Philippa Kaur

Chapman, A. It’s okay to call them drones. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 2, iii–v (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chabot, D., Hodgson, A. J., Hodgson, J. C. & Anderson, K. ‘Drone’: Technically correct, popularly accepted, socially acceptable. Drone Syst. Appl. 10, 399–405 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chabot, D. & Bird, D. M. Wildlife research and management methods in the 21st century: Where do unmanned aircraft fit in?. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3, 137–155 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, K. S., Gilbert, S. L., Brown, C. L., Hatfield, M. & Hanson, L. Unmanned aircraft systems in wildlife research: Current and future applications of a transformative technology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 241–251 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitehead, K. & Hugenholtz, C. H. Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 1: A review of progress and challenges. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 2, 69–85 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnas, A. et al. Evaluating behavioral responses of nesting lesser snow geese to unmanned aircraft surveys. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1328–1338 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulero-Pázmány, M. et al. Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 12, e0178448 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P. & Vermeulen, C. Are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS s) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Rev. 45, 239–252 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitehead, K. et al. Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 2: Scientific and commercial applications. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 2, 86–102 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barasona, J. A. et al. Unmanned aircraft systems for studying spatial abundance of ungulates: Relevance to spatial epidemiology. PLoS ONE 9, e115608 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chrétien, L. P., Théau, J. & Ménard, P. Wildlife multispecies remote sensing using visible and thermal infrared imagery acquired from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 40, 241 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guo, X. et al. Application of UAV remote sensing for a population census of large wild herbivores—Taking the headwater region of the yellow river as an example. Remote Sens. 10, 1041 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, J., Wu, X. & Dai, M. Estimating the population size of migrating Tibetan antelopes Pantholops hodgsonii with unmanned aerial vehicles. Oryx 54, 101–109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulero-Pázmány, M., Stolper, R., Van Essen, L. D., Negro, J. J. & Sassen, T. Remotely piloted aircraft systems as a rhinoceros anti-poaching tool in Africa. PLoS ONE 9, e83873 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rey, N., Volpi, M., Joost, S. & Tuia, D. Detecting animals in African Savanna with UAVs and the crowds. Remote Sens. Environ. 200, 341–351 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schroeder, N. M., Panebianco, A., Gonzalez Musso, R. & Carmanchahi, P. An experimental approach to evaluate the potential of drones in terrestrial mammal research: A gregarious ungulate as a study model. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 191482 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Su, X. et al. Using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to study wild yak in the highest desert in the world. Int. J. Remote Sens. 39, 5490–5503 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vermeulen, C., Lejeune, P., Lisein, J., Sawadogo, P. & Bouché, P. Unmanned aerial survey of elephants. PLoS ONE 8, e54700 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mallory, M. L. et al. Financial costs of conducting science in the Arctic: Examples from seabird research. Arct. Sci. 4, 624–633 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sasse, D. B. Job-related mortality of wildlife workers in the United States, 1937–2000. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31, 1015–1020 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Loarie, S. R., Joppa, L. N. & Pimm, S. L. Satellites miss environmental priorities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 630–632 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species https://www.iucnredlist.org/en (2021).Mech, L. D. & Barber, S. M. A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in National Parks: a report to the National Park Service. (2002).Patterson, C., Koski, W., Pace, P., McLuckie, B. & Bird, D. M. Evaluation of an unmanned aircraft system for detecting surrogate caribou targets in Labrador. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 4, 53–69 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, J. C. et al. Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1160–1167 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seymour, A. C., Dale, J., Hammill, M., Halpin, P. N. & Johnston, D. W. Automated detection and enumeration of marine wildlife using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and thermal imagery. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
COSEWIC. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the caribou (Rangifer tarandus) eastern migratory population, Torngat mountain population in Canada. (COSEWIC, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2017).Albawi, S., Mohammed, T. A. & Al-Zawi, S. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. in 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET) 1–6 (IEEE, 2017).Gu, J. et al. Recent advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognit. 77, 354–377 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Teuwen, J. & Moriakov, N. Convolutional neural networks. in Handbook of medical image computing and computer assisted intervention 481–501 (Elsevier, 2020).Corcoran, E., Winsen, M., Sudholz, A. & Hamilton, G. Automated detection of wildlife using drones: Synthesis, opportunities and constraints. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1103–1114 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corcoran, E., Denman, S., Hanger, J., Wilson, B. & Hamilton, G. Automated detection of koalas using low-level aerial surveillance and machine learning. Sci. Rep. 9, 3208 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gray, P. C. et al. Drones and convolutional neural networks facilitate automated and accurate cetacean species identification and photogrammetry. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1490–1500 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gray, P. C. et al. A convolutional neural network for detecting sea turtles in drone imagery. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 345–355 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, J. et al. Wild animal survey using UAS imagery and deep learning: modified Faster R-CNN for kiang detection in Tibetan Plateau. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 169, 364–376 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Borowicz, A. et al. Multi-modal survey of Adélie penguin mega-colonies reveals the Danger Islands as a seabird hotspot. Sci. Rep. 8, 3926 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Francis, R. J., Lyons, M. B., Kingsford, R. T. & Brandis, K. J. Counting mixed breeding aggregations of animal species using drones: Lessons from waterbirds on semi-automation. Remote Sens. 12, 1185 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Santangeli, A. et al. Integrating drone-borne thermal imaging with artificial intelligence to locate bird nests on agricultural land. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowley, C., Mattingly, M., Barnas, A., Ellis-Felege, S. & Desell, T. An analysis of altitude, citizen science and a convolutional neural network feedback loop on object detection in unmanned aerial systems. J. Comput. Sci. 34, 102–116 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowley, C., Mattingly, M., Barnas, A., Ellis-Felege, S. & Desell, T. Detecting wildlife in unmanned aerial systems imagery using convolutional neural networks trained with an automated feedback loop. in International Conference on Computational Science 69–82 (Springer, 2018).Delplanque, A., Foucher, S., Lejeune, P., Linchant, J. & Théau, J. Multispecies detection and identification of African mammals in aerial imagery using convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 8, 166–179 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eikelboom, J. A. J. et al. Improving the precision and accuracy of animal population estimates with aerial image object detection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1875–1887 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kellenberger, B., Marcos, D. & Tuia, D. Detecting mammals in UAV images: Best practices to address a substantially imbalanced dataset with deep learning. Remote Sens. Environ. 216, 139–153 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hooge, I. T. C., Niehorster, D. C., Nyström, M., Andersson, R. & Hessels, R. S. Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection?. Behav. Res. Methods 50, 1864–1881 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnas, A. F., Darby, B. J., Vandeberg, G. S., Rockwell, R. F. & Ellis-Felege, S. N. A comparison of drone imagery and ground-based methods for estimating the extent of habitat destruction by lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) in La Pérouse Bay. PLoS ONE 14, e0217049 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brook, R. K. & Kenkel, N. C. A multivariate approach to vegetation mapping of Manitoba’s Hudson Bay Lowlands. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23, 4761–4776 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shilts, W. W., Aylsworth, J. M., Kaszycki, C. A., Klassen, R. A. & Graf, W. L. Canadian shield. in Geomorphic Systems of North America vol. 2 119–161 (Geological Society of America Boulder, Colorado, 1987).Barnas, A. F., Felege, C. J., Rockwell, R. F. & Ellis-Felege, S. N. A pilot (less) study on the use of an unmanned aircraft system for studying polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Biol. 41, 1055–1062 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellis-Felege, S. N. et al. Nesting common eiders (Somateria mollissima) show little behavioral response to fixed-wing drone surveys. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 10, 1–4 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Barnas, A. F. et al. A standardized protocol for reporting methods when using drones for wildlife research. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 8, 89–98 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R. & Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 28, 91–99 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Chen, T., Xu, B., Zhang, C. & Guestrin, C. Training Deep Nets with Sublinear Memory Cost. ArXiv160406174 Cs (2016).Pinckaers, H. & Litjens, G. Training convolutional neural networks with megapixel images. ArXiv180405712 Cs (2018).Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. (2015).Janocha, K. & Czarnecki, W. M. On loss functions for deep neural networks in classification. ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv170205659. (2017).Murata, N., Yoshizawa, S. & Amari, S. Learning curves, model selection and complexity of neural networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 5, 607–614 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Hänsch, R. & Hellwich, O. The truth about ground truth: Label noise in human-generated reference data. in IGARSS 2019–2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 5594–5597 (IEEE, 2019).Bowler, E., Fretwell, P. T., French, G. & Mackiewicz, M. Using deep learning to count albatrosses from space: Assessing results in light of ground truth uncertainty. Remote Sens. 12, 2026 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brack, I. V., Kindel, A. & Oliveira, L. F. B. Detection errors in wildlife abundance estimates from Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) surveys: Synthesis, solutions, and challenges. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1864–1873 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jagielski, P. M. et al. The utility of drones for studying polar bear behaviour in the Canadian Arctic: Opportunities and recommendations. Drone Syst. Appl. 10, 97–110 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, P. J., Hooten, M. B., Womble, J. N. & Bower, M. R. Estimating occupancy and abundance using aerial images with imperfect detection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1679–1689 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Link, W. A., Schofield, M. R., Barker, R. J. & Sauer, J. R. On the robustness of N-mixture models. Ecology 99, 1547–1551 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horvitz, D. G. & Thompson, D. J. A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 663–685 (1952).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Corcoran, E., Denman, S. & Hamilton, G. New technologies in the mix: Assessing N-mixture models for abundance estimation using automated detection data from drone surveys. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8176–8185 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lunga, D., Arndt, J., Gerrand, J. & Stewart, R. ReSFlow: A remote sensing imagery data-flow for improved model generalization. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 14, 10468–10483 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fromm, M., Schubert, M., Castilla, G., Linke, J. & McDermid, G. Automated detection of conifer seedlings in drone imagery using convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. 11, 2585 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Velumani, K. et al. Estimates of maize plant density from UAV RGB images using Faster-RCNN detection model: Impact of the spatial resolution. Plant Phenomics 2021, 9824843 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, A., Peel, D. & Kelly, N. Unmanned aerial vehicles for surveying marine fauna: Assessing detection probability. Ecol. Appl. 27, 1253–1267 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferguson, M. C. et al. Performance of manned and unmanned aerial surveys to collect visual data and imagery for estimating arctic cetacean density and associated uncertainty. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 6, 128–154 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zmarz, A. et al. Application of UAV BVLOS remote sensing data for multi-faceted analysis of Antarctic ecosystem. Remote Sens. Environ. 217, 375–388 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lyons, M. B. et al. Monitoring large and complex wildlife aggregations with drones. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1024–1035 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Nature Clim. Change 5, 560–564 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Hoffmann, A. A. & Ma, C.-S. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2289–2296 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, M. E., Wang, G. & Huey, R. B. Nature 467, 704–706 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

A visionary and interdisciplinary scientist who brought a fearless passion to everything she did, inspiring all those around her.
Alma Dal Co tragically passed away on 14 November 2022 at the age of 33, doing what she loved most — spearfishing near the Italian island of Pantelleria. Alma was a visionary scientist at the beginning of what was promising to become a stellar career. As a physicist turned biologist, Alma wanted to unravel how complexity emerges from simplicity. Despite her young age, she had already made an important impact on the field by showing how the activities of microbial communities emerge from interactions between individual cells. Alma was a warm and caring friend, and a committed and inspiring mentor. She pursued science with fearless passion, creativity, vision and dedication.Alma Dal Co in 2016 in Joshua Tree National Park, California. Photograph by Simon van Vliet.Alma had an exceptionally sharp and creative mind, and an insatiable curiosity. She kept exploring new directions, working on everything from gene-regulatory circuits to microbial communities, to developmental processes. She was the embodiment of a true interdisciplinary scientist, combining state-of-the-art experiments with advanced computational approaches. The unifying theme of her work was to understand how interactions between individuals (be it fish, microorganisms or pancreatic cells) give rise to complex behaviour at higher levels of organization. She strived to derive simple, quantitative rules to explain the complexity that we see around us. Alma believed that science is a team effort: she was generous with her time, and always happy to discuss ideas and share resources. No matter where she went, she quickly connected with people, built formal and informal networks, and fostered collaborations and friendships.Alma was born in Turin and grew up in Venice, in Italy. Her true home, however, was Pantelleria, an Italian island in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Sicily. Alma spent her summers in the sea from an early age, developing a deep and lasting bond with it. The sea was not only a place to recharge, but also a source of inspiration: Alma became fascinated by the intricate behaviours of octopuses and schools of fish, creating a lasting sense of wonder about the natural world. Alma’s primary education focused on the humanities, but most of all music. In 2002, she was accepted to the conservatorium in Venice to study the piano. However, her love for the natural world remained and in 2007 she started studying physics in Padua. In 2011, she finished her BSc in physics and a year later her education at the conservatorium. Both a career in music and in science were an option, but Alma chose science and moved to Turin to study the physics of complex systems. Music always remained important in her life, and she played the piano whenever she could.Alma’s transition to biology started in Turin in the laboratory of Michelle Caselle, where she used mathematical models to study gene regulatory networks. She discovered how the regulation of gene expression can reduce stochastic fluctuations and provide robustness to the expression of an organism’s phenotype (A. Dal Co et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 1069–1078; 2017). In 2014, she exchanged the blackboard for the wet lab, and moved to Zurich, Switzerland, to start her PhD with Martin Ackermann at ETH and the aquatic research institute Eawag. Despite the struggles of having to learn hands-on biology without formal training, she was not deterred from pursuing a highly challenging project.Alma developed an innovative approach to gain a mechanistic understanding of how metabolic interactions between individual microbial cells determine the dynamics of spatially structured communities. She quantified the growth of single cells in a synthetic microbial community and developed computational tools to infer their interaction network. She showed that cells in these communities live in a small world: they only interact with few neighbours (A. Dal Co et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 366–375; 2020). This short interaction range limits the growth of mutually dependent microorganisms, thereby counteracting the evolution of metabolic specialization. Moreover, Alma developed a mathematical framework to quantitatively predict the dynamics of microbial communities from the molecular properties of the underlying intercellular interactions (S. van Vliet et al. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1009877; 2022). Together, these works have made an important contribution to our understanding of how microbial communities function, and they have inspired numerous follow-up projects, both by Alma herself (for example, A. Dal Co et al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190080; 2019) and by others in the field (for example, J. van Gestel et al. Nat. Commun. 12, 2324; 2021).Alma finished her PhD in 2019, winning the ETH medal for an outstanding thesis. She then moved to Harvard to study developmental processes, together with Michael Brenner. She quickly developed a large network of collaborators and designed an innovative project to study pancreatic islet formation. However, COVID-19-related laboratory restrictions brought an early end to these plans, and Alma instead developed a novel computational framework that can be applied to both animal tissues and microbial communities to study how local cell–cell interactions can create spatial structure at the scale of multicellular systems.In September 2021, Alma started an assistant professorship at the University of Lausanne. At the age of 32, she was one of youngest professors ever appointed there. Thanks to her leadership, she quickly assembled a highly interdisciplinary, collaborative and cohesive team of talented young scientists. The group’s research was as varied as Alma’s interests. A major theme was to gain a quantitative understanding of how cell–cell interactions affect the function and structure of microbial communities and other multicellular systems. Her group combines state-of-the art experimental tools such as optogenetics, microfluidics and single-cell imaging, with computational approaches and mathematical modelling to study the dynamics of a wide range of model systems.During her very short career as an assistant professor, Alma was a core member of the Swiss National Research Program on microbiome research (https://nccr-microbiomes.ch); was awarded two major grants; established a large network of collaborators; and was invited to present her work at numerous international meetings. Most importantly, Alma fostered a strong sense of community, both in her group and beyond — creating an open, inclusive and interactive space to discuss science and life.Interacting with Alma was never dull: her passion and energy were infectious and her curiosity and openness a source of inspiration. She always kept you on your toes with her constant stream of pointed questions. But most of all, her easy laugh and positive energy made working with her an extraordinarily joyous experience.With Alma the world has lost a visionary scientist. We are deeply saddened that we will never see what other discoveries she would have made. However, it offers some conciliation to see how profoundly Alma has impacted the people around her, leaving a lasting impression even on those she only briefly met. Her vision, spirit and leadership have profoundly changed many around her and will continue to be a source of inspiration for many years to come. More

Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 560–564 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. & Tebaldi, C. More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305, 994–997 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harris, R. M. et al. Biological responses to the press and pulse of climate trends and extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 579–587 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Till, A., Rypel, A. L., Bray, A. & Fey, S. B. Fish die-offs are concurrent with thermal extremes in north temperate lakes. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 637–641 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vasseur, D. A. et al. Increased temperature variation poses a greater risk to species than climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132612 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Rudolf, V. H. & Ma, C. Extreme temperature events alter demographic rates, relative fitness, and community structure. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1794–1808 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vázquez, D. P., Gianoli, E., Morris, W. F. & Bozinovic, F. Ecological and evolutionary impacts of changing climatic variability. Biol. Rev. 92, 22–42 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tewksbury, J. J., Huey, R. B. & Deutsch, C. A. Putting the heat on tropical animals. Science 320, 1296–1297 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, M. E., Wang, G. & Huey, R. B. Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming. Nature 467, 704–706 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Power, S. B. & Delage, F. P. Setting and smashing extreme temperature records over the coming century. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 529–534 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, E. M., Sippel, S. & Knutti, R. Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 689–695 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 367, 685–688 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol. Lett. 6, 253–256 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events. Divers. Distrib. 25, 613–625 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 11, 1571–1759 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Mora, C. et al. Global risk of deadly heat. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 501–506 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Battisti, D. S. & Naylor, R. L. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323, 240–244 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R., Price, J., Graham, E., Forstenhaeusler, N. & VanDerWal, J. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. Science 360, 791–795 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trisos, C. H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A. L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580, 496–501 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C. A. et al. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6668–6672 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Hoffmann, A. A. & Ma, C.-S. Daily temperature extremes play an important role in predicting thermal effects. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2289–2296 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Paaijmans, K. P. et al. Temperature variation makes ectotherms more sensitive to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2373–2380 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bütikofer, L. et al. The problem of scale in predicting biological responses to climate. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6657–6666 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Knutti, R. & Wilby, R. L. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529, 477–483 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buckley, L. B. & Huey, R. B. Temperature extremes: geographic patterns, recent changes, and implications for organismal vulnerabilities. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3829–3842 (2016).Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Vogel, M. M. et al. Regional amplification of projected changes in extreme temperatures strongly controlled by soil moisture-temperature feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1511–1519 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tamarin-Brodsky, T., Hodges, K., Hoskins, B. J. & Shepherd, T. G. Changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature variability shaped by regional warming patterns. Nat. Geosci. 13, 414–421 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schär, C. et al. The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Nature 427, 332–336 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M. Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms. Nature 569, 108–111 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sinervo, B. et al. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328, 894–899 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perkins, S. E. & Alexander, L. V. On the measurement of heat waves. J. Clim. 26, 4500–4517 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. et al. Thermal tolerance patterns across latitude and elevation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190036 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. A. Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 870–880 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buckley, L. B. & Huey, R. B. How extreme temperatures impact organisms and the evolution of their thermal tolerance. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56, 98–109 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Fink, D. & Zuckerberg, B. Avian responses to extreme weather across functional traits and temporal scales. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4240–4250 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19656–19657 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jentsch, A., Kreyling, J. & Beierkuhnlein, C. A new generation of climate-change experiments: events, not trends. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 365–374 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Welbergen, J. A., Klose, S. M., Markus, N. & Eby, P. Climate change and the effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 419–425 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E., Rushworth, I. A., Myburgh, F. & Cunningham, S. J. Mortality among birds and bats during an extreme heat event in eastern South Africa. Austral Ecol. 46, 687–691 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, R. M., Beardall, J., Beringer, J., Grace, M. & Sardina, P. Means and extremes: building variability into community-level climate change experiments. Ecol. Lett. 16, 799–806 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perez, T. M., Stroud, J. T. & Feeley, K. J. Thermal trouble in the tropics. Science 351, 1392–1393 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. et al. Why tropical forest lizards are vulnerable to climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1939–1948 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsolver, J. G., Diamond, S. E. & Buckley, L. B. Heat stress and the fitness consequences of climate change for terrestrial ectotherms. Funct. Ecol. 27, 1415–1423 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
R. Kearney, M. Activity restriction and the mechanistic basis for extinctions under climate warming. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1470–1479 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezende, E. L., Bozinovic, F., Szilágyi, A. & Santos, M. Predicting temperature mortality and selection in natural Drosophila populations. Science 369, 1242–1245 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 224–228 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Levy, O., Dayan, T., Porter, W. P. & Kronfeld-Schor, N. Time and ecological resilience: can diurnal animals compensate for climate change by shifting to nocturnal activity? Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01334 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faurby, S. & Araújo, M. B. Anthropogenic range contractions bias species climate change forecasts. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 252–256 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M. et al. Thermal-safety margins and the necessity of thermoregulatory behavior across latitude and elevation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5610–5615 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffers, B. R., Edwards, D. P., Diesmos, A., Williams, S. E. & Evans, T. A. Microhabitats reduce animal’s exposure to climate extremes. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 495–503 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. et al. Predicting organismal vulnerability to climate warming: roles of behaviour, physiology and adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1665–1679 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M., Shine, R. & Porter, W. P. The potential for behavioral thermoregulation to buffer “cold-blooded” animals against climate warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3835–3840 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morley, S. A., Peck, L. S., Sunday, J. M., Heiser, S. & Bates, A. E. Physiological acclimation and persistence of ectothermic species under extreme heat events. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 1018–1037 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cahill, A. E. et al. How does climate change cause extinction? Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20121890 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, F. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 147–1926 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Thakur, M. P., Bakker, E. S., Veen, G. C. & Harvey, J. A. Climate extremes, rewilding, and the role of microhabitats. One Earth 2, 506–509 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Albright, T. P. et al. Mapping evaporative water loss in desert passerines reveals an expanding threat of lethal dehydration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2283–2288 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thrasher, B. et al. NASA Global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Sci. Data 9, 262 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thrasher, B., Maurer, E. P., McKellar, C. & Duffy, P. B. Bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 3309–3314 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Z. et al. Do maize models capture the impacts of heat and drought stresses on yield? Using algorithm ensembles to identify successful approaches. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3112–3126 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L., Yang, B., Li, S., Hou, Y. & Huang, D. Potential rice exposure to heat stress along the Yangtze River in China under RCP8.5 scenario. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 248, 185–196 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Bakri, J. et al. Assessment of climate changes and their impact on barley yield in Mediterranean environment using NEX-GDDP downscaled GCMs and DSSAT. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 751–766 (2021).Semakula, H. M. et al. Prediction of future malaria hotspots under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Change 143, 415–428 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iwamura, T., Guzman-Holst, A. & Murray, K. A. Accelerating invasion potential of disease vector Aedes aegypti under climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 2130 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, A. E. et al. Bluetongue risk under future climates. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 153–157 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Obradovich, N. & Fowler, J. H. Climate change may alter human physical activity patterns. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0097 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Obradovich, N., Migliorini, R., Mednick, S. C. & Fowler, J. H. Nighttime temperature and human sleep loss in a changing climate. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601555 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. et al. Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1981 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W. & Zelinka, M. Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature 605, 26–29 (2022).O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2017, 3 (IUCN, 2017).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13384–13389 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maclean, I. M. Predicting future climate at high spatial and temporal resolution. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1003–1011 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R. et al. Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 678–682 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jiguet, F. et al. Thermal range predicts bird population resilience to extreme high temperatures. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1321–1330 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobday, A. J. et al. A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves. Prog. Oceanogr. 141, 227–238 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laufkötter, C., Zscheischler, J. & Frölicher, T. L. High-impact marine heatwaves attributable to human-induced global warming. Science 369, 1621–1625 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coumou, D. & Rahmstorf, S. A decade of weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 491–496 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, E. C. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9, 1324 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).Woolway, R. I. et al. Lake heatwaves under climate change. Nature 589, 402–407 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gruber, N., Boyd, P. W., Frölicher, T. L. & Vogt, M. Biogeochemical extremes and compound events in the ocean. Nature 600, 395–407 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cahill, A. E. et al. Causes of warm-edge range limits: systematic review, proximate factors and implications for climate change. J. Biogeogr. 41, 429–442 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biol. 14, e2001104 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valladares, F. et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1351–1364 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, J. M. et al. The evolution of critical thermal limits of life on Earth. Nat. Commun. 12, 1198 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G. & Dawson, T. P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 361–371 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louthan, A. M., Doak, D. F. & Angert, A. L. Where and when do species interactions set range limits? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 780–792 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbarossa, V. et al. Threats of global warming to the world’s freshwater fishes. Nat. Commun. 12, 1701 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clusella-Trullas, S., Blackburn, T. M. & Chown, S. L. Climatic predictors of temperature performance curve parameters in ectotherms imply complex responses to climate change. Am. Nat. 177, 738–751 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y.-F. & Wiens, J. J. Higher temperatures lower rates of physiological and niche evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200823 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pither, J. Climate tolerance and interspecific variation in geographic range size. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 475–481 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, J. M. et al. GlobTherm, a global database on thermal tolerances for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Sci. Data 5, 180022 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019); http://www.R-project.org/Chen, H., Sun, J., Lin, W. & Xu, H. Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes. Sci. Bull. 65, 1415–1418 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y. & Reynolds, J. D. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish Fish. 4, 25–64 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fowler S. L. et al. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK (2005).Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife 3, e00590 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lack M. & Sant G. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Shark Catch: A review of current knowledge and action. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and TRAFFIC, Canberra http://www.traffic.org/fish/ (2008).Rose D.A. An Overview of World Trade in Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fishes. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK (1996).Lam, V. Y. & Sadovy, M. Y. The sharks of South East Asia–unknown, unmonitored and unmanaged. Fish Fish 12, 51–74 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kessel S.T. Investigation into the behaviour and population dynamics of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris). Cardiff University (United Kingdom) (2010).Morrissey, J. F. & Gruber, S. H. Habitat selection by juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris. Environ. Biol. Fishes 38, 311–319 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filmalter, J. D., Dagorn, L. & Cowley, P. D. Spatial behaviour and site fidelity of the sicklefin lemon shark Negaprion acutidens in a remote Indian Ocean atoll. Mari. Biol. 160, 2425–2436 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
DiBattista, J. D. et al. A genetic assessment of polyandry and breeding site fidelity in lemon sharks. Mol. Ecol. 17, 3337–3351 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wetherbee, B. M., Gruber, S. H. & Rosa, R. S. Movement patterns of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris within Atol das Rocas, Brazil: A nursery characterized by tidal extremes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Seri. 343, 283–293 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A. et al. Two decades of genetic profiling yields first evidence of natal philopatry and long-term fidelity to parturition sites in sharks. Mol. Ecol. 23, 110–117 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevens J. D. et al. Diversity, abundance and habitat utilisation of sharks and rays: Final report to West Australian Marine Science Institute. CSIRO, editor. Hobart (2009).Schultz, J. K. et al. Global phylogeography and seascape genetics of the lemon sharks (genus Negaprion). Mol. Ecol. 17, 5336–5348 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mourier, J., Buray, N., Schultz, J. K., Clua, E. & Planes, S. Genetic network and breeding patterns of a sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens) population in the Society Islands, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 8, e73899 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Speed, C. W. et al. Reef shark movements relative to a coastal marine protected area. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 3, 58–66 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Huang, Z. Marine Species and Their Distribution in China’s Seas (Krieger Publishing Company, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Chang, C. W., Huang, C. S. & Wang, S. I. Species composition and sizes of fish in the lagoon of dongsha island (Pratas Island), Dongsha Atoll of the South China sea. Platax 2012, 25–32 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Pillans, R. D. et al. Long-term acoustic monitoring reveals site fidelity, reproductive migrations, and sex specific differences in habitat use and migratory timing in a large coastal shark (Negaprion acutidens). Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 616633 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daly-Engel, T. S. et al. Global phylogeography with mixed-marker analysis reveals male-mediated dispersal in the endangered scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). PLoS ONE 7, e29986 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Félix-López, D. G. et al. Possible female philopatry of the smooth hammerhead shark Sphyrna zygaena revealed by genetic structure patterns. J. Fish Biol. 94, 671–679 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nosal, A. P., Caillat, A., Kisfaludy, E. K., Royer, M. A. & Wegner, N. C. Aggregation behavior and seasonal philopatry in male and female leopard sharks Triakis semifasciata along the open coast of southern California, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 499, 157–175 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jirik, K. E. & Lowe, C. G. An elasmobranch maternity ward: Female round stingrays Urobatis halleri use warm, restored estuarine habitat during gestation. J. Fish. Biol. 80(5), 1227–1245 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jacoby, D. M., Croft, D. P. & Sims, D. W. Social behaviour in sharks and rays: Analysis, patterns and implications for conservation. Fish Fish 13(4), 399–417 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, S. H., Liu, S. Y. V., Liu, K. M. & Tsai, W. P. Development and characterization of novel microsatellite loci for an endangered hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini by using shotgun sequencing. Taiwania 65(2), 261–263 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Dieringer, D. & Schlötterer, C. Microsatellite analyser (MSA): A platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 3, 167–169 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. & Shipley, P. Micro-checker: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Falush, D., Stephens, M. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Dominant markers and null alleles. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 574–578 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Earl, D. A. & VonHoldt, B. M. Structure harvester: A website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23(14), 1801–1806 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in excel population genetic software for teaching and research–an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. POPPR: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalinowski, S. T., Wagner, A. P. & Taper, M. L. ML-Relate: A computer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 6, 576–579 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Do, C. et al. NeEstimator v2: Re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 209–214 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oh, B. Z. et al. Contrasting patterns of residency and space use of coastal sharks within a communal shark nursery. Mar. Freshw. Res. 68, 1501–1517 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClelland J. Genetic Assessment of Breeding Patterns and Population Size of the Sicklefin Lemon Shark Negaprion acutidens in a Tropical Marine Protected Area: Implications for Conservation and Management (Doctoral dissertation, University of York) (2020).Compagno L. J .V. FAO species catalogue Sharks of the world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. No. 125 Rome 4, 1–655 (1984).Stevens, J. D. Life-history and ecology of sharks at aldabra Atoll. Indian Ocean. Proc R Soc. B 222, 79–106 (1984).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kool, J. T., Moilanen, A. & Treml, E. A. Population connectivity: Recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 165–185 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruzzante, D. E. et al. Effective number of breeders, effective population size and their relationship with census size in an iteroparous species Salvelinus fontinalis. Proc. R Soc. B 283, 20152601 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Wyngaarden, M. et al. Identifying patterns of dispersal, connectivity and selection in the sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, using RADseq-derived SNPs. Evol. Appl. 10, 102–117 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R., Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Brook, B. W. Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red list criteria and population viability analyses. Biol. Conserv. 170, 56–63 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pazmiño, D. A., Maes, G. E., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Salinas-de-León, P. & van Herwerden, L. Genome-wide SNPs reveal low effective population size within confined management units of the highly vagile Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis). Conserv. Genet. 18, 1151–1163 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waples, R. S. & Do, C. Linkage disequilibrium estimates of contemporary Ne using highly variable genetic markers: A largely untapped resource for applied conservation and evolution. Evol. Appl. 3, 244–262 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudgeon, C. L. & Ovenden, J. R. The relationship between abundance and genetic effective population size in elasmobranchs: An example from the globally threatened zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum within its protected range. Conserv. Genet. 16, 1443–1454 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A., Gruber, S. H. & Ashley, M. V. Population genetic structure of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) in the western Atlantic: DNA microsatellite variation. Mol. Ecol. 10, 295–303 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A., Gruber, S. H. & Ashley, M. V. The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1471–2954 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Portnoy, D., McDowell, J. R., Thompson, K., Musick, J. A. & Graves, J. E. Isolation and characterization of five dinucleotide microsatellite loci in the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 431–433 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Nadell, C. D., Drescher, K. & Foster, K. R. Spatial structure, cooperation and competition in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 14, 589–600 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, J. D. & Foster, K. R. Bacterial species rarely work together. Science 376, 581–582 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pande, S. & Kost, C. Bacterial unculturability and the formation of intercellular metabolic networks. Trends Microbiol. 25, 349–361 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nadell, C. D., Xavier, J. B. & Foster, K. R. The sociobiology of biofilms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 33, 206–224 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fritts, R. K., McCully, A. L. & McKinlay, J. B. Extracellular metabolism sets the table for microbial cross-feeding. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 85, 135 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Souza, G. et al. Ecology and evolution of metabolic cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Nat. Prod. Rep. 35, 455–488 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Libby, E., Hébert-Dufresne, L., Hosseini, S.-R. & Wagner, A. Syntrophy emerges spontaneously in complex metabolic systems. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007169 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staley, J. T. & Konopka, A. Measurement of in situ activities of nonphotosynthetic microorganisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 39, 321–346 (1985).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zachar, I. Closing the energetics gap. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01839-3 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zachar, I. & Boza, G. Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 77, 3503–3523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-020-03462-6 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zachar, I. & Szathmáry, E. Breath-giving cooperation: critical review of origin of mitochondria hypotheses. Biol. Direct 12, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-017-0190-5 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Booth, A. & Doolittle, W. F. Eukaryogenesis, how special really?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 10278–10285 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morris, B. E. L., Henneberger, R., Huber, H. & Moissl-Eichinger, C. Microbial syntrophy: Interaction for the common good. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 384–406 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szathmáry, E. On the propagation of a conceptual error concerning hypercycles and cooperation. J. Syst. Chem. 4, 2208 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seth, E. C. & Taga, M. E. Nutrient cross-feeding in the microbial world. Front. Microbiol. 5, 350 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piccardi, P., Vessman, B. & Mitri, S. Toxicity drives facilitation between 4 bacterial species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 15979–15984 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yurtsev, E. A., Conwill, A. & Gore, J. Oscillatory dynamics in a bacterial cross-protection mutualism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 6236–6241 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kehe, J. et al. Positive interactions are common among culturable bacteria. Sci. Adv. 7, 45 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Momeni, B., Xie, L. & Shou, W. Lotka-Volterra pairwise modeling fails to capture diverse pairwise microbial interactions. Elife 6, 25051 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zengler, K. & Zaramela, L. S. The social network of microorganisms: How auxotrophies shape complex communities. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 383–390 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koschwanez, J. H., Foster, K. R. & Murray, A. W. Sucrose utilization in budding yeast as a model for the origin of undifferentiated multicellularity. PLoS Biol. 9, e1001122 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ciofu, O., Beveridge, T. J., Kadurugamuwa, J., Walther-Rasmussen, J. & Høiby, N. Chromosomal beta-lactamase is packaged into membrane vesicles and secreted from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 45, 9–13 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xenophontos, C., Harpole, W. S., Küsel, K. & Clark, A. T. Cheating promotes coexistence in a two-species one-substrate culture model. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 78006 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
West, S. A., Diggle, S. P., Buckling, A., Gardner, A. & Griffin, A. S. The social lives of microbes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 53–77 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flemming, H.-C. & Wingender, J. The biofilm matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 623–633 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kümmerli, R. & Brown, S. P. Molecular and regulatory properties of a public good shape the evolution of cooperation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 18921–18926 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, A. S., West, S. A. & Buckling, A. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature 430, 1024–1027 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, J., Özkaya, Ö. & Kümmerli, R. Bacterial siderophores in community and host interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 152–163 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Meij, A., Worsley, S. F., Hutchings, M. I. & van Wezel, G. P. Chemical ecology of antibiotic production by actinomycetes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 41, 392–416 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kümmerli, R., Schiessl, K. T., Waldvogel, T., McNeill, K. & Ackermann, M. Habitat structure and the evolution of diffusible siderophores in bacteria. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1536–1544 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jautzus, T., van Gestel, J. & Kovács, Á. T. Complex extracellular biology drives surface competition in lessigreaterBacillus subtilisless/igreater. Ecol. Lett. 16, 2320–2328. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.28.482363 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sachs, J. L., Mueller, U. G., Wilcox, T. P. & Bull, J. J. The evolution of cooperation. Q. Rev. Biol. 79, 135–160 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillesland, K. L. & Stahl, D. A. Rapid evolution of stability and productivity at the origin of a microbial mutualism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 2124–2129 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J. & Bertness, M. D. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 119–125 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gore, J., Youk, H. & van Oudenaarden, A. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature 459, 253–256 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sorg, R. A. et al. Collective resistance in microbial communities by intracellular antibiotic deactivation. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000631 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karray, F. et al. Extracellular hydrolytic enzymes produced by halophilic bacteria and archaea isolated from hypersaline lake. Mol. Biol. Rep. 45, 1297–1309 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Datta, M. S., Sliwerska, E., Gore, J., Polz, M. F. & Cordero, O. X. Microbial interactions lead to rapid micro-scale successions on model marine particles. Nat. Commun. 7, 11965 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tarnita, C. E. The ecology and evolution of social behavior in microbes. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 18–24 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Özkaya, Ö., Xavier, K. B., Dionisio, F. & Balbontn, R. Maintenance of microbial cooperation mediated by public goods in single- and multiple-trait scenarios. J. Bacteriol. 199, 22 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, D.-D. et al. Fitness and productivity increase with ecotypic diversity among Escherichia coli strains that coevolved in a simple, constant environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 86, 8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pande, S. et al. Fitness and stability of obligate cross-feeding interactions that emerge upon gene loss in bacteria. ISME J. 8, 953–962 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, K., Qiao, K., Edgar, S. & Stephanopoulos, G. Distributing a metabolic pathway among a microbial consortium enhances production of natural products. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 377–383 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harcombe, W. R., Chacón, J. M., Adamowicz, E. M., Chubiz, L. M. & Marx, C. J. Evolution of bidirectional costly mutualism from byproduct consumption. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 12000–12004 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Summers, Z. M. et al. Direct exchange of electrons within aggregates of an evolved syntrophic coculture of anaerobic bacteria. Science 330, 1413–1415 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maddamsetti, R., Lenski, R. E. & Barrick, J. E. Adaptation, clonal interference, and frequency-dependent interactions in a long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli. Genetics 200, 619–631 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gerrish, P. J. & Lenski, R. E. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102, 127–144 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popat, R. et al. Quorum-sensing and cheating in bacterial biofilms. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 4765–4771 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rainey, P. B. & Rainey, K. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature 425, 72–74 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hardin, G. Tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243 (1968).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
West, S. A., Cooper, G. A., Ghoul, M. B. & Ten Griffin, A. S. recent insights for our understanding of cooperation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 419–430 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1, 1–11 (1970).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oliveira, N. M., Niehus, R. & Foster, K. R. Evolutionary limits to cooperation in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 17941–17946 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Monographs in Population Biology, Vol. 17 (Princeton University Press, 1982).
Google Scholar 
Ferenci, T. Trade-off mechanisms shaping the diversity of bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 24, 209–223 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rozen, D. E., Philippe, N., de Visser, J. A., Lenski, R. E. & Schneider, D. Death and cannibalism in a seasonal environment facilitate bacterial coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 12, 34–44 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brännström, Å., Johansson, J. & von Festenberg, N. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Adaptive Dynamics. Games 4, 304–328 (2013).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Ramin, K. I. & Allison, S. D. Bacterial tradeoffs in growth rate and extracellular enzymes. Front. Microbiol. 10, 2956 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Imachi, H. et al. Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote–eukaryote interface. Nature 577, 519–525 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wintermute, E. H. & Silver, P. A. Emergent cooperation in microbial metabolism. Mol. Syst. Biol. 6, 407 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Libby, E., Kempes, C. & Okie, J. Metabolic compatibility and the rarity of prokaryote endosymbioses. BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.14.488272 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pauli, B., Oña, L., Hermann, M. & Kost, C. Obligate mutualistic cooperation limits evolvability. Nat. Commun. 13, 27630 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oña, L. & Kost, C. Cooperation increases robustness to ecological disturbance in microbial cross-feeding networks. Ecol. Lett. 25, 1410–1420 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Machado, D. et al. Polarization of microbial communities between competitive and cooperative metabolism. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 195–203 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mee, M. T., Collins, J. J., Church, G. M. & Wang, H. H. Syntrophic exchange in synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, E2149–E2156 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goldford, J. E. et al. Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. Science 361, 469–474 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McCutcheon, J. P. The genomics and cell biology of host-beneficial intracellular infections. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 37, 115–142 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sousa, F. L., Neukirchen, S., Allen, J. F., Lane, N. & Martin, W. F. Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 5 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spang, A. et al. Proposal of the reverse flow model for the origin of the eukaryotic cell based on comparative analyses of Asgard archaeal metabolism. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1138–1148 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, W. & Müller, M. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote. Nature 392, 37–41 (1998).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
López-García, P. & Moreira, D. The Syntrophy hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotes revisited. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 655–667 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, D. B. et al. Eukaryogenesis and oxygen in Earth history. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 520–532 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 593, 553–557 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zachar, I., Szilágyi, A., Számadó, S. & Szathmáry, E. Farming the mitochondrial ancestor as a model of endosymbiotic establishment by natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 115, E1504–E1510. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718707115 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cavalier-Smith, T. & Chao, E.E.-Y. Multidomain ribosomal protein trees and the planctobacterial origin of neomura (eukaryotes, archaebacteria). Protoplasma https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-019-01442-7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Searcy, D. G. Nutritional syntrophies and consortia as models for the origin of mitochondria. Symb. Mech. Model Syst. 1, 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48173-1_10 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, N., Timmers, P., Plugge, C. M., Stams, A. J. M. & Schink, B. Syntrophy in methanogenic degradation. Endosymb. Methanog. Archaea 1, 153–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98836-8_9 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Searcy, D. G. Metabolic integration during the evolutionary origin of mitochondria. Cell Res. 13, 229–238 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flemming, H.-C. & Wuertz, S. Bacteria and archaea on Earth and their abundance in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 247–260 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Spang, A. et al. Asgard archaea are the closest prokaryotic relatives of eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 14, e1007080 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burns, J. A., Pittis, A. A. & Kim, E. Gene-based predictive models of trophic modes suggest Asgard archaea are not phagocytotic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 697–704 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seitz, K. W. et al. Asgard archaea capable of anaerobic hydrocarbon cycling. Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jimenez, P. & Scheuring, I. Density-dependent private benefit leads to bacterial mutualism. Evolution 75, 1619–1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14241 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Preussger, D., Giri, S., Muhsal, L. K., Oña, L. & Kost, C. Reciprocal fitness feedbacks promote the evolution of mutualistic cooperation. Curr. Biol. 30, 3580-3590.e7 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Monaco, H. et al. Spatial-temporal dynamics of a microbial cooperative behavior resistant to cheating. Nat. Commun. 13, 3580 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yanni, D., Márquez-Zacarias, P., Yunker, P. J. & Ratcliff, W. C. Drivers of spatial structure in social microbial communities. Curr. Biol. 29, 545–550 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Plaisance, L., Caley, M. J., Brainard, R. E. & Knowlton, N. The diversity of coral reefs: what are we missing? PLoS One. 6, e25026 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Poloczanska, E. S., Skirving, W. & Dove, S. Coral reef ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 158 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mora, C. et al. Global human footprint on the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in reef fishes. PLoS Biol. 9, e1000606 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. & Perry, A. Reefs at Risk Revisited. 130 pp. (World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 2011).Hicks, C. C., Graham, N. A. J., Maire, E. & Robinson, J. P. W. Secure local aquatic food systems in the face of declining coral reefs. One Earth. 4, 1214–1216 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cinner, J. E. et al. Gravity of human impacts mediates coral reef conservation gains. PNAS 115, E6116–E6125 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy, T. D. et al. Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth. 4, 1278–1285 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Graham, N. A. J. et al. Human disruption of coral reef trophic structure. Curr. Biol. 27, 231–236 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sherman, C. S., Heupel, M. R., Moore, S. K., Chin, A. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. When sharks are away rays will play: effects of top predator removal in coral reef ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 641, 145–157 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ruppert, J. L. W., Travers, M. J., Smith, L. L., Fortin, M.-J. & Meekan, M. G. Caught in the middle: combined Impacts of shark removal and coral loss on the fish communities of coral reefs. PLoS One. 8, e74648 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Last, P. R. et al. Rays of the World. (CSIRO Publishing, 2016).Ebert, D. A., Dando, M. & Fowler, S. Sharks of the World. 2nd edn, 608 (Princeton University Press, 2021).Heupel, M. R., Lédée, E. J. I. & Simpfendorer, C. A. Telemetry reveals spatial separation of co-occurring reef sharks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 589, 179–192 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Heupel, M. R., Papastamatiou, Y. P., Espinoza, M., Green, M. E. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Reef shark science – key questions and future directions. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roff, G., Brown, C. J., Priest, M. A. & Mumby, P. J. Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century. Commun. Biol. 1, 223 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, J. J., Papastamatiou, Y. P., Caselle, J. E., Bradley, D. & Jacoby, D. M. P. Mobile marine predators: an understudied source of nutrients to coral reefs in an unfished atoll. Proc. R. Soc. B. 285, 20172456 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heithaus, M. R., Wirsing, A. J. & Dill, L. M. The ecological importance of intact top-predator populations: a synthesis of 15 years of research in a seagrass ecosystem. Mar. Freshw. Res. 63, 1039–1050 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peel, L. R. et al. Stable isotope analyses reveal unique trophic role of reef manta rays (Mobula alfredi) at a remote coral reef. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190599 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Shea, O. R., Thums, M., van Keulen, M. & Meekan, M. Bioturbation by stingrays at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 63, 189–197 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takeuchi, S. & Tamaki, A. Assessment of benthic disturbance associated with stingray foraging for ghost shrimp by aerial survey over an intertidal sandflat. Continental Shelf Res. 84, 139–157 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Burkholder, D. A., Heithaus, M. R., Fourqurean, J. W., Wirsing, A. & Dill, L. M. Patterns of top-down control in a seagrass ecosystem: could a roving apex predator induce a behaviour-mediated trophic cascade? J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1192–1202 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Creel, S. & Christianson, D. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. TRENDS Ecol. Evolution. 23, 194–201 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward-Paige, C. A. et al. Large-scale absence of sharks on reefs in the greater-Caribbean: a footprint of human presence. PLoS One. 5, e11968 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Espinoza, M., Cappo, M., Heupel, M. R., Tobin, A. J. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Quantifying shark distribution patterns and species-habitat associations: implications of marine park zoning. PLoS One. 9, e106885 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Graham, N. A., Spalding, M. D. & Sheppard, C. R. Reef shark declines in remote atolls highlight the need for multi-faceted conservation action. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20, 543–548 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nadon, M. O. et al. Re-creating missing population baselines for Pacific reef sharks. Conserv. Biol. 26, 493–503 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacNeil, M. A. et al. Global status and conservation potential of reef sharks. Nature 583, 801–806 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Curr. Biol. 31, 1–15 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walls, R. H. L. & Dulvy, N. K. Eliminating the dark matter of data deficiency by predicting the conservation status of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea sharks and rays. Biol. Conserv. 246, 108459 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, H. F. et al. Overfishing and habitat loss drives range contraction of iconic marine fishes to near extinction. Science Adv. 7, eabb6026, (2021).Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 255–268 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sherman, C. S. et al. Taeniura lymma. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, eT116850766A116851089 (2021). 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T116850766A116851089.enPacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cardeñosa, D. et al. Small fins, large trade: a snapshot of the species composition of low-value shark fins in the Hong Kong markets. Anim. Conserv. 23, 203–211 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haque, A. B. & Spaet, J. L. Y. Trade in threatened elasmobranchs in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Fish. Res. 243, 106059 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alcala, A. C. & Russ, G. R. A direct test of the effects of protective management on abundance and yield of tropical marine resources. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 47, 40–47 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Serrano, A. et al. Effects of anti-trawling artificial reefs on ecological indicators of inner shelf fish and invertebrate communities in the Cantabrian Sea (southern Bay of Biscay). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. Kingd. 91, 623–633 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cortés, E. Perspectives on the intrinsic rate of population growth. Methods Ecol. Evolution. 7, 1136–1145 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClenachan, L., Cooper, A. B. & Dulvy, N. K. Rethinking trade-driven extinction risk in marine and terrestrial megafauna. Curr. Biol. 26, 1–7 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamburello, N., Cote, I. M. & Dulvy, N. K. Energy and the scaling of animal space use. Am. Naturalist 186, 196–211 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr. Biol. 27, R565–R572 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, L. N. K. & Dulvy, N. K. Global marine protected areas to prevent extinctions. Ecol. Evolution. 1, 1–6 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pauly, D., Zeller, D. & Palomares, M. L. D. Sea Around Us Concepts, Design and Data, (2021).Simpfendorfer, C. A. & Dulvy, N. K. Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing. Curr. Biol. 27, R83–R102 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a risk-based framework for reconciling trade-offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives. Fish. Fish. 21, 269–289 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373, eabf0861 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enright, S. R., Meneses-Orellana, R. & Keith, I. The Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR): The emergence of a voluntary regional cooperation mechanism for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity within a fragmented regional ocean governance landscape. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 674825 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chin, A., Kyne, P. M., Walker, T. I. & McAuley, R. B. An integrated risk assessment for climate change: analysing the vulnerability of sharks and rays on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1936–1953 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dwyer, R. G. et al. Individual and population benefits of marine reserves for reef sharks. Curr. Biol. 30, 480–489 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Speed, C. W., Cappo, M. & Meekan, M. G. Evidence for rapid recovery of shark populations within a coral reef marine protected area. Biol. Conserv. 220, 308–319 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mizrahi, M. I., Diedrich, A., Weeks, R. & Pressey, R. L. A systematic review of the socioeconomic factors that influence how marine protected areas impact on ecosystems and livelihoods. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32, 4–20 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 1148 (Bonn, Germany, 2019).Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanh, T. T. H. & Boonstra, W. J. What prevents small-scale fishing and aquaculture households from engaging in alternative livelihoods? A case study in the Tam Giang lagoon, Viet Nam. Ocean Coast. Manag. 182, 104943 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahmed, N., Troell, M., Allison, E. H. & Muir, J. F. Prawn postlarvae fishing in coastal Bangladesh: challenges for sustainable livelihoods. Mar. Policy. 34, 218–227 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prasetyo, A. P. et al. Shark and ray trade in and out of Indonesia: addressing knowledge gaps on the path to sustainability. Mar. Policy. 133, 104714 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClanahan, T., Polunin, N. & Done, T. Ecological states and the resilience of coral reefs. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 18 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P. & Hoey, A. S. Sleeping functional group drives coral-reef recovery. Curr. Biol. 16, 2434–2439 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cinner, J. E. et al. Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change. 22, 12–20 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Víe, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S. N. Wildlife in a Changing World – An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 180 (Gland, Switzerland, 2009).Mace, G. M. et al. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1424–1442 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. Estimating IUCN Red List population reduction: JARA – A decision-support tool applied to pelagic sharks. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12688 (2019).
Google Scholar 
IUCN Red List. Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2), (2021).Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 897–911 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, A. Chiloscyllium arabicum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017, e.T161426A109902537 (2017). 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T161426A109902537.enSadovy de Mitcheson, Y. J. et al. Valuable but vulnerable: Over-fishing and under-management continue to threaten groupers so what now? Mar. Policy. 116, 103909 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021).Regression Models for Ordinal Data v. 2019.12.10 (CRAN, 2019).Econometric Tools for Performance and Risk Analysis v. 2.0.4 (2020).Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H. G. & Samson, A. Variance inflation factor: As a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open J. Stat. 5, 754–767 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).Article 
MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Plots Coefficients from Fitted Models v. 1.2.8 (2022).Fisheries and Aquaculture Software. FishStatJ – Software for Fishery and Aquaculture Statistical Time Series., (2020).Reynolds, R. W., Rayner, N. A., Smith, T. M., Stokes, D. C. & Wang, W. An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J. Clim. 15, 1609–1625 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
NASA Ocean Biology (OB.DAAC). Mean annual sea surface chlorophyll-a concentration for the period 2009-2013 (composite dataset created by UNEP-WCMC). Data obtained from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua Ocean Colour website (NASA OB.DAAC, Greenbelt, MD, USA), (2014).General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans. GEBCO_2014 Grid. version 20150318. www.gebco.net (2015).XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System v. 1.4.1.1 (In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785–794). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2016).Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R. & Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 802–813 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
ArcGIS Pro 2.7.0 (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (2020).Ferreira, L. C. & Simpfendorer, C. Galeocerdo cuvier. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019, e.T39378A2913541 (2019).Beta Regression v. 3.1-4 (2021).Butchart, S. H. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE. 2, e140 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sherman, C. S. et al. Half a century of rising extinction risk of coral reef sharks and rays, sammsherman27/CoralReefSharkRayIUCN: Data and Code Used in Sherman et al. Half a century of rising extinction risk of coral reef sharks and rays v1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7267904 (2022). More

The Campbell et al. model provides an excellent framework to identify species whose extinction leads to community collapse and species whose reintroduction can restore the community (see Fig. 2 for an illustration of these processes). Our first objective, finding the effect of species extinction on the rest of the species in an established community, is achievable using the concept of Logical Domain of Influence (LDOI)41; the LDOI represents the influence of a (set of) fixed node state(s) on the rest of the components in a system. In this section we first present our proposed method to calculate the LDOI for the Boolean threshold functions governing the Campbell et al. model of plant–pollinator community assembly. Then we verify that the simplified logical functions preserve the LDOI and hence can be implemented to further analyze the effect of extinction in plant–pollinator networks. Next, we address one of the main questions that motivated this study: Can stable motif driver set analysis facilitate the identification of keystone species? We discuss the identification of the driver sets of inactive stable motifs and motif groups and present the results of stabilizing these sets to measure the magnitude of the effect of species extinction on the communities. Lastly we discuss possible prevention and mitigation measures based on the knowledge acquired from driver sets of stable motifs and motif groups.Figure 2Illustration of species extinction and restoration in a hypothetical 6-species community. (a) The interaction network (on the left), and the maximal richness community possible for this network (the community with the most established species). Nodes highlighted with green represent established species. (b) The initial extinction of two species, po_1 and po_2 (left) and the community that results after cascading extinctions (right). Nodes highlighted with grey represent extinct species. (c) An intervention to restore pl_2 (left), which induces the restoration of further species, finally leading to a restored community with all the species present (right). The nodes highlighted with teal represent the restored species.Full size imageLDOI in the Boolean threshold modelThe LDOI concept was originally defined on Boolean functions expressed in a disjunctive prime form. Here we extend it to Boolean threshold functions. We implemented it as a breadth first search on the interaction network, as exemplified in Fig. 3. Assume that we want to find the LDOI of a (set of) node(s) (S_0={n_1,dots ,n_N}) and their specific fixed state (Q(S_0)={sigma _{n_1},dots ,sigma _{n_N}}). Starting from the set (S_0), the next set of nodes (S_1) that can acquire a fixed state due to the influence of (Q(S_0)) consists of the nodes that have an incoming edge from the nodes in the set (S_0) in the interaction network. The nodes in set (S_1) are the subject of the first search level. For each node (n_i in S_0) and (n^prime _i in S_1) we assume a “worst case scenario” (i.e., maximal opposition of the effect of (n_i) on (n^prime _i) from other regulators) to find the possible sufficiency relationships between the two. There are five cases:

1.

If (n_i) is a positive regulator of (n^prime _i), then (sigma _{n_i}=1) is a candidate for being sufficient for (sigma _{n^prime _i}=1). We assume that all other positive regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state (i.e., are not in (Q(S_0))) are inactive and all negative regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state are active. If (sum _j W_{ij} > 0) under this assumption, then the active state of (n_i) is sufficient to activate (n^prime _i). The virtual node (n^prime _i) that corresponds to (sigma _{n^prime _i}=1) is added to LDOI((Q(S_0))).

2.

If (n_i) is a positive regulator of (n^prime _i), then (sigma _{n_i}=0) is a candidate for being sufficient for (sigma _{n^prime _i}=0). We assume all other positive regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state are active and all negative regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state are inactive. If (sum _j W_{ij}le 0) under this assumption, then the inactive state of (n_i) is sufficient to deactivate (n^prime _i). The virtual node (sim n^prime _i) that corresponds to (sigma _{n^prime _i}=0) is added to LDOI((Q(S_0))).

3.

If (n_i) is a negative regulator of (n^prime _i), then (sigma _{n_i}=1) is a candidate for being sufficient for (sigma _{n^prime _i}=0). We assume all positive regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state are active and all other negative regulators of (n^prime _i) that that have an unknown state are inactive. If (sum _j W_{ij}le 0) under this assumption, then the active state of (n_i) is sufficient to deactivate (n^prime _i). The virtual node (sim n^prime _i) that corresponds to (sigma _{n^prime _i}=0) is added to LDOI((Q(S_0))).

4.

If (n_i) is a negative regulator of (n^prime _i), then (sigma _{n_i}=0) is a candidate for being sufficient for (sigma _{n^prime _i}=1). We assume all positive regulators of (n^prime _i) that have an unknown state are inactive and all other negative regulators of (n^prime _i) that that have an unknown state are active. If (sum _j W_{ij} > 0) under this assumption, then the inactive state of (n_i) is sufficient to activate (n^prime _i). The virtual node (n^prime _i) that corresponds to (sigma _{n^prime _i}=1) is added to the LDOI((Q(S_0))).

5.

If none of the past four sufficiency checks are satisfied, the node (n^prime _i) will be visited again in the next search levels.

The second set of nodes that can be influenced, (S_2), are the nodes that have an incoming edge from the nodes in the set (S_1). The algorithm goes over these nodes in the second search level as described above. This search continues to all the levels of the search algorithm until all nodes are visited (possibly multiple times) and either acquire a fixed state and are added to the LDOI or their state will be left undetermined at the end of the algorithm. In Fig. 3, we illustrate this search to find the LDOI((sim )pl_1). The first search level is (S_1={)po_1, po_3(}); (sim )pl_1 is sufficient to deactivate po_3, but not po_1. As a result, (sim )po_3(in ) LDOI((sim )pl_1). This process continues until all levels are visited and at the end of the algorithm LDOI((sim )pl_1()={sim )po_3, (sim )pl_2, (sim )pl_3, (sim )pl_4, (sim )pl_5, (sim )po_1, (sim )po_2 (}).Figure 3Breadth first search of the interaction network to find the LDOI of a (set of) fixed note state(s) in Boolean threshold functions governing the dynamics of plant–pollinator networks. (a) An interaction network with five plants and 3 pollinators. (b) The breadth first search in the case of starting from the node state (sim )pl_1. The nodes with incoming edges from pl_1 make up (S_1={)po_1, po_3(}). The second sufficiency check is satisfied for node state (sim )po_3, as a result (sim )po_3(in ) LDOI((sim )pl_1). The same process is applied for node po_1, but none of the sufficiency checks are satisfied, so this node will be visited again later. The next level of the search consists of the nodes that have incident edges from (S_1), i.e., (S_2={)pl_2, pl_3, pl_4, pl_5(}). The second sufficiency check is satisfied for all of these nodes and they are all fixed to their inactive state in the LDOI((sim )pl_1). Lastly, we reach (S_3={)po_1, po_2(}). Node po_1 is reached again, and with both its positive regulators fixed to their inactive states the second sufficiency check is satisfied and node po_1 is fixed to its inactive state as well. The same holds for po_2 and hence LDOI((sim )pl_1()={sim )po_3, (sim )pl_2, (sim )pl_3, (sim )pl_4, (sim )pl_5, (sim )po_1, (sim )po_2 (}).Full size imageTo measure the accuracy of the simplification method originally introduced in28, we analyzed logical domains of influence in 6000 networks with 50–70 nodes. These networks are among the largest in our ensembles and have the most complex structures. We randomly selected (sets of) inactive node states, found their LDOIs using the Boolean threshold functions and the simplified Boolean functions, and compared the two resulting LDOIs. We used 8 single node states and 8 combinations of size 2 to 4 for each network. We found that in all cases the LDOI calculated using the simplified Boolean functions matches the LDOI calculated using the Boolean threshold functions.Next, we analyzed (sets of) active node states and their LDOIs in the same ensembles of networks. Similar to the previous analysis, we used 8 single node states and 8 combinations of size 2 to 4 for each network. Our analysis shows that in 77.1% of the cases the LDOI calculated using the simplified Boolean functions matches the LDOI calculated using the Boolean threshold functions. In 22% of the cases the LDOI calculated from the simplified Boolean functions contains the LDOI calculated from the threshold functions, and it also contains extra active node states, overestimating the LDOI by 57.5% on average. These additional members of the LDOI result from the fact that the simplified Boolean functions contain fewer negative regulators than the threshold functions. The guiding principle of the simplification method is that the probability of (H(x)=1) conserves the probability of each node having an active state across all the states it can have. In contrast, the probability of the propagation of the active state is not necessarily preserved and tends to be higher in the simplified Boolean model; thus the LDOI of the active node states is overestimated in some cases.In the rest of the cases (about 1%), the LDOI calculated from the simplified Boolean functions does not fully capture the LDOI calculated from the threshold functions. This again is caused by the sparsification of the negative edges in the simplified Boolean functions. In the threshold functions, the activation of 4 or more negative regulators of a target node combined with one active positive regulator is sufficient to deactivate the target node, i.e., there might be inactive node states in the LDOI of a set of active node states. However, some of these negative regulators drop in the simplified Boolean model and the inactive state of the target node is not necessarily in the LDOI of the set of active node states in the simplified case. This is the rare mechanism by which the simplified model might underestimate the influence of active node states on the rest of the network.In the following section we are interested in analyzing the effect of species extinction on the established community, i.e., we look at the LDOI of (sets of) inactive node states. Observing that the influence of extinction of species is measured correctly in the simplified Boolean models, we conclude that these models can be utilized to further analyze the process of extinction and its ecological implications.Stable motif based identification of species whose loss leads to cascading extinctionsEach stable motif or motif group can have multiple driver sets; stabilization of each driver set leads to the stabilization of the whole motif or motif group. In plant–pollinator interaction networks, the stable motifs either represent a sub-community (when the constituent nodes stabilize in their active states) or the simultaneous extinction of all species in the group (when the constituent nodes stabilize to their inactive states). Stabilization of the nodes in the driver set of an inactive stable motif results in stabilization of all the nodes in the stable motif to their inactive state, i.e., cascading extinction of the constituent species.The knowledge gained from stable motif analysis and the network of functional relationships offers insight into the cascading effect of an extinction that constitutes a driver set of an inactive stable motif. The magnitude of this effect depends on (i) the number of nodes that the inactive stable motif contains and (ii) the number of virtual nodes (including motifs and motif groups) corresponding to inactive species that are logically determined by the stabilization of the inactive stable motif.To investigate the role of stable motifs in the study of species extinction in plant–pollinator networks, we simulated extinctions that drive inactive stable motifs in 6000 networks with the sizes of 50–70 nodes. We considered driver sets of size 1, 2, or 3, and implemented them by fixing the corresponding node(s) to its (their) inactive state. As a point of comparison, we also performed a “control” analysis using the same networks with the same size of initial extinction; however, the candidates of initial extinction are inactive node states that do not drive stable motifs or motif groups. Based on the properties of the drivers of stable motifs, one expects that following the extinction of driver species, cascading extinctions of other species follow, while the same does not necessarily hold for non-driver species. As a result, we expect to observe greater damage to the original community when driver species become extinct.We assume that the “maximal richness community”—the community (attractor) in which the largest number of species managed to establish—is the subject of species extinction. This maximal richness community results from the stabilization of all active stable motifs. All other attractors that have some established species contain a subset of all active stable motifs and thus will contain a subset of the species of the maximal richness community. While for a generic Boolean model with multiple attractors one expects that a perturbed version of the model also has multiple attractors, this specific perturbation of a plant–pollinator model (namely, extinction of species in the maximal richness community) has a single attractor. We prove this by contradiction. Assume there are two separate attractors in the perturbed model, which means that there is at least one node that has opposite states in these two attractors. Note that this bi-stability is the result of the perturbation and not a property of the original system as the maximal richness community (an attractor) is the starting point for the introduced extinction. Specifically, the inactive state of the extinct node has to lead to the stabilization of another node to its active versus inactive states in the two separate attractors. The only case in which the stabilization of an inactive node state can result in the stabilization of an active node state is if there is a negative edge from the former to the latter in the interaction network after simplification. Since the Boolean function in 2 is inhibitor dominant, the negative regulators that remain in the Boolean model must be in their inactive states in the maximal richness attractor. As they are already inactive (extinct), they are not candidates for extinction. The only nodes that are candidates for extinction are the ones that positively regulate other nodes; perturbing the system by fixing these candidates to their inactive states cannot lead to the active state of a target node. In conclusion, bi-stability is not possible.We found the new attractor of the system given the (combination of) inactive node state(s) using the the functions percolate_and_remove_constants() and trap_spaces() from the pyboolnet Python package. We quantify the effects of the initial extinction(s) on the maximal richness attractor by the percentage change in the number of active species, which we call damage percentage. Note that this choice of maximal richness community as the reference and starting point allows us to detect the cascading extinctions following the initial damage.In Fig. 4 the left column plots show the average damage percentage caused by the extinction of 1 (top panel), 2 (middle panel), or 3 (bottom panel) species that represent driver sets of stable motifs and motif groups, while the right column plots illustrate the average damage percentage as a result of the extinction of 1, 2 or 3 species that represent non-driver nodes. Comparing the two columns, one can notice that stabilization of the driver sets of stable motifs and motif groups leads to considerably larger damage to the communities. This is due to the fact that stabilization of driver sets ensures the stabilization of entire inactive stable motifs and motif groups and hence ensures cascading extinctions. Comparing the plots in the left column, we see that the larger the driver sets are, the larger the damage to the community becomes. This is because larger driver sets are more likely to stabilize larger stable motifs and motif groups. This figure illustrates the significance of stable motifs and their driver sets in the study of species extinction in plant–pollinator communities.Figure 4Histogram plots illustrating the average percentage of the damage caused in an established community after the extinction of species. This analysis is performed over 6000 networks with the size of 50–70 nodes. To study the extinction of species we started from the maximal richness community, then we fixed the nodes that correspond to the focal species to the their inactive states. The original extinctions are excluded from the damage percentages. The left column plots show the average damage percentage caused to the maximal richness community by the extinction of a driver set of size 1 (top), 2 (middle), or 3 (bottom) of an inactive stable motif or motif group. For each network, we determined all the relevant driver sets of one stable motif or motif group, we performed the extinction and calculated the resulting damage, then we calculated the average damage percentage over all data points collected for the same network. The right column plots show the average damage percentage caused to the maximal richness community by the extinction of 1 (top), 2 (middle), and 3 (bottom) non-driver, randomly chosen nodes. Each time a randomly selected combination of non-driver nodes were the subject of simultaneous extinction until all combinations are explored and then we calculated the average damage percentage over all data points collected for each network. The number of networks that qualify for each of these 6 categories differ (e.g., some networks have a stable motif with a driver set of size 2 but no stable motif with a driver set of size 3). In the left column 5529, 3212, and 1980 networks and in the right column 5779, 5626, and 5423 networks qualified respectively. The red lines represent the mean value of all the presented data points in each plot.Full size imageIn Fig. 4 left column, the full driver set of one inactive stable motif or motif group was stabilized. However, the species that become extinct might only contain a subset of a driver set of a stable motif or motif group, i.e., they only stabilize a subset of the inactive node states in the stable motif or motif group. We compare the extinction effect caused by the stabilization of a full driver set of four nodes with the effect of the extinction of four nodes that contain a partial driver set in Fig. 5 using the batch of the largest networks in this study, i.e, the batch that contains networks with 30 nodes representing plant species and 40 nodes representing pollinator species. This choice is due to the fact that the existence of stable motifs and motif groups having a driver set of four node states is highly probable in larger networks. As expected, the stabilization of the complete driver set leads to greater damage. Stabilization of the same number of nodes that contain a partial driver set leads to significantly less damage and species loss in the community; the median damage percentage in the case of stabilization of partial driver sets is 22.6% while it is 69.2% in the case of stabilization of the full driver sets. We also note that damage of more than 90% occurs rarely and is only possible when a full driver set is stabilized (see Fig. 5 right plot). This suggests that the motif groups that lead to total extinction tend to have a driver set with more than four nodes; in other words, only the simultaneous extinction of five or more species would lead to total community collapse.Figure 5Histogram plots illustrating the average percentage of the damage caused in an established community after the extinction of species. This analysis is performed over 1000 networks with the size of 70 nodes (30 nodes representing plant species and 40 nodes representing pollinator species). The original extinctions are excluded from the damage percentages. The left plot shows the average damage percentage caused to the maximal richness community by the extinction of 2 species that are a subset of the 4-node driver set of an inactive stable motif or motif group plus 2 randomly selected non-driver species. The right plot shows the damage percentage caused to the maximal richness community by the extinction of 4-node driver sets of the same inactive stable motifs and motif groups. Each time the driver set of one stable motif or motif group was the subject of extinction and we calculated the average damage percentage over all data points collected for each network. 295 networks qualified for this analysis.Full size imageMotif driver set analysis outperforms structural measures in identifying keystone speciesThe literature on ecological networks offers multiple measures that reflect the importance of each species for community stability. One family of such measures is centrality (quantified by the network measures degree centrality and betweenness centrality). Previous studies45,46 have shown that species (nodes) with higher centrality scores are keystone species in ecological communities (i.e., species whose loss would dramatically change or even destroy the community). The nodes with highest in-degree centrality (such as pl_2 in Fig. 6a) represent generalist species that can receive beneficial interactions from multiple sources and survive. The nodes with highest betweenness centrality (such as pl_2 and po_2 in Fig. 6a) represent species that act as connectors and help the community survive. We find that high centrality corresponds to specific patterns in the expanded network: the inactive state of generalist or connector species is often the driver of a cascading extinction. Indeed, stable motif analysis of the expanded network in Fig. 6b confirms that there is an inactive stable motif (highlighted with grey) driven by the minimal set {(sim )pl_2}. The fact that node pl_2 is a stable motif driver means that in the case of the extinction of pl_2 the whole community collapses.To compare the effectiveness of stable motif analysis to the effectiveness of the more studied structural measures to identify keystone species, we performed an analysis similar to the previous section. We compared the magnitude of cascading extinctions in the case of extinction of stable motif driver nodes and of nodes with high values of previously introduced structural importance measures. Specifically, we used node betweenness centrality, node contribution to nestedness47, and mutualistic species rank (MusRank)22 to find crucial species based on their structural properties. For more details on definition and adaptation of these two measures see “Methods”. In this analysis, we used each measure to target species in the simplified Boolean models as follows:

1.

Betweenness centrality: The 10% of species with the highest betweenness centrality are chosen to be candidates for extinction.

2.

Node contribution to nestedness: The species with the most interactions tend to contribute the least to the community nestedness. Targeting them most likely leads to a faster community collapse48. As a result, 10% of species with the lowest contribution to network nestedness are chosen to be candidates for extinction. For more details on this measure, please see “Methods”.

3.

Pollinator MusRank: The pollinator species with the highest MusRank importance are more likely to interact with multiple plants, so the 10% of pollinator species with the highest importance are chosen to be candidates for extinction. For more details on this measure, please see “Methods”.

4.

Plant MusRank: The plant species with the highest MusRank importance are more likely to interact with multiple pollinators, so the 10% of plant species with the highest importance are chosen to be candidates for extinction.

Figure 7 illustrates the results of this analysis in 6000 networks with 50–70 nodes. In each network the 1-node, 2-node, and 3-node driver sets of inactive stable motifs are identified and made extinct. In the same networks 10% of nodes based on betweenness centrality, node contribution to nestedness, and node MusRank score were chosen to be candidates for extinction. To match the “driver set” data, all choices of 1, 2, or 3 nodes in these sets were explored and the damage was averaged over each extinction size for each network. We observe the cascading extinction and calculate the damage percentage relative to the maximal richness attractor. The plot represents the collective data over all initial simultaneous extinction sizes of 1, 2, and 3 species.Comparing the four methods, one notices that the histograms acquired using stable motif driver sets, node betweenness centrality, and node contribution to nestedness are very similar, showing a peak for the 10–20% bin of the damage, and a long tail that reaches a damage percentage of 80–100%. The MusRank score performs less well in identifying the crucial species. Also, the frequency of the higher damage percentages shows that node contribution to nestedness is the closest to the “driver set” method in identifying nodes whose extinction causes the collapse of the whole community, making it the best structural measure out of the three. Nevertheless, the driver set method finds keystone species that cannot be identified via structural measures, as the corresponding damage percentage histogram has the most prominent tail at the right edge of the panel. Indeed, stable motif driver sets identified 82%, 80%, and 546% more species whose extinction leads to 60% or higher damage to the community when compared to betweenness centrality, node nestedness, and node MusRank score based methods respectively.The reason for the higher effectiveness of driver set analysis is illustrated in Fig. 8 in which the MusRank score and node contribution to nestedness are calculated for two example networks. One can see how these two measures might incorrectly identify less vital species. In the left column of Fig. 8, MusRank identifies the node po_2, highlighted with green, as the most important species. However, this node does not have any outgoing edges; its extinction does not lead to any cascading extinction. The inability of the MusRank score to consider the direction of edges causes such misidentification. In the right column, the three nodes highlighted with yellow have the lowest contributions to network nestedness. The expanded network shows that these three nodes together are not able to cause full community collapse, while the three-node driver set of the inactive stable motif can. Since the nestedness definition depends on the number of mutual interactions, it might fail to identify some of the keystone nodes that are necessary to the stability of the community (for more details on node nestedness see “Methods”).Previously it was shown that identifying the stable motifs and their driver sets can successfully steer the system toward a desired attractor or away from unwanted ones37,38,43. Stable motif analysis of the Boolean model offers insight into the dynamical trajectories of the system; hence control strategies can be developed accordingly. In the next section we use stable motif driver sets to suggest control methods and analyze their efficiency.Figure 6Generalist species in the interaction network and the expanded network. (a) A simplified network consisting of 3 plant and 3 pollinator species. pl_2 is a generalist species, i.e., it has two incoming edges indicating that it can survive on either of its sources of pollination, po_1 or po_2. The expanded network in (b) illustrates that the stabilization of the grey stable motif stabilizes all the nodes to their inactive states, and hence causes full community collapse. (sim )pl_2 is the minimal driver set of the grey stable motif, consistent with the strong damage induced by the loss of a generalist species.Full size imageFigure 7Histogram plots illustrating the performance of driver set analysis versus structural measures in identifying keystone species. The analysis was done on 6000 networks with sizes of 50–70 nodes. The starting point is the maximal richness community, i.e., the attractor in which the most species establish. For each network 1, 2, and 3 node(s) were selected and simultaneously fixed to their inactive states. After the cascading damage the new attractor is compared to the maximal richness attractor to calculate the damage percentage. The structural measures—betweenness centrality, node nestedness contribution, and node MusRank score—were calculated for all nodes in each network; the top 10% according to the relevant ordering were candidates to being fixed to their inactive states. The network IDs were matched, i.e., only the networks that had candidate nodes according to all four measures for each extinction size are included in this plot. The total number of data points is 6360. The red solid lines represent the mean and the black dashed lines represent the median over all data points in each plot.Full size imageFigure 8Networks illustrating examples of when structural measures fail to identify keystone species. In both columns simplified networks consisting of 3 plant and 3 pollinator species are presented. The MusRank is calculated for all the nodes in the network in the left column and denoted in the node labels. The expanded network corresponding to this network is shown below. Node contribution to network nestedness is calculated for all the nodes in the network in the right column and denoted in the node labels. Similarly the expanded network that correspond to it is shown below. Note that these two networks have different edges. In the left column MusRank score identifies node po_2, highlighted with green, as the most important, while the expanded network shows that the extinction of po_2 does not cause any further damage to the community, as this node has no outgoing edges. This is due to the fact that MusRank calculation process fails to consider the directed network and replaces all the directed edges with undirected ones. The MusRank score does not identify po_3 as a crucial species; however, virtual node (sim )po_3, outlined with black in the expanded network is a driver of a stable motif that has all other nodes in its LDOI; the extinction of po_3 leads to full community collapse. In the right column, the nodes highlighted with yellow (pl_2, pl_3, and po_2) have the lowest node contribution to nestedness, which predicts that these nodes are likely crucial to the stability of the community. Analyzing the expanded network, one can see that these three nodes together are not able to drive the inactive stable motif highlighted with teal. The minimal driver set for this stable motif, outlined with black, consists of {(sim )po_1, (sim )po_2, (sim )po_3}; together these nodes drive the inactive stable motif and cause full community collapse. The nestedness-based measure was not able to capture the significance of nodes po2 and po_3.Full size imageDamage mitigation measures and strategies for endangered communitiesThere are two substantial questions related to managing the damage induced by species extinction: (1) How can one prevent the damage as much as possible? (2) Once the damage happens, the reintroduction of which species can restore the community and to what extent? In this section we aim to answer these questions in the context of the Campbell et al. model, implementing stable motif based network control. This analysis can inform agricultural and ecological strategies employed to prevent and mitigate damage.Damage preventionOne of the most important questions in ecology is what strategies to use so that we can prevent and avert extinction damage to the community. In this section we analyze how the knowledge from stable motif analysis and driver sets can be implemented to minimize the effect of extinction of keystone species in case of limited resources. Each attractor of the original system can have multiple control sets; stabilizing the node states in each control set ensures that the system reaches that specific attractor. The same information from the attractor control sets can be implemented to prevent the system from converging into unwanted attractors. Zañudo et al. illustrated that by blocking (not allowing to stabilize) the stable motifs that lead to the unwanted attractors, one can decrease the probability (sometimes to zero) that the system arrives in those attractors38. In order to block an attractor, the control sets of that attractor are identified and the negations of the node states in the control sets are externally imposed. This approach eliminates the undesired attractor; however, new attractors might form that are similar to the eliminated attractor. Campbell et al. showed that in order to avoid such new attractors one needs to block the parent motif, which in this case is the largest strongly connected subgraph of the expanded network that contains the inactive virtual nodes44. Here, we investigate how stable motif blocking based attractor control can identify the species whose preservation would offer the highest benefit in avoiding catastrophic damage to the community. This information would aid the development of management strategies in plant–pollinator communities.To avoid all attractors that lead to some degree of species extinction, one needs to block all the driver sets of all inactive stable motifs and motif groups in a given network. Implementing this in 100 randomly selected networks with 25 plant and 25 pollinator nodes, we found that 45.6% of the species in the maximal richness community need to be kept (prevented from extinction) to ensure the lack of cascading extinctions. Given that management resources are usually limited, active monitoring and conservation of almost half of the species in a community seems costly and impractical. Hence, we set a more feasible goal of identifying and blocking the driver set(s) of the largest inactive stable motif or motif group in each network. The same 100 networks containing 50 nodes are the subject of analysis in this section. The reason for performing the analysis in a relatively limited ensemble is that it involves the identification of all driver sets of the largest inactive stable motif or motif group, which is computationally expensive. For each network, the driver set of the largest inactive stable motif or motif group (which corresponds to the extinction of all the species in that group) is identified and blocked (that is, the corresponding species are not allowed to go extinct). Then the same number of species as in the driver set of that stable motif or motif group are selected and stabilized to their inactive state. We considered all combinations of node extinctions outside the blocked subset, calculated the damage percentage relative to the maximal richness community, and then averaged over all data points for each network. As a control, we repeated the analysis without blocking; the size of the initial extinction is the same as in the previous analysis for consistency.Figure 9 shows the result of the analysis described above for 100 networks. The left box and whiskers plot illustrates the damage percentage relative to the maximal richness community when the blocking feature is activated, while the right box and whiskers plot shows the damage percentage relative to the maximal richness community when the blocking is disabled. The average and median damage percentages are 14.96% and 13.04% respectively when the largest inactive stable motif or motif group was blocked and 24.73% and 20.38% when it was not. This (sim )10% difference in the average between the two sets of results, as well as the fewer cases of high-damage outliers in the left plot, demonstrates that by preventing the extinction of species identified by stable motif analysis, one can prevent catastrophic community damage considerably.To estimate the fraction of species that would need to be monitored to prevent their extinction, we compared the size of the maximal richness attractor and the size of the driver set of the largest stable motif. The maximal richness community represents an average of 32% of the original species pool, approximately 15 out of 50 species. The driver sets of the largest stable motifs had an average size of 2.5 node states over all 100 networks, i.e., about 16.6% of the maximal richness community. In ecological terms, given limited resources, the information gained from stable motif driver sets can help direct the conservation efforts toward the keystone species that play a key role in maintaining the rest of the community in a cost-effective manner.Figure 9Box plots comparing the damage communities face if the largest inactive stable motif or motif group is completely blocked, i.e., all the drivers of this inactive stable motif or motif group are prevented from stabilizing versus if the same stable motif or motif group is allowed to stabilize. This analysis was performed over 100 randomly selected networks that contain 25 plant and 25 pollinator nodes. All the driver sets of an inactive stable motif or motif group are identified. From left to right the box and whiskers plots show the average damage percentage relative to the maximal richness community if the largest inactive stable motif is blocked and the same quantity if the largest stable motif or motif group is not blocked respectively. For the left box and whiskers plot, all combinations of inactive node states except the driver sets are considered, and for the right box and whiskers plot all combinations are explored. Due to the computational complexity caused by combinatorial explosion, this analysis was performed over 100 randomly selected 50-node networks.Full size imageRestoration of a group of speciesAlthough human preservation efforts have been directed toward community conservation, there are many industrial activities that lead to ecosystem degradation. Ecologists are interested in developing restoration strategies to be deployed after a stable community is hit by catastrophic damage to recover biodiversity and the ecosystem functions it provides49. Here we propose that stable motif analysis and the driver sets identified from the expanded network can give insight into restoration measures. While we examined the inactive stable motifs in the study of species extinction, here we focus on the active stable motifs as our goal is to restore as much biodiversity as possible.Several network measures have been proposed to identify the species that if re-introduced would restore the community considerably. Two of the most studied algorithms include maximising functional complementarity (or diversity) and maximising functional redundancy50. The first strategy targets the restoration of the species that provide as many functions to the ecosystem as possible; this approach results in a community that has a maximal number of functions provided by different groups of species. Alternatively, maximising the functional redundancy yields a community in which several species perform the same function. While this resultant community might have a limited number of functions, it is robust. Both of these community restoration approaches have been studied extensively (e.g. see21).We hypothesize that restoring the species that constitute driver sets of active stable motifs can help maximise the number of species post-restoration. Since there is evidence that functional diversity correlates with the number of species in the community51, we compare the post-restoration communities identified by stable motif driving with the functional diversity maximisation approach. As discussed in section LDOI in the Boolean threshold model, the Boolean simplification of the threshold functions leads to an overestimation of the LDOI of active node states (compared to the original threshold functions) in some networks. We evaluate the negative effects of this overestimation by checking the effectiveness of the restored species in the original threshold model.The same 6000 networks we examined in the last section were the subject of this analysis. To create an unbiased initial community, we create the damaged communities by eliminating the same number of species from the maximal richness community as the number that will be restored. We identify the inactive stable motif or motif group with the driver set size of 1, 2, or 3 node states that causes the most damage to the maximal richness community. We then eliminate the species corresponding to this driver set to reach the most damaged community for the given size of the initial extinction. This community is the starting point for two analyses. In the stable motif driving approach we stabilized an active stable motif that has a driver set of the same size as the initial extinction to reach a post-restoration community and calculated the percentage of the extinct species that were restored. In the functional diversity maximization based approach we re-introduced the same number of species selected from the to 10% of species in terms of their contribution to functional diversity.To calculate the functional diversity of a community one needs to (1) define and construct a trait matrix, (2) determine the distance (trait dissimilarity) of pairs of species, (3) perform hierarchical clustering based on the distances to create a dendrogram, and (4) calculate the total branch length of the dendrogram, i.e., the sum of the length of all paths51,52. Petchey et al. argued that resource-use traits among plant and pollinator species can be used to classify the organisms into separate functional groups53 and Devoto et al. proposed the use of the adjacency matrix based on the interaction network as the trait matrix21. In this study we do the same and implement the bipartite adjacency matrix to construct the distance matrix.Since the networks of the Campbell et al. model are directed, we modify the algorithm in that we have two separate adjacency matrices, one denoting the edges incoming to plant species and the other denoting the edges incoming to pollinator species. The hierarchical clustering algorithm is then run on each of these matrices separately, resulting in a dendrogram for each adjacency matrix. If extinction occurs in a community, the functional diversity of the survived community can be determined by calculating the total branch length of the subset of the dendrogram that includes only the survived species. The restoration strategy using this method is to re-introduce the nodes whose branches add the most to the total branch length of this subset, i.e., maximise the functional diversity of the survived community54. For more details see “Methods”.In each network, the percentage of the extinct species that were restored was calculated and averaged over all data points for each restoration size and each network. Figure 10 illustrates the results of this investigation. Applied to the simplified Boolean model, the median restoration percentage in the case of active stable motif driver set method (blue plot) is 80%. The functional diversity maximization strategy to restoration (yellow plot) yields a lower median restoration percentage, 73%, as well as a large number of low-restoration outliers. Although one might argue that identifying beneficial species using the functional diversity maximization strategy works well, the higher percentage of the cases of 80–100% restoration in case of the active stable motif driver set analysis indicates that the latter identifies some of the most effective restorative species that are not identified via the former method. As in a minority of cases the simplified Boolean model overestimates the positive impact of the sustained presence of a species (see section LDOI in the Boolean threshold model), we sought to verify the effectiveness of the predicted restoration candidates in the original threshold model. The blue (respectively, yellow) box and whiskers plot on the right represents the restoration percentages of the same species as in the left blue (respectively, yellow) plot when these species are restored in the threshold model. The median of the right blue plot is 70%, while the median of the right yellow is 63%, preserving the advantage of the stable motif driver sets. We conclude that although the simplified Boolean model overestimates the restoration effectiveness of certain driver sets (visible in the fact that the lower whisker of the blue plot on the right goes well below the lower whisker of the blue plot on the left), stable motif driver sets are more effective in both comparisons.Figure 10Box and whiskers plots illustrating the average percentage of the extinct species that are restored following the stable motif driver set restoration strategy (blue) versus the functional diversity based approach (yellow). This analysis is performed over 6000 networks with sizes of 50–70 nodes. Starting from the maximal richness community, for each network one inactive stable motif with a driver set of 1, 2 or 3 nodes was stabilized to reach a new damaged community. This task was performed until the community with the most extinct species was identified. This is the community we set as the starting point for the restoration process using both methods. The pair on the left represents the two methods applied to the simplified Boolean model. For both methods we identified 1, 2, or 3 influential nodes for community restoration and we calculated the percentage of the extinct species that could be restored. The pair on the right represents restoring the same species identified by each method in the previous analysis in the original threshold model. In all analyses the community restoration percentage was averaged over all combinations of the same size, for each network and each method. The IDs of all networks are matched.Full size imageCommunity restoration via attractor controlAs illustrated in section “Restoration of a group of species”, stable motif analysis identifies promising and cost-effective group restoration strategies. In this section we aim to go further and identify interventions that can maximally restore a community. Previous stable motif based network control methods37,38,55 require a search for the smallest set of node states to control the system once the stable motif stabilization trajectories are identified. This smallest set may not contain a node from each stable motif in the sequence. In this work, however, we know that each stable motif or motif group needs to be controlled individually28 because the stabilization of none of the motifs results in the stabilization of another. As a result, the control set of each attractor is the same as the union of the driver sets of all members in the consistent combination corresponding to that attractor.In this section we examined this attractor control method by setting the communities with 70% or more of the species in the maximal richness community as the target, i.e., the attractors that have 70% of the species in the maximal richness community are assumed to be the desired attractors. We then recorded the size of the minimal control set needed to achieve each of these attractors. Note that stabilizing each of these control sets guarantees that the system reaches the corresponding attractor38.For this section, we analyzed 6000 networks that have 50–70 nodes. Figure 11 represents box-and-whiskers plots of the size of the minimal set of species that need to be restored, where the target community sizes are classified into three groups based on the percentage of the species relative to the maximal richness attractor. One can see that in half of the cases, the restoration of either 1 or 2 species manages to restore more than 70% of the maximal richness community. The largest set has 8 species that need to be restored; however, this data point is an outlier. As illustrated, driver set analysis and stable motif based attractor control can efficiently identify the species that play an influential restorative role and suggest management strategies that are effective at the scale of the whole community. To assess the impact of the LDOI inflation on this result, we used the restoration candidates identified by control sets of the attractors of the Boolean model in the threshold functions of a subset of networks. The results of comparing the restoration percentage is shown in Fig. 14. The first quartile, median and third quartile values are 78.26%, 86.6%, and 100% for the simplified Boolean models and 43.78%, 72.41%, and 85.71% for the threshold model.To further compare the results of restoration obtained from the two models we sorted the species in the order of their contribution to community restoration following a catastrophic damage. We randomly selected 100 of the largest (70-node) networks, which have the highest probability of a discrepancy between the threshold functions and the simplified Boolean model. In 72% of the cases the two rankings matched completely, and in the majority of the remaining cases only one species was misplaced in the simplified Boolean model-based ranking. To conclude, there is a significant advantage to the implementation of the simplified Boolean model and the drawback can be addressed by a follow-up checking on the original threshold functions.Figure 11The number of species that need to be restored to save 70% of more of the species in the maximal richness community. In this analysis 6000 networks with 50–70 nodes were the subject. For each networks all the attractors that have 70% or more of the species in the maximal richness attractor are identified and set to be the target attractors. The control set of these attractors are then classified into three groups based on the percentage as illustrated in the figure. From left to right, the box and whiskers represent the size of the control set of attractors that have 70–80%, 80–90%, and 90–100% of the species in the maximal richness attractor respectively.Full size image More