastern tropical Pacific reef tract. Ecol. Indic. 119, 106795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106795 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manzello, D. P. Coral growth with thermal stress and ocean acidification: Lessons from the eastern tropical Pacific. Coral Reefs 29, 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0623-4 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
González-Barrios, F. J. & Álvarez-Filip, L. A framework for measuring coral species-specific contribution to reef functioning in the Caribbean. Ecol. Indic. 95, 877–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.038 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jokiel, P. L., Maragos, J. & Franzisket, L. Coral growth: Buoyant weight technique. In Coral Reefs: Research Methods (eds Stoddart, D. R., & Johannes, R. E.) 529–541 (UNESCO, 1978).Kuffner, I. B., Hickey, T. D. & Morrison, J. M. Calcification rates of the massive coral Siderastrea siderea and crustose coralline algae along the Florida Keys (USA) outer-reef tract. Coral Reefs 32, 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-013-1047-8 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cornwall, C. E. et al. Global declines in coral reef calcium carbonate production under ocean acidification and warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015265118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.201526511 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rose, C. S. & Risk, M. J. Increase in Cliona delitrix infestation of Montastrea cavernosa heads on an organically polluted portion of the Grand Cayman fringing reef. Mar. Ecol. 6, 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1985.tb00142.x (1985).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Prouty, N. G. et al. Vulnerability of coral reefs to bioerosion from land-based sources of pollution. J. Geophys. Res-Oceans 122, 9319–9331. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013264 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M. The damselfish-algal lawn symbiosis and its influence on the bioerosion of an El Niño impacted coral reef, Uva Island, Pacific Panama. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1991).Alvarado, J. J., Reyes-Bonilla, H. & Benítez-Villalobos, F. Diadema mexicanum, erizo de mar clave en los arrecifes coralinos del Pacífico Tropical Oriental: Lo que sabemos y perspectivas futuras (Diadematoida: Diadematidae). Rev. Biol. Trop. 63(Suppl 2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v63i2.23140 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. Widespread coral mortality and the 1982–83 El Niño warming event. Environ. Conserv. 11, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900013825 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W. El Niño warming, coral mortality and reef framework destruction by echinoid bioerosion in the eastern Pacific. Galaxea 7, 129–160 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M. A tale of two ENSO events: Carbonate budgets and the influence of two warming disturbances and intervening variability, Uva Island, Panama. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69, 171–186 (2001).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Russ, G. R., Questel, S. L. A., Rizzari, J. R. & Alcala, A. C. The parrotfish–coral relationship: Refuting the ubiquity of a prevailing paradigm. Mar. Biol. 162, 2029–2045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2728-3 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wellington, G. M. & Glynn, P. W. Responses of Coral Reefs to El Niño-Southern Oscillation Sea-Warming Events. In Geological Approaches to Coral Reef Ecology (ed Aronson, R. B.) 342–385 (Springer, 2007).Guzmán, H. M. & Cortés, J. Changes in reef community structure after fifteen years of natural disturbances in the eastern Pacific (Costa Rica). Bull. Mar. Sci. 69, 133–149 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Guzman, H. M. & Cortés, J. Reef recovery 20 years after the 1982–1983 El Niño massive mortality. Mar. Biol. 151, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0495-x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. et al. Why more comparative approaches are required in time-series analyses of coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 608, 297–306. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12805 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Enochs, I. C. et al. Enhanced macroboring and depressed calcification drive net dissolution at high-CO2 coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20161742. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1742 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roff, G. Reef accretion and coral growth rates are decoupled in Holocene reef frameworks. Mar. Geol. 419, 106065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2019.106065 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. et al. Regional-scale dominance of non-framework building corals on Caribbean reefs affects carbonate production and future reef growth. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12792 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC (2014).Neumann, A. C. & Macintyre, I. Reef response to sea level rise: Keep-up, catch-up or give up. In Proceedings 5th International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti 3, 105–110 (1985).Macintyre, I. G. Modern coral reefs of western Atlantic: New geological perspective. AAPG Bull. 72, 1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1306/703C99A1-1707-11D7-8645000102C1865D (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hallock, P. & Schlager, W. Nutrient excess and the demise of coral reefs and carbonate platforms. Palaios 1, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.2307/3514476 (1986).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kleypas, J. A. Coral reef development under naturally turbid conditions: Fringing reefs near Broad Sound, Australia. Coral Reefs 15, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145886 (1996).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Woesik, R. & Done, T. J. Coral communities and reef growth in the southern Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 16, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050064 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sully, S. & van Woesik, R. Turbid reefs moderate coral bleaching under climate-related temperature stress. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14948 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G., Rodrigues, L. J. & Palardy, J. E. Heterotrophic plasticity and resilience in bleached corals. Nature 440, 1186–1189. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04565 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romero-Torres, M. et al. Coral reef resilience to thermal stress in the eastern tropical Pacific. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3880–3890. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15126 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Castillo, V., Rodríguez-Troncoso, A. P., Mayfield, A. B., Rodríguez-Zaragoza, F. A. & Cupul-Magaña, A. L. Coral recovery in the central Mexican Pacific 20 years after the 1997–1998 El Niño Event. Oceans 3, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans3010005 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anton, A. et al. Differential thermal tolerance between algae and corals may trigger the proliferation of algae in coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4316–4327. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15141 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Roth, F. et al. High summer temperatures amplify functional differences between coral- and algae-dominated reef communities. Ecology 102, e03226. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3226 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roik, A., Röthig, T., Pogoreutz, C., Saderne, V. & Voolstra, C. R. Coral reef carbonate budgets and ecological drivers in the central Red Sea—A naturally high temperature and high total alkalinity environment. Biogeosciences 15, 6277–6296. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6277-2018 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wyatt, A. S. J. et al. Heat accumulation on coral reefs mitigated by internal waves. Nat. Geosci. 13, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0486-4 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. B., Glynn, P. W., Maté, J. L., Toth, L. T. & Gyory, J. A depth refugium from catastrophic coral bleaching prevents regional extinction. Ecology 95, 1663–1673. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0468.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guest, J. R. et al. A framework for identifying and characterising coral reef “oases” against a backdrop of degradation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2865–2875. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13179 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Courtney, T. A. et al. Disturbances drive changes in coral community assemblages and coral calcification capacity. Ecosphere 11, e03066. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3066 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bachman, S. D., Kleypas, J. A., Erdmann, M. & Setyawan, E. A global atlas of potential thermal refugia for coral reefs generated by internal gravity waves. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 1346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.921879 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dixon, A. M., Forster, P. M., Heron, S. F., Stoner, A. M. & Beger, M. Future loss of local-scale thermal refugia in coral reef ecosystems. PLoS Clim. 1, e0000004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000004 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuffner, I. B., Stathakopoulos, A., Toth, L. T. & Bartlett, L. A. Reestablishing a stepping-stone population of the threatened elkhorn coral Acropora palmata to aid regional recovery. Endanger. Species Res. 43, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01083 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T., Lange, I. D. & Januchowski-Hartley, F. A. ReefBudget Indo Pacific: Online resource and methodology. http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/reefbudget/ (2018).Nava, H. & Carballo, J. L. Chemical and mechanical bioerosion of boring sponges from Mexican Pacific coral reefs. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 2827–2831. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019216 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carballo, J. L., Bautista, E., Nava, H., Cruz-Barraza, J. A. & Chávez, J. A. Boring sponges, an increasing threat for coral reefs affected by bleaching events. Ecol. Evol. 3, 872–886. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.452 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. B. Temperature effects on herbivory for an Indo-Pacific parrotfish in Panamá: Implications for coral-algal competition. Coral Reefs 27, 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-007-0343-6 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn, P. W., Enochs, I. C., Afflerbach, J. A., Brandtneris, V. W. & Serafy, J. E. Eastern Pacific reef fish responses to coral recovery following El Niño disturbances. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 495, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10594 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Palacios, M. M., Muñoz, C. G. & Zapata, F. A. Fish corallivory on a pocilloporid reef and experimental coral responses to predation. Coral Reefs 33, 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-014-1173-y (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Toth, L. T. Holocene Coral-Reef Development in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. (Florida Institute of Technology, 2013).Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme.R-project (2021).Holgate, S. J. et al. New data systems and products at the permanent service for mean sea level. J. Coast. Res. 29, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00175.1 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Balboa Tide Gauge Data. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ (2022). More

Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. & Brooks, T. M. The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350 (1995).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324 (2015).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 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 (2017).Article 
CAS 

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 
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Cons. 232, 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, L. H. & Gratton, C. Insects as drivers of ecosystem processes. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.06.004 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, D. E., Heldbjerg, H., Fox, A. D., de Jong, M. & Böhning-Gaese, K. Long-term declines of European insectivorous bird populations and potential causes. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1120–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13307 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863 (2006).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

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 
Scherber, C. et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468, 553–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09492 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Siemann, E., Tilman, D. & Haarstad, J. Insect species diversity, abundance and body size relationships. Nature 380, 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/380704a0 (1996).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W. & Tilman, D. Plant diversity controls arthropod biomass and temporal stability. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1457–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebeling, A. et al. Plant diversity effects on arthropods and arthropod-dependent ecosystem functions in a biodiversity experiment. Basic Appl. Ecol. 26, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.014 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebeling, A. et al. Plant diversity induces shifts in the functional structure and diversity across trophic levels. Oikos 127, 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04210 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebeling, A. et al. Plant diversity impacts decomposition and herbivory via changes in aboveground arthropods. PLoS ONE 9, e106529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106529 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marquard, E. et al. Plant species richness and functional composition drive overyielding in a six-year grassland experiment. Ecology 90, 3290–3302 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. et al. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843–845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060391 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simons, N. K. et al. Resource-mediated indirect effects of grassland management on arthropod diversity. PLoS ONE 9, e107033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107033 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wardle, D. A., Nicholson, K. S., Bonner, K. I. & Yeates, G. W. Effects of agricultural intensification on soil-associated arthropod population dynamics, community structure, diversity and temporal variability over a seven-year period. Soil Biol. Biochem. 31, 1691–1706 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luff, M. L. & Rushton, S. P. The ground beetle and spider fauna of managed and unimproved upland pasture. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 25, 195–206 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dennis, P., Young, M. R., Howard, C. L. & Gordon, I. J. The response of epigeal beetles (Col, Carabidae, Staphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 433–443 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murdoch, W. W., Evans, F. C. & Peterson, C. H. Diversity and pattern in plants and insects. Ecology 53, 819–829 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siemann, E., Tilman, D., Haarstad, J. & Ritchie, M. Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. Am. Nat. 152, 738–750 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Joern, A. & Laws, A. N. Ecological mechanisms underlying arthropod species diversity in grasslands. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 58, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153540 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hunter, M. D. & Price, P. W. Playing chutes and ladders: Heterogeneity and relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73, 724–732 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knops, J. M. H. et al. Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2, 286–293 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thiele, H. U. Carabid beetles in their environment. A study on habitat selection by adaptions in physiology and behaviour. (Springer- Verlag, 1977).Harvey, J. A., van der Putten, W. H., Turin, H., Wagenaar, R. & Bezemer, T. M. Effects of changes in plant species richness and community traits on carabid assemblages and feeding guilds. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 127, 100–106 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luff, M. L. Use of Carabids as environmental indicators in grasslands and cereals. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33, 185–195 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Kotze, D. J. et al. Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. ZooKeys https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1523 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, A. D. et al. Biodiversity enhances the multitrophic control of arthropod herbivory. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb6603. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb6603 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H. & Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: A review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 273, 1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3530 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lövei, G. L. & Magura, T. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) diversity is higher in narrow hedges composed of a native compared to non-native trees in a Danish agricultural landscape. Insect Conserv. Divers. 10, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12210 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. Consumers as maximizers of matter and energy flow in ecosystems. Am. Nat. 145, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/285726 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mielke, L. et al. Nematode grazing increases the allocation of plant-derived carbon to soil bacteria and saprophytic fungi, and activates bacterial species of the rhizosphere. Pedobiologia 90, 150787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2021.150787 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holland, J. M. & Luff, M. L. The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 5, 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009619309424 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roscher, C. et al. The role of biodiversity for element cycling and trophic interactions: An experimental approach in a grassland community. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5, 107–121 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weisser, W. W. et al. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in a 15-year grassland experiment: Patterns, mechanisms, and open questions. Basic Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.06.002 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freude, H., Harde, K. W. & Lohse, G. A. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas Bd.1–11. (Goecke & Evers, 1965–83).Koch, K. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie Bd.1–6. (Goecke & Evers, 1989–95).R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021).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 
Schmid, B., Baruffol, M., Wang, Z. & Niklaus, P. A. A guide to analyzing biodiversity experiments. J. Plant Ecol. 10, 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtw107 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. (Springer, 2009).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package v. 2.6–2 (2022).Lenth, R. et al., emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means v. 1.8.1-1 (2022).Lovei, G. L. & Sunderland, K. D. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 231–256 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ravenek, J. M. et al. Long-term study of root biomass in a biodiversity experiment reveals shifts in diversity effects over time. Oikos 123, 1528–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01502 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Root, R. Organization of a plant -arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 43, 95–124 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duelli, P. & Obrist, M. K. Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: The contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4, 129–138 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perner, J. & Malt, S. Assessment of changing agricultural land use: Response of vegetation, ground-dwelling spiders and beetles to the conversion of arable land into grassland. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 98, 169–181 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Purtauf, T., Dauber, J. & Wolters, V. Carabid communities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rural landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 67, 185–193 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Res. Ideas Outcomes https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerrero-Ramirez, N. R. et al. Diversity-dependent temporal divergence of ecosystem functioning in experimental ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1639–1642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0325-1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science 336, 589–592. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217909 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. I., Polley, H. W. & Wilsey, B. J. Biodiversity, productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: Patterns and processes. Ecol. Lett. 12, 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01299.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blake, S., Foster, G. N., Fisher, G. E. J. & Ligertwood, G. L. Effects of management practices on the carabid faunas of newly established wildflower meadows in southern Scotland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33, 139–147 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Boetzl, F. A., Krimmer, E., Krauss, J. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Agri-environmental schemes promote ground-dwelling predators in adjacent oilseed rape fields: Diversity, species traits and distance-decay functions. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13162 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knapp, M., Seidl, M., Knappová, J., Macek, M. & Saska, P. Temporal changes in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles around arable field-woodlot boundaries. Sci. Rep. 9, 8967. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45378-7 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Data reportingThe data underpinning this study is a compilation of existing datasets and therefore, no statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size, the experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment. The measurements were taken from distinct samples, repeated measurements from the same sites were averaged in the main analysis.Inclusion & ethicsData were primarily collected from individual archives of contributing co-authors. The data collection initiative was openly announced via the mailing list of the 10th International Seminar on Apterygota and via social media (Twitter, Researchgate). In addition, colleagues from less explored regions (Africa, South America) were contacted via personal networks of the initial authors group and literature search. All direct data providers who collected and standardised the data were invited as co-authors with defined minimum role (data provision and cleaning, manuscript editing and approval). For unpublished data, people who were directly involved in sorting and identification of springtails, including all local researchers, were invited as co-authors. Principal investigators were normally not included as co-authors, unless they contributed to conceptualisation and writing of the manuscript. All co-authors were informed and invited to contribute throughout the research process—from the study design and analysis to writing and editing. The study provided an inclusive platform for researchers around the globe to network, share and test their research ideas.Data acquisitionBoth published and unpublished data were collected, using raw data whenever possible entered into a common template. In addition, data available from Edaphobase47 was included. The following minimum set of variables was collected: collectors, collection method (including sampling area and depth), extraction method, identification precision and resources, collection date, latitude and longitude, vegetation type (generalized as grassland, scrub, woodland, agriculture and other for the analysis), and abundances of springtail taxa found in each soil sample (or sampling site). Underrepresented geographical areas (Africa, South America, Australia and Southeast Asia) were specifically targeted by a literature search in the Web of Science database using the keywords ‘springtail’ or ‘Collembola’, ‘density’ or ‘abundance’ or ‘diversity’, and the region of interest; data were acquired from all found papers if the minimum information listed above was provided. All collected datasets were cleaned using OpenRefine v3.3 (https://openrefine.org) to remove inconsistencies and typos. Geographical coordinates were checked by comparing the dataset descriptions with the geographical coordinates. In total, 363 datasets comprising 2783 sites were collected and collated into a single dataset (Supplementary Fig. 1).Calculation of community parametersCommunity parameters were calculated at the site level. Here, we defined a site as a locality that hosts a defined springtail community, is covered by a certain vegetation type, with a certain management, and is usually represented by a sampling area of up to a hundred metres in diameter, making species co-occurrence and interactions plausible. To calculate density, numerical abundance in all samples was averaged and recalculated per square metre using the sampling area. Springtail communities were assessed predominantly during active vegetation periods (i.e., spring, summer and autumn in temperate and boreal biomes, and summer in polar biomes). Our estimations of community parameters therefore refer to the most favourable conditions (peak yearly densities). This seasonal sampling bias is likely to have little effect on our conclusions, since most springtails survive during cold periods38,48. Finally, we used mean annual soil temperatures49 to estimate the seasonal mean community metabolism (described below) and tested for the seasonal bias in additional analysis (see Linear mixed-effects models).All data analyses were conducted in R v. 4.0.250 with RStudio interface v. 1.4.1103 (RStudio, PBC). Data was transformed and visualised with tidyverse packages51,52, unless otherwise mentioned. Background for the global maps was acquired via the maps package53,54. To calculate local species richness, we used data identified to species or morphospecies level (validated by the expert team). Since the sampling effort varied among studies, we extrapolated species richness using rarefaction curves based on individual samples with the Chao estimator51,52 in the vegan package53. For some sites, sample-level data were not available in the original publications, but site-level averages were provided, and an extensive sampling effort was made. In such cases, we predicted extrapolated species richness based on the completeness (ratio of observed to extrapolated richness) recorded at sites where sample-level data were available (only sites with 5 or more samples were used for the prediction). We built a binomial model to predict completeness in sites where no sample-level data were available using latitude and the number of samples taken at a site as predictors: glm(Completeness~N_samples*Latitude). We found a positive effect of the number of samples (Chisq = 1.97, p = 0.0492) and latitude (Chisq = 2.07, p = 0.0391) on the completeness (Supplementary Figs. 17–19). We further used this model to predict extrapolated species richness on the sites with pooled data (435 sites in Europe, 15 in Australia, 6 in South America, 4 in Asia, and 3 in Africa).To calculate biomass, we first cross-checked all taxonomic names with the collembola.org checklist55 using fuzzy matching algorithms (fuzzyjoin R package56) to align taxonomic names and correct typos. Then we merged taxonomic names with a dataset on body lengths compiled from the BETSI database57, a personal database of Matty P. Berg, and additional expert contributions. We used average body lengths for the genus level (body size data on 432 genera) since data at the species level were not available for many morphospecies (especially in tropical regions), and species within most springtail genera had similar body size ranges. Data with no genus-level identifications were excluded from the analysis. Dry and fresh body masses were calculated from body length using a set of group-specific length-mass regressions (Supplementary Table 1)58,59 and the results of different regressions applied to the same morphogroup were averaged. Dry mass was recalculated to fresh mass using corresponding group-specific coefficients58. We used fresh mass to calculate individual metabolic rates60 and account for the mean annual topsoil (0–5 cm) temperature at a given site61. Group-specific metabolic coefficients for insects (including springtails) were used for the calculation: normalization factor (i0) ln(21.972) [J h−1], allometric exponent (a) 0.759, and activation energy (E) 0.657 [eV]60. Community-weighted (specimen-based) mean individual dry masses and metabolic rates were calculated for each sample and then averaged by site after excluding 10% of maximum and 10% of minimum values to reduce impact of outliers. To calculate site-level biomass and community metabolism, we summed masses or metabolic rates of individuals, averaged them across samples, and recalculated them per unit area (m2).Parameter uncertaintiesOur biomass and community metabolism approximations contain several assumptions. To account for the uncertainty in the length-mass and mass-metabolism regression coefficients, in addition to the average coefficients, we also used maximum (average + standard error) and minimum coefficients (average—standard error; Supplementary Table 1) in all equations to calculate maximum and minimum estimations of biomass and community metabolism reported in the main text. Further, we ignored latitudinal variation in body sizes within taxonomic groups62. Nevertheless, latitudinal differences in springtail density (30-fold), environmental temperature (from −16.0 to +27.6 °C in the air and from −10.2 to +30.4 °C in the soil), and genus-level community compositions (there are only few common genera among polar regions and the tropics)55 are higher than the uncertainties introduced by indirect parameter estimations, which allowed us to detect global trends. Although most springtails are concentrated in the litter and uppermost soil layers20, their vertical distribution depends on the particular ecosystem63. Since sampling methods are usually ecosystem-specific (i.e. sampling is done deeper in soils with developed organic layers), we treated the methods used by the original data collectors as representative of a given ecosystem. Under this assumption, we might have underestimated the number of springtails in soils with deep organic horizons, so our global estimates are conservative and we would expect true global density and biomass to be slightly higher. To minimize these effects, we excluded sites where the estimations were likely to be unreliable (see data selection below).Data selectionOnly data collection methods allowing for area-based recalculation (e.g. Tullgren or Berlese funnels) were used for analysis. Data from artificial habitats, coastal ecosystems, caves, canopies, snow surfaces, and strong experimental manipulations beyond the bounds of naturally occurring conditions were excluded (Supplementary Fig. 1). To ensure data quality, we performed a two-step quality check: technical selection and expert evaluation. Collected data varied according to collection protocols, such as sampling depth and the microhabitats (layers) considered. To technically exclude unreliable density estimations, we explored data with a number of diagnostic graphs (Supplementary Table 2; Supplementary Figs. 12–20) and filtered it, excluding the following: (1) All woodlands where only soil or only litter was considered; (2) All scrub ecosystems where only ground cover (litter or mosses) was considered; (3) Agricultural sites in temperate zones where only soil with sampling depth 90% of cases were masked on the main maps; for the map with density-species richness visualisation, two corresponding masks were applied (Fig. 2).To estimate spatial variability of our predictions while accounting for the spatial sampling bias in our data (Fig. 1a) we performed a spatially stratified bootstrapping procedure. We used the relative area of each IPBES79 region (i.e., Europe and Central Asia, Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and the Americas) to resample the original dataset, creating 100 bootstrap resamples. Each of these resamples was used to create a global map, which was then reduced to create mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval, and coefficient of variation maps (Supplementary Figs. 4–7).Global biomass, abundance, and community metabolism of springtails were estimated by summing predicted values for each 30 arcsec pixel10. Global community metabolism was recalculated from joule to mass carbon by assuming 1 kg fresh mass = 7 × 106 J80, an average water proportion in springtails of 70%58, and an average carbon concentration of 45% (calculated from 225 measurements across temperate forest ecosystems)81. We repeated the procedure of global extrapolation and prediction for biomass and community metabolism using minimum and maximum estimates of these parameters from regression coefficient uncertainties (see Parameter uncertainties).Path analysisTo reveal the predictors of springtail communities at the global scale, we performed a path analysis. After filtering the selected environmental variables (see above) according to their global availability and collinearity, 13 variables were used (Supplementary Fig. 9b): mean annual air temperature, mean annual precipitation (CHELSA database67), aridity (CGIAR database68), soil pH, sand and clay contents combined (sand and clay contents were co-linear in our dataset), soil organic carbon content (SoilGrids database73), NDVI (MODIS database72), human population density (GPWv4 database74), latitude, elevation69, and vegetation cover reported by the data providers following the habitat classification of European Environment Agency (woodland, scrub, agriculture, and grasslands; the latter were coded as the combination of woodland, scrub, and agriculture absent). Before running the analysis, we performed the Rosner’s generalized extreme Studentized deviate test in the EnvStats package82 to exclude extreme outliers and we z-standardized all variables (Supplementary R Code).Separate structural equation models were run to predict density, dry biomass, community metabolism, and local species richness in the lavaan package83. To account for the spatial clustering of our data in Europe, instead of running a model for the entire dataset, we divided the data by the IPBES79 geographical regions and selected a random subset of sites for Eurasia, such that only twice the number of sites were included in the model as the second-most represented region. We ran the path analysis 99 times for each community parameter with different Eurasian subsets (density had n = 723 per iteration, local species richness had n = 352, dry biomass had n = 568, and community metabolism had n = 533). We decided to keep the share of the Eurasian dataset larger than other regions to increase the number of sites per iteration and validity of the models. The Eurasian dataset also had the best data quality among all regions and a substantial reduction in datasets from Eurasia would result in a low weight for high-quality data. We additionally ran a set of models in which the Eurasian dataset was represented by the same number of sites as the second-most represented region, which yielded similar effect directions for all factors, but slightly higher variations and fewer consistently significant effects. In the paper, only the first version of analysis is presented. To illustrate the results, we averaged effect sizes for the paths across all iterations and presented the distribution of these effect sizes using mirrored Kernel density estimation (violin) plots. We marked and discussed effects that were significant at p  More

Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22, 151–156 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. Indigenous knowledge: from local to global. Ambio 50, 967–969 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas. IPBES https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236252 (2018).Claes, J. et al. Valuing nature conservation: a methodology for quantifying the benefits of protecting the planet’s natural capital (McKinsey & Company, 2020).Retsa, A., Schelske, O., Wilke, B., Rutherford, G. & de Jong, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a business case for re/insurance (Swiss Re, 2020).Petersson, M. & Stoett, P. Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 22, 333–352 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Dasgupta, P. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. GOV.UK www.gov.uk/official-documents. (2021).Furumo, P. R. & Lambin, E. F. Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: a look inside post-conflict Colombia. Glob. Environ. Change 62, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hale, T. & Roger, C. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9, 59–82 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ring, I. & Barton, D. N. Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance. in Handbook of Ecological Economics (eds Martinez-Alier, J. & Muradian, R.) Ch, 17 (Edward Elgar, 2015).Von Essen, M. & Lambin, E. Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 159–167 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, C., Pollard, S., Rocks, S. & Angus, A. Selecting policy instruments for better environmental regulation: a critique and future research agenda. Environ. Policy Gov. 22, 268–292 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ring, I. & Schröter-Schlaack, C. Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report https://policymix.nina.no (2011).Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy Soc. 26, 1–18 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Soulé, M. The “new conservation”. Conserv. Biol. 27, 895–897 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Runhaar, H., Driessen, P. & Uittenbroek, C. Towards a systematic framework for the analysis of environmental policy integration. Environ. Policy Gov. 24, 233–246 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. Integrative governance: the relationships between governance instruments taking center stage. Environ. Plan. C. Polit. Space 36, 1341–1354 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lafferty, W. & Hovden, E. Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework. Environ. Polit. 12, 1–22 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 14/3 Mainstreaming biodiversity in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors. Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-03-en.pdf (2018).Update of the zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf (2020).Whitehorn, P. R. et al. Mainstreaming biodiversity: a review of national strategies. Biol. Conserv. 235, 157–163 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alpízar, F. et al. Mainstreaming of natural capital and biodiversity into planning and decision-making: cases from Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB, 2020).Daily, G. Nature’s Services (Island Press, 1997).Hill, R. et al. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 8–20 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baptiste, B. et al. Greening peace in Colombia. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–3 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biodiversidad en cifras. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt https://cifras.biodiversidad.co/ (2022).Censo nacional de población y vivienda. Estadísticas para grupos étnicos. DANE https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/grupos-etnicos/informacion-tecnica (2018).Boyd, E., Corbera, E. & Estrada, M. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 8, 95–112 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Alvarez, C. F. et al. Evaluación nacional de biodiversidad y servicios ecosistémicos: resumen para tomadores de decisión. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt. http://www.humboldt.org.co/images/pdf/10721/RTDFinalv290621.pdf (2021).Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoban, S. et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108654 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laikre, L. Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conserv. Genet. 11, 349–354 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Resolución 1912 del 15 de Septiembre de 2017, listado de especies silvestres amenazadas de la diversidad biológica colombiana continental y marino costera en el territorio nacional. (2017). https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdfNewton, A. C. Biodiversity risks of adopting resilience as a policy goal. Conserv. Lett. 9, 369–376 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeanrenaud, S. Changing people/nature representations in international conservation discourses. IDS Bull. 33, 111–122 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louder, E. & Wyborn, C. Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environ. Conserv. 47, 251–259 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonilla-Mejía, L. & Higuera-Mendieta, I. Protected areas under weak institutions: evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
African Development Bank Group et al. Joint statement by the Multilateral Development Banks at Paris, COP21. European Investment Bank https://www.eib.org/attachments/press/joint-mdb-statement-climate_nov-28_final.pdf (2021).Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, K., Garcia, S. M. & Rice, J. Mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries. Mar. Policy 95, 209–220 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turismo de naturaleza, oportunidad para conocer y proteger la biodiversidad de Colombia. MADS https://www.minambiente.gov.co/negocios-verdes/turismo-de-naturaleza-oportunidad-para-conocer-y-proteger-la-biodiversidad-de-colombia/ (2022).Pacheco, P., Schoneveld, G., Dermawan, A., Komarudin, H. & Djama, M. Governing sustainable palm oil supply: disconnects, complementarities, and antagonisms between state regulations and private standards. Regul. Gov. 14, 568–598 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance. Policy Polit. 29, 131–135 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lustig, N. Fiscal redistribution in middle income countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. 171 (2015).Mooney, H. A. & Cleland, E. E. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5446–5451 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rule of law index 2020. World Justice Project https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2020-Online_0.pdf (2020).Recommendation of the council on policy coherence for sustainable development OECD/LEGAL/0381. OECD https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/recommendation-on-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development-eng.pdf (2019).Arellana, J., Oviedo, D., Guzman, L. A. & Alvarez, V. Urban transport planning and access inequalities: a tale of two Colombian cities. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100554 (2020).Leyes | Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. MADS https://www.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/normativa/leyes (2021).Cavelier Adarve, I. & Rodríguez Becerra, M. in Nuevos Enfoques para el Estudio de las Relaciones Internacionales de Colombia (eds Tickner A.B. & Bitar, S.) Ch. 4 (Ediciones Uniandes-Universidad de los Andes, 2017).Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral de la biodiversidad y los Servicios Ecosistémicos (PNGIBSE) MADS (2012). https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Poli%CC%81tica-Nacional-de-Gestio%CC%81n-Integral-de-la-Biodiver.pdfPotts, J., Wenban-Smith, M. & Turley, L. State of sustainability initiatives review: standards and the extractive economy (IISD, 2018).Junguito Bonnet, R. El papel de los gremios en la economía colombiana. Rev. Desarro. Soc. 82, 103–131 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Savvidou, G., Dzebo, A. & Atteridge, A. Aid Atlas: new tool to visualize development finance flows. JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22982 (2019).BIOFIN- Movilizando recursos para la biodiversidad en Colombia, plan financiero. UNDP https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/Plan%20Financiero%20Movilizando%20recursos%20para%20la%20biodiversidad%20en%20Colombia.pdf (2018).Echeverri, A. et al. Data for: a policy mix approach to biodiversity governance in Colombia (Dryad, 2022).Gibbs, G. Analyzing Qualitative Data (SAGE Publications, 2007).Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (SAGE Publications, 2012).Gould, R. K. et al. A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv. Biol. 29, 575–586 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8, 468–479 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. G. Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biol. Conserv. 144, 958–965 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandbrook, C. What is conservation? Oryx 49, 565–566 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ricotta, C. et al. Measuring the functional redundancy of biological communities: a quantitative guide. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1386–1395 (2016).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Authors and AffiliationsJacob Blaustein Center for Scientific Cooperation, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, IsraelGopal MuraliMitrani Department of Desert Ecology, The Swiss Institute for Dryland Environments and Energy Research, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, IsraelGopal Murali & Uri RollDepartment F.-A. Forel for Aquatic and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Geneva, Geneva, SwitzerlandTakuya IwamuraDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USATakuya IwamuraSchool of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelShai MeiriThe Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelShai MeiriAuthorsGopal MuraliTakuya IwamuraShai MeiriUri RollCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
Gopal Murali. More

Genetic and morphological delineation between G. huxleyi strainsWe first assessed genetic variability through analysis of genomic polymorphism to determine whether distinct genetic lineages exist in G. huxleyi and to test whether these relate to morphotypes. We used 2,086,643 high-quality biallelic single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) retrieved from the 47 clonal culture strains with the best genome sequence coverage ( >20×). A principal component analysis (PCA) and a discriminant analysis in principal component (DAPC) both delineate three well-defined genetic groups, with the distribution of strains being unequal and with no overlap on the principal components (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Fig. S3a,b). With regards to population structure, the DAPC analysis suggested that 3 clusters (K = 3) can be used to depict a genotype membership matrix for each strain (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Fig. S4). As such, it confirmed the three-lineage delineation proposed by the PCA, while illustrating no admixture between lineages.Fig. 1: Relationship between genetic structure and morphotypes in G. huxleyi.a Principal component analysis (PCA) based on 2,086,643 SNPs recovered from 47 G. huxleyi genomes; b Relationship between coalescent species phylogeny (ASTRAL tree based on 1000 supergenes) and DAPC clustering; c Correspondence between morphotypes and lineages within G. huxleyi, and sub-lineages within A1 (scale bar = 4 μm). Variable elements in relation to genotypes are highlighted in the schematics under the SEM pictures; d Distribution of coccolith length for 5 randomly chosen strains representing each clade and sub-clade, with a jittered box-plot on the left and a half-violin plot on the right for each group; e Matrix plot of Bonferroni corrected p-value corresponding to the Dunn-test for the comparison of coccolith length measurements between groups.Full size imagePhylogenetic inference based on alignments with higher mapping coverage only (47 strains) or including sequences with lower mapping coverage (59 strains) all supported segregation of strains into three main lineages, which we term clades A1, A2 and B, with A1 and A2 being more closely related to each other than to B (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Fig. S5a, b). This delineation is congruent with previous studies on the phylogeny of the Gephyrocapsa genus [17, 46, 65]. These clades also correspond to differences in morphotypes (Fig. 1b, c). All strains in clade A1 produce unambiguous A-group coccolith morphotypes (type A and type R). Similarly, all strains in clade B produce unambiguous B-group coccolith morphotypes (type B and type O). Clade A2 is less distinctive, with strains producing lightly calcified type A coccoliths. Some of these strains could be classified as type B/C [66] or C (both regarded as B-group morphotypes), but distinctive by the lower elevation of distal shield elements and by greater degree of calcification of the central area grid (which is reduced and sometimes absent in morphotypes B/C and C). At a finer level, clade A1 is composed of four sub-clades, which we term A1a, A1b, A1c, and A1d. Strains in sub-clades A1a, A1c and A1d all produce coccoliths with type A morphologies and distinctive degrees of calcification: strains in the sub-clade A1a form relatively lightly calcified coccoliths with regular elements, while strains in sub-clades A1c and A1d produce similar moderately calcified coccoliths, sometimes with conspicuous irregularities (inner tube elements overlapping into the central area). Strains in clade A1b produce distinct coccoliths exhibiting A-group morphology but with heavy calcification, including forms with heavily calcified shields which have been termed type R and also forms with heavily calcified central areas which have been referred to as “type A overcalcified”. Some clade A2 strains produce coccoliths with a similar morphology to strains in A1a, indicative of partially cryptic lineages (Supplementary Fig. S2; Supplementary Table S4).The congruence between morphotypes and clades is also supported by significant differences in the length of coccoliths measured between some of the clades (Fig. 1d, e). The morphogroups A and B differ significantly, and insignificant comparison relates to the comparison of sub-clades against the clade A2, which reinforces the closest relationship between A1 and A2. We denote also that the case of A1a and A2 demonstrating no significant difference in coccolith length concurs with the cryptic delineation mentioned above.Based on the clustering analyses and the phylogenetic reconstructions, we tested whether different groupings are distinct species with regards to the null hypothesis “G. huxleyi is a single species”, which correspond to the current state of taxonomy. Species delimitation based on comparison of Marginal Likelihood Estimators (MLE) with Bayes Factors (BF) supported the hypothesis that the three lineages depicted by ordination and phylogenetic reconstructions are distinct species as the best model (Table 1).Table 1 Species delimitation based on Bayes Factor Delimitation (BDF).Full size tableD-statistics calculated to estimate gene flow reveal a non-significant excess of alleles shared between the three lineages (Fig. 2a; Supplementary Table S5). Fbranch statistics, (fb) revealed significant signatures of gene-flow between sub-lineages within A1 associated with correlated estimates in relation to A1a, A2 and B (Fig. 2a) [60]. Signatures on the basal branch of diversification in A1 may correspond to genetic exchanges between A1 and B, with gene-flow signatures attributed to A2 corresponding to correlated estimates due to common ancestry. Recent signatures of gene-flow throughout the evolution of A1 are thus likely associated to the common ancestry between A1a, A2 and B during gene-flow events between the sub-lineages, as supported by the non-significant D statistics between the three lineages. Moreover, the phylogenetic network revealed similar convolutions between A1 sub-lineages but clear separation of the main lineages and longer branches in the A2 lineage (Fig. 2b).Fig. 2: Excess of allele sharing and differentiation in G. huxleyi.a f-branch (fb) statistics between lineages and sub-lineages. The gradient represents the fb score, grey blocks represents tests not consistent with the species tree (for each branch on the topology of the y axis, having itself or a sister taxon as donor on the topology of the x axis); asterisks denote block jack-knifing significance at p  More