Philippa Kaur

Taranu, Z. E. et al. Acceleration of cyanobacterial dominance in north temperate-subarctic lakes during the Anthropocene. Ecol. Lett. 18, 375–384 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huisman, J. et al. Cyanobacterial blooms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 471–483 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Monchamp, M. E. et al. Homogenization of lake cyanobacterial communities over a century of climate change and eutrophication. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 317–324 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chorus, I. & Bartram, J. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water. A Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring, and Management. In: World Health Organization (eds. Chorus I. & Bertram J.) (CRC Press, 1999).Rabalais, N. N. et al. Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7, 585–619 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carmichael, W. W. Health effects of toxin-producing cyanobacteria: “The CyanoHABs”. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 7, 1393–1407 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitton, B. A. Ecology of Cyanobacteria II: Their Diversity in Space and Time (Springer, 2012).Smol, J. P., Birks, H. J. B. & Last, W. M. Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments. Volume 4: Zoological Indicators, Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research. (Springer, 2002).Domaizon, I., Winegardner, A., Capo, E., Gauthier, J. & Gregory-Eaves, I. DNA-based methods in paleolimnology: new opportunities for investigating long-term dynamics of lacustrine biodiversity. J. Paleolimnol. 52, 1–21 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Livingstone, D. & Jaworski, G. H. M. The viability of akinetes of blue-green algae recovered from the sediments of rostherne mere. Br. Phycol. J. 15, 357–364 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Geel, B., Mur, L. R., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. & Goslar, T. Fossil akinetes of Aphanizomenon and Anabaena as indicators for medieval phosphate-eutrophication of Lake Gosciaz (Central Poland). Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 83, 97–105 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillbrand, M., van Geel, B., Hasenfratz, A., Hadorn, P. & Haas, J. N. Non-pollen palynomorphs show human- and livestock-induced eutrophication of Lake Nussbaumersee (Thurgau, Switzerland) since Neolithic times (3840 bc). Holocene 24, 559–568 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gosling, W. D. et al. Human occupation and ecosystem change on Upolu (Samoa) during the Holocene. J. Biogeogr. 47, 600–614 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hertzberg, S., Liaaen-Jensen, S. & Siegelman, H. W. The carotenoids of blue-green algae. Phytochemistry 10, 3121–3127 (1971).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leavitt, P. R. & Findlay, D. L. Comparison of fossil pigments with 20 years of phytoplankton data from eutrophic Lake 227, Experimental Lakes Area, Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51, 2286–2299 (1994).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kaiser, J., Ön, B., Arz, H. & Akçer-Ön, S. Sedimentary lipid biomarkers in the magnesium-rich and highly alkaline Lake Salda (south-western Anatolia). J. Limnol. 75, 581–596 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Bauersachs, T., Talbot, H. M., Sidgwick, F., Sivonen, K. & Schwark, L. Lipid biomarker signatures as tracers for harmful cyanobacterial blooms in the Baltic Sea. PLoS ONE 12, e0186360 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domaizon, I. et al. DNA from lake sediments reveals the long-term dynamics and diversity of Synechococcus assemblages. Biogeosci. Discuss. 10, 2515–2564 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Britton, G., Liaaen-Jensen, S. & Pfander, H. in Carotenoids (eds. Britton, G., Liaaen-Jensen, S., Pfander, H.). Vol. 4, 1–6 (Birkhäuser Press, 2008).Capo, E. et al. Lake sedimentary dna research on past terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity: overview and recommendations. Quaternary 4, 6 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monchamp, M. E., Walser, J. C., Pomati, F. & Spaak, P. Sedimentary DNA reveals cyanobacterial community diversity over 200 years in two perialpine lakes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 6472–6482 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nwosu, E. C. et al. Evaluating sedimentary DNA for tracing changes in cyanobacteria dynamics from sediments spanning the last 350 years of Lake Tiefer See, NE Germany. J. Paleolimnol. 66, 279–296 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. et al. Pre-industrial cyanobacterial dominance in Lake Moon (NE China) revealed by sedimentary ancient DNA. Quat. Sci. Rev. 261, 106966 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brauer, A., Schwab, M. J., Brademann, B., Pinkerneil, S. & Theuerkauf, M. Tiefer See–a key site for lake sediment research in NE Germany. DEUQUA Spec. Publ. 2, 89–93 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dräger, N. et al. Varve microfacies and varve preservation record of climate change and human impact for the last 6000 years at Lake Tiefer See (NE Germany). Holocene 27, 450–464 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dräger, N. et al. Hypolimnetic oxygen conditions influence varve preservation and δ13C of sediment organic matter in Lake Tiefer See, NE Germany. J. Paleolimnol. 62, 181–194 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theuerkauf, M., Dräger, N., Kienel, U., Kuparinen, A. & Brauer, A. Effects of changes in land management practices on pollen productivity of open vegetation during the last century derived from varved lake sediments. Holocene 25, 733–744 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heinrich, I. et al. Interdisciplinary geo-ecological research across time scales in the Northeast German Lowland Observatory (TERENO-NE). Vadose Zone J. 17, 1–25 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roeser, P. et al. Advances in understanding calcite varve formation: new insights from a dual lake monitoring approach in the southern Baltic lowlands. Boreas 50, 419–440 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nwosu, E. C. et al. From water into sediment—tracing freshwater Cyanobacteria via DNA analyses. Microorganisms 9, 1778 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, J. -P. Ein Fremdling im Nordischen Kreis Jungbronzezeitliche Funde aus dem Flachen See bei Sophienhof, Lkr. Mecklenburgische Seenplatte. In: D. Brandherm/B. Nessel (Hrsg.), Phasenübergänge und Umbrüche im bronzezeitlichen Europa. Beiträge zur Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der 80. Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumskunde. Vol. 297, 271–281. (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, 2017).Raese, H. & Schmidt, J. -P. Zur Besiedlung Mecklenburg-Vorpommernswährend des Spätneolithikums und der frühenBronzezeit (2500–1500 v. Chr.). In: Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag (eds. Meller, H., Friedderich, S., Küßner, M., Stäuble, H. & Risch, R.) 621–634 (2019).Kienel, U., Dulski, P., Ott, F., Lorenz, S. & Brauer, A. Recently induced anoxia leading to the preservation of seasonal laminae in two NE-German lakes. J. Paleolimnol. 50, 535–544 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callieri, C. & Stockner, J. Picocyanobacteria success in oligotrophic lakes: fact or fiction? J. Limnol. 59, 72–76 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sollai, M. et al. The Holocene sedimentary record of cyanobacterial glycolipids in the Baltic Sea: an evaluation of their application as tracers of past nitrogen fixation. Biogeosciences 14, 5789–5804 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mur, L. R., Skulberg, O. M. & Utkilen, H. In: Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring, and Management. (eds. Chorus, I. and Bartram, J.) 15–40 (St Edmundsbury Press, 1999).Schmidt, J.-P. Ein bronzenes Hallstattschwert der Periode VI aus dem Flachen See bei Sophienhof, Lkr. Mecklenburgische Seenplatte. Arch.äologische Ber. aus Mecklenbg.-Vorpommern 26, 26–34 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Schmidt, J.-P. “Aller guten Dinge sind drei!”–Ein weiteres bronzezeitliches Schwert aus dem Flachen See bei Lütgendorf, Lkr. Mecklenburgische Seenplatte. Arch.äologische Ber. aus Mecklenbg.-Vorpommern 27, 49–55 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Küster, M., Stöckmann, M., Fülling, A. & Weber, R. Kulturlandschaftselemente, Kolluvien und Flugsande als Archive der spätholozänen Landschaftsentwicklung im Bereich des Messtischblattes Thurow (Müritz-Nationalpark, Mecklenburg). In: Neue Beiträge zum Naturraum und zur Landschaftsgeschichte im Teilgebiet. (Geozon Science Media, 2015).Feeser, I., Dörfler, W., Kneisel, J., Hinz, M. & Dreibrodt, S. Human impact and population dynamics in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Multi-proxy evidence from north-western Central Europe. Holocene 29, 1596–1606 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alsleben, A. In How’s Life? Living Conditions in the 2nd and 1st Millennia BCE. Scales of Transformation in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies (eds. Dal Corso, M. et al.) 85–102 (Sidestone Press, 2019).Kneisel, J., Bork, H.-R. & Czebreszuk, J. In Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd Millennia bc (eds. Czebreszuk, J., Kadrow, S. & Müller, J.) 155–170 (Habelt, 2008).Haas, J. N. & Wahlmüller, N. Floren-, Vegetations- und Milieuveränderungen im Zuge der bronzezeitlichen Besiedlung von Bruszczewo (Polen) und der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzung der umliegenden Gebiete. In: Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Großpolens. (eds. Müller, J., Czebreszuk, J. & Kneisel, J.) Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa Vol. 6.1, 50–81 (Bonn, 2010).Theuerkauf, M. et al. Holocene lake-level evolution of Lake Tiefer See, NE Germany, caused by climate and land cover changes. Boreas 51, 299–316 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Büntgen, U. et al. 2500 years of European climate variability and human susceptibility. Science 331, 578–582 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Büntgen, U. et al. Cooling and societal change during the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to around 660 AD. Nat. Geosci. 9, 231–236 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kienel, U. et al. Effects of spring warming and mixing duration on diatom deposition in deep Tiefer See, NE Germany. J. Paleolimnol. 57, 37–49 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monchamp, M. E., Spaak, P. & Pomati, F. High dispersal levels and lake warming are emergent drivers of cyanobacterial community assembly in peri-Alpine lakes. Sci. Rep. 9, 7366 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Erratt, K. et al. Paleolimnological evidence reveals climate-related preeminence of cyanobacteria in a temperate meromictic lake. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 79, 558–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, J.-P. ders., Kein Ende in Sicht? Neue Untersuchungen auf dem Feuerstellenplatz von Naschendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg. Arch.äologische Ber. aus Mecklenbg.-Vorpommern 19, 26–46 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U. & Mix, A. C. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339, 1198–1201 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wanner, H. et al. Holocene climate variability and change; a data-based review. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 172, 254–263 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rigosi, A., Carey, C. C., Ibelings, B. W. & Brookes, J. D. The interaction between climate warming and eutrophication to promote cyanobacteria is dependent on trophic state and varies among taxa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 59, 99–114 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dittmann, E., Fewer, D. P. & Neilan, B. A. Cyanobacterial toxins: Biosynthetic routes and evolutionary roots. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 23–43 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dolman, A. M. et al. Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins: the influence of nitrogen versus phosphorus. PLoS ONE 7, e38757 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kurmayer, R., Christiansen, G., Fastner, J. & Börner, T. Abundance of active and inactive microcystin genotypes in populations of the toxic cyanobacterium Planktothrix spp. Environ. Microbiol. 6, 831–841 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, A., Zhu, T., Lu, X. & Song, L. Hydrocarbon profiles and phylogenetic analyses of diversified cyanobacterial species. Appl. Energy 11, 383–393 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coates, R. C. et al. Characterization of cyanobacterial hydrocarbon composition and distribution of biosynthetic pathways. PLoS ONE 9, e85140 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marciniak, S. et al. Ancient human genomics: the methodology behind reconstructing evolutionary pathways. J. Hum. Evol. 79, 21–34 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jónsson, H., Ginolhac, A., Schubert, M., Johnson, P. L. F. & Orlando, L. MapDamage2.0: fast approximate Bayesian estimates of ancient DNA damage parameters. in. Bioinformatics 29, 1682–1684 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borry, M., Hübner, A., Rohrlach, A. B. & Warinner, C. PyDamage: automated ancient damage identification and estimation for contigs in ancient DNA de novo assembly. PeerJ 9, e11845 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murchie, T. J. et al. Optimizing extraction and targeted capture of ancient environmental DNA for reconstructing past environments using the PalaeoChip Arctic-1.0 bait-set. Quat. Res. (U. S.) 99, 305–328 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Armbrecht, L., Hallegraeff, G., Bolch, C. J. S., Woodward, C. & Cooper, A. Hybridisation capture allows DNA damage analysis of ancient marine eukaryotes. Sci. Rep. 11, 3220 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wulf, S. et al. Holocene tephrostratigraphy of varved sediment records from Lakes Tiefer See (NE Germany) and Czechowskie (N Poland). Quat. Sci. Rev. 132, 1–14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sugita, S. Theory of quantitative reconstruction of vegetation I: Pollen from large sites REVEALS regional vegetation composition. Holocene 17, 2 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Epp, L. S., Zimmermann, H. H. & Stoof-Leichsenring, K. R. In: Ancient DNA. Methods in Molecular Biology (eds. Shapiro B., Barlow A., Heintzman P., Hofreiter M., Paijmans J., Soares A.) Vol. 1963, 31–44 (Humana Press, 2019).Janse, I., Meima, M., Kardinaal, W. E. A. & Zwart, G. High-resolution differentiation of Cyanobacteria by using rRNA-internal transcribed spacer denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 6634–6643 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nwosu, E. C. et al. Species-level spatio-temporal dynamics of cyanobacteria in a hard-water temperate lake in the Southern Baltics. Front. Microbiol. 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.761259 (2021).Savichtcheva, O. et al. Quantitative PCR enumeration of total/toxic Planktothrix rubescens and total cyanobacteria in preserved DNA isolated from lake sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 8744–8753 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coolen, M. J. L. et al. Ancient DNA derived from alkenone-biosynthesizing haptophytes and other algae in Holocene sediments from the Black Sea. Paleoceanography 21, PA1005 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina 7 amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kieser, S., Brown, J., Zdobnov, E. M., Trajkovski, M. & McCue, L. A. ATLAS: a Snakemake workflow for assembly, annotation, and genomic binning of metagenome sequence data. BMC Bioinformat. 21, 257 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yilmaz, P. et al. The SILVA and ‘all-species Living Tree Project (LTP)’ taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 643–648 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformat. 11, 119–119 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. EggNOG 5.0: A hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D309–D314 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cantalapiedra, C. P., Hernández-Plaza, A., Letunic, I., Bork, P. & Huerta-Cepas, J. eggNOG-mapper v2: Functional Annotation, Orthology Assignments, and Domain Prediction at the Metagenomic Scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab293 (2021).Shen, W. & Ren, H. TaxonKit: a practical and efficient NCBI taxonomy toolkit. J. Genet. Genomics. 48, 844–850 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 29, 471–482 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.5-2. Cran R (2019).Wu, T. et al. clusterProfiler 4.0: a universal enrichment tool for interpreting omics data. Innovation 2, 100141 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Gallagher, E. D. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129, 271–280 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Battin, T. J. et al. The boundless carbon cycle. Nat. Geosci. 2, 598–600 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503, 355–359 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hotchkiss, E. R. et al. Sources of and processes controlling CO2 emissions change with the size of streams and rivers. Nat. Geosci. 8, 696–699 (2015). Important study conceptualizing (on the basis of a data synthesis) how the sources and magnitude of CO2 evasion flux change along a stream–river continuum.Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1917–2005 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, J. J. et al. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10, 172–185 (2007). A pioneering study showing the role of inland waters for large-scale carbon fluxes and highlighting them as ‘reactors’ rather than ‘passive pipes’.Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, T. W., Raymond, P. A. & Spencer, R. G. M. Terrestrial carbon inputs to inland waters: a current synthesis of estimates and uncertainty. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 132–142 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Odum, H. T. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1, 102–117 (1956).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, E. S. et al. The metabolic regimes of flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 99–118 (2018). A synthesis of the predominant drivers and constraints on metabolic regimes of stream and river ecosystems.Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, A. D. et al. Energy flux: the link between multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 186–197 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Costanza, R. & Mageau, M. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat. Ecol. 33, 105–115 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blöschl, G. et al. Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods. Nature 573, 108–111 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L. et al. Globally observed trends in mean and extreme river flow attributed to climate change. Science 371, 1159–1162 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X., Pavelsky, T. M. & Allen, G. H. The past and future of global river ice. Nature 577, 69–73 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grill, G. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Belletti, B. et al. More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers. Nature 588, 436–441 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cooley, S. W., Ryan, J. C. & Smith, L. C. Human alteration of global surface water storage variability. Nature 591, 78–81 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jaramillo, F. & Destouni, G. Local flow regulation and irrigation raise global human water consumption and footprint. Science 350, 1248–1251 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quinton, J. N., Govers, G., Oost, K. V. & Bardgett, R. D. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 311–314 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Global anthropogenic phosphorus loads to freshwater and associated grey water footprints and water pollution levels: a high‐resolution global study. Water Resour. Res. 54, 345–358 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnier, P. et al. Anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon fluxes from land to ocean. Nat. Geosci. 6, 597–607 (2013). The first study showing the extent to which human activities have altered the magnitude of contemporary lateral carbon fluxes from land to ocean.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rüegg, J. et al. Thinking like a consumer: linking aquatic basal metabolism and consumer dynamics. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 1–17 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752–755 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, J. S. Time‐varying responses of lake metabolism to light and temperature. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 652–666 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uehlinger, U. Annual cycle and inter‐annual variability of gross primary production and ecosystem respiration in a floodprone river during a 15‐year period. Freshw. Biol. 51, 938–950 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uehlinger, U. & Naegeli, M. W. Ecosystem metabolism, disturbance, and stability in a prealpine gravel bed river. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 17, 165–178 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulholland, P. J. et al. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw. Biol. 46, 1503–1517 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, B. J., Mulholland, P. J. & Hill, W. R. Multiple scales of temporal variability in ecosystem metabolism rates: results from 2 years of continuous monitoring in a forested headwater stream. Ecosystems 10, 588–606 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Appling, A. P., Hall, R. O., Yackulic, C. B. & Arroita, M. Overcoming equifinality: leveraging long time series for stream metabolism estimation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 624–645 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Appling, A. P. et al. The metabolic regimes of 356 rivers in the United States. Sci. Data 5, 180292 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Canadell, M. B. et al. Regimes of primary production and their drivers in Alpine streams. Freshw. Biol. 66, 1449–1463 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myrstener, M., Gómez‐Gener, L., Rocher‐Ros, G., Giesler, R. & Sponseller, R. A. Nutrients influence seasonal metabolic patterns and total productivity of Arctic streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, S182–S196 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savoy, P. et al. Metabolic rhythms in flowing waters: an approach for classifying river productivity regimes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1835–1851 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirk, L., Hensley, R. T., Savoy, P., Heffernan, J. B. & Cohen, M. J. Estimating benthic light regimes improves predictions of primary production and constrains light-use efficiency in streams and rivers. Ecosystems 24, 825–839 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, E. S. et al. Light and flow regimes regulate the metabolism of rivers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2121976119 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savoy, P. & Harvey, J. W. Predicting light regime controls on primary productivity across CONUS river networks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL092149 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Julian, J. P., Stanley, E. H. & Doyle, M. W. Basin-scale consequences of agricultural land use on benthic light availability and primary production along a sixth-order temperate river. Ecosystems 11, 1091–1105 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, R. O. et al. Turbidity, light, temperature, and hydropeaking control primary productivity in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 512–526 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hosen, J. D. et al. Enhancement of primary production during drought in a temperate watershed is greater in larger rivers than headwater streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1458–1472 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, A. P., Gillooly, J. F. & Brown, J. H. Linking the global carbon cycle to individual metabolism. Funct. Ecol. 19, 202–213 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Demars, B. O. L. et al. Temperature and the metabolic balance of streams. Freshw. Biol. 56, 1106–1121 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, C. et al. Continental-scale decrease in net primary productivity in streams due to climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 11, 415–420 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hood, J. M. et al. Increased resource use efficiency amplifies positive response of aquatic primary production to experimental warming. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1069–1084 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schindler, D. E., Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Kitchell, J. F. & Pace, M. L. Influence of food web structure on carbon exchange between lakes and the atmosphere. Science 277, 248–251 (1997).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iannucci, F. M., Beneš, J., Medvedeff, A. & Bowden, W. B. Biogeochemical responses over 37 years to manipulation of phosphorus concentrations in an Arctic river: The Upper Kuparuk River Experiment. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14075 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosemond, A. D. et al. Experimental nutrient additions accelerate terrestrial carbon loss from stream ecosystems. Science 347, 1142–1145 (2015). A key study explaining how nutrient excess can accelerate terrestrial carbon loss from stream ecosystems.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arroita, M., Elosegi, A. & Hall, R. O. Jr Twenty years of daily metabolism show riverine recovery following sewage abatement. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 77–92 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Battin, T. J. et al. Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks. Nat. Geosci. 1, 95–100 (2008). An important article conceptualizing how physical and biological processes combine to shape metabolic dynamics and carbon fluxes in fluvial networks.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoellein, T. J., Bruesewitz, D. A. & Richardson, D. C. Revisiting Odum (1956): a synthesis of aquatic ecosystem metabolism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 2089–2100 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzolf, N. S. & Ardón, M. Ecosystem metabolism in tropical streams and rivers: a review and synthesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 1627–1638 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gounand, I., Little, C. J., Harvey, E. & Altermatt, F. Cross-ecosystem carbon flows connecting ecosystems worldwide. Nat. Commun. 9, 4825 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciais, P. et al. Empirical estimates of regional carbon budgets imply reduced global soil heterotrophic respiration. Natl Sci. Rev. 8, nwaa145 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bauer, J. E. et al. The changing carbon cycle of the coastal ocean. Nature 504, 61–70 (2013). Important review on the sources, exchange and fates of carbon in the coastal ocean and how human activities have altered the coastal carbon cycle.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reichert, P., Uehlinger, U. & Acuña, V. Estimating stream metabolism from oxygen concentrations: effect of spatial heterogeneity. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 114, G03016 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koenig, L. E. et al. Emergent productivity regimes of river networks. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 4, 173–181 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Castillo, T., Estévez, E., González-Ferreras, A. M. & Barquín, J. Estimating ecosystem metabolism to entire river networks. Ecosystems 22, 892–911 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Segatto, P. L., Battin, T. J. & Bertuzzo, E. The metabolic regimes at the scale of an entire stream network unveiled through sensor data and machine learning. Ecosystems 24, 1792–1809 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Holt, R. D. Meta‐ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol. Lett. 6, 673–679 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mastrandrea, M. D. et al. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2010).Tank, S. E., Fellman, J. B., Hood, E. & Kritzberg, E. S. Beyond respiration: controls on lateral carbon fluxes across the terrestrial‐aquatic interface. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 76–88 (2018). Important synthesis on the mechanisms and controls of organic and inorganic carbon flows across terrestrial–aquatic interfaces.Article 

Google Scholar 
Aitkenhead, J. A. & McDowell, W. H. Soil C:N ratio as a predictor of annual riverine DOC flux at local and global scales. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 127–138 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnier, P., Resplandy, L., Najjar, R. G. & Ciais, P. The land-to-ocean loops of the global carbon cycle. Nature 603, 401–410 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Hoek, W. J. et al. Exploring spatially explicit changes in carbon budgets of global river basins during the 20th century. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 16757–16769 (2021). A global quantitative assessment of river carbon fluxes in the twentieth century, highlighting the combined influence of environmental and anthropogenic controls on the long-term patterns of global carbon export.Article 

Google Scholar 
Abril, G. & Borges, A. V. Ideas and perspectives: carbon leaks from flooded land: do we need to replumb the inland water active pipe? Biogeosciences 16, 769–784 (2019). Important review emphasizing the role of flooding for inland water carbon cycling at the global scale.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lauerwald, R., Regnier, P., Guenet, B., Friedlingstein, P. & Ciais, P. How simulations of the land carbon sink are biased by ignoring fluvial carbon transfers: a case study for the Amazon Basin. One Earth 3, 226–236 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A., Saiers, J. E. & Sobczak, W. V. Hydrological and biogeochemical controls on watershed dissolved organic matter transport: pulse‐shunt concept. Ecology 97, 5–16 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catalán, N., Marcé, R., Kothawala, D. N. & Tranvik, L. J. Organic carbon decomposition rates controlled by water retention time across inland waters. Nat. Geosci. 9, 501–504 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maavara, T., Lauerwald, R., Regnier, P. & Cappellen, P. V. Global perturbation of organic carbon cycling by river damming. Nat. Commun. 8, 15347 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mendonça, R. et al. Organic carbon burial in global lakes and reservoirs. Nat. Commun. 8, 1694–1697 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Downing, J. A. et al. Sediment organic carbon burial in agriculturally eutrophic impoundments over the last century. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1018 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deemer, B. R. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoir water surfaces: a new global synthesis. Bioscience 66, 949–964 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abril, G. et al. Amazon River carbon dioxide outgassing fuelled by wetlands. Nature 505, 395–398 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. et al. Abiotic controls and temporal variability of river metabolism: multiyear analyses of Mississippi and Chattahoochee River data. Freshw. Sci. 32, 1073–1087 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ros, G. R., Sponseller, R. A., Bergström, A. K., Myrstener, M. & Giesler, R. Stream metabolism controls diel patterns and evasion of CO2 in Arctic streams. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1400–1413 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasilo, T., Hutchins, R. H. S., Ruiz-González, C. & Del Giorgio, P. A. Transport and transformation of soil-derived CO2, CH4 and DOC sustain CO2 supersaturation in small boreal streams. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 902–912 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aho, K. S., Hosen, J. D., Logozzo, L. A., McGillis, W. R. & Raymond, P. A. Highest rates of gross primary productivity maintained despite CO2 depletion in a temperate river network. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 200–206 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wehrli, B. Conduits of the carbon cycle. Nature 503, 346–347 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sarmiento, J. L. & Sundquist, E. T. Revised budget for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Nature 356, 589–593 (1992).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lacroix, F., Ilyina, T., Laruelle, G. G. & Regnier, P. Reconstructing the preindustrial coastal carbon cycle through a global ocean circulation model: was the global continental shelf already both autotrophic and a CO2 sink? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006603 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jacobson, A. R., Fletcher, S. E. M., Gruber, N., Sarmiento, J. L. & Gloor, M. A joint atmosphere‐ocean inversion for surface fluxes of carbon dioxide: 1. Methods and global‐scale fluxes. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB1019 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Resplandy, L. et al. Revision of global carbon fluxes based on a reassessment of oceanic and riverine carbon transport. Nat. Geosci. 11, 504–509 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee, L.-C. et al. Unusual roles of discharge, slope and SOC in DOC transport in small mountainous rivers, Taiwan. Sci. Rep. 9, 1574 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reddy, S. K. K. et al. Export of particulate organic carbon by the mountainous tropical rivers of Western Ghats, India: variations and controls. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 142115 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X., Tarpley, D. & Sullivan, J. T. Diverse responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L19405 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Heathcote, A. J., Anderson, N. J., Prairie, Y. T., Engstrom, D. R. & del Giorgio, P. A. Large increases in carbon burial in northern lakes during the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 6, 10016 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guillemette, F., Berggren, M., Giorgio, P. Adel. & Lapierre, J.-F. Increases in terrestrially derived carbon stimulate organic carbon processing and CO2 emissions in boreal aquatic ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 4, 2972 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hastie, A., Lauerwald, R., Ciais, P., Papa, F. & Regnier, P. Historical and future contributions of inland waters to the Congo Basin carbon balance. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12, 37–62 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakhavali, M. et al. Leaching of dissolved organic carbon from mineral soils plays a significant role in the terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1083–1096 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tian, H. et al. Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: current status and future directions. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 775–792 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Öquist, M. G. et al. The full annual carbon balance of boreal forests is highly sensitive to precipitation. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1, 315–319 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. B.Jr, Stanley, E. H. & Mulholland, P. J. Long‐term decline in carbon dioxide supersaturation in rivers across the contiguous United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1495 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. & Oh, N.-H. Long term changes of chemical weathering products in rivers heavily impacted from acid mine drainage: insights on the impact of coal mining on regional and global carbon and sulfur budgets. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 284, 50–56 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ran, L. et al. Substantial decrease in CO2 emissions from Chinese inland waters due to global change. Nat. Commun. 12, 1730 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zarnetske, J. P., Bouda, M., Geophysical, B. A., Saiers, J. & Raymond, P. Generality of hydrologic transport limitation of watershed organic carbon flux across ecoregions of the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11,702–11,711 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, S. et al. The importance of hydrology in routing terrestrial carbon to the atmosphere via global streams and rivers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2106322119 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nydahl, A. C., Wallin, M. B. & Weyhenmeyer, G. A. No long‐term trends in pCO2 despite increasing organic carbon concentrations in boreal lakes, streams, and rivers. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 985–995 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. & Hamilton, S. K. Anthropogenic influences on riverine fluxes of dissolved inorganic carbon to the oceans. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 143–155 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ulseth, A. J., Bertuzzo, E., Singer, G. A., Schelker, J. & Battin, T. J. Climate-induced changes in spring snowmelt impact ecosystem metabolism and carbon fluxes in an Alpine stream network. Ecosystems 21, 373–390 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berghuijs, W. R., Woods, R. A. & Hrachowitz, M. A precipitation shift from snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 583–586 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, T. W. et al. Mobilization of aged and biolabile soil carbon by tropical deforestation. Nat. Geosci. 12, 541–546 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wit, F. et al. The impact of disturbed peatlands on river outgassing in Southeast Asia. Nat. Commun. 6, 10155 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moore, S., Gauci, V., Evans, C. D. & Page, S. E. Fluvial organic carbon losses from a Bornean blackwater river. Biogeosciences 8, 901–909 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Masese, F. O., Salcedo-Borda, J. S., Gettel, G. M., Irvine, K. & McClain, M. E. Influence of catchment land use and seasonality on dissolved organic matter composition and ecosystem metabolism in headwater streams of a Kenyan river. Biogeochemistry 132, 1–22 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bernot, M. J. et al. Inter‐regional comparison of land‐use effects on stream metabolism. Freshw. Biol. 55, 1874–1890 (2010). Among the first studies showing how land use alters ecosystem metabolism across geographic regions.Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffiths, N. A. et al. Agricultural land use alters the seasonality and magnitude of stream metabolism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 1513–1529 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sweeney, B. W. et al. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 101, 14132–14137 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roley, S. S., Tank, J. L., Griffiths, N. A., Hall, R. O. Jr & Davis, R. T. The influence of floodplain restoration on whole-stream metabolism in an agricultural stream: insights from a 5-year continuous data set. Freshw. Sci. 33, 1043–1059 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, J. T., Stanley, E. H., Dornblaser, M. M. & Striegl, R. G. CO2 time series patterns in contrasting headwater streams of North America. Aquat. Sci. 79, 473–486 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blackburn, S. R. & Stanley, E. H. Floods increase carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in agricultural streams. Freshw. Biol. 66, 62–77 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, G. P., Paul, E. A. & Harwood, R. R. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289, 1922–1925 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Min, S.-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Hegerl, G. C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470, 378–381 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yin, J. et al. Large increase in global storm runoff extremes driven by climate and anthropogenic changes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4389 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Myhre, G. et al. Sensible heat has significantly affected the global hydrological cycle over the historical period. Nat. Commun. 9, 1922 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Messager, M. L. et al. Global prevalence of non-perennial rivers and streams. Nature 594, 391–397 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, A. S., Wondzell, S. M., Schmadel, N. M. & Herzog, S. P. Climate change causes river network contraction and disconnection in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon, USA. Front. Water 2, 7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sabater, S., Timoner, X., Borrego, C. & Acuña, V. Stream biofilm responses to flow intermittency: from cells to ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Gener, L., Lupon, A., Laudon, H. & Sponseller, R. A. Drought alters the biogeochemistry of boreal stream networks. Nat. Commun. 11, 1795 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marcé, R. et al. Emissions from dry inland waters are a blind spot in the global carbon cycle. Earth Sci. Rev. 188, 240–248 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blaszczak, J. R., Delesantro, J. M., Urban, D. L., Doyle, M. W. & Bernhardt, E. S. Scoured or suffocated: urban stream ecosystems oscillate between hydrologic and dissolved oxygen extremes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 877–894 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reisinger, A. J. et al. Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods. Ecosphere 8, e01776 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, B. & Hotchkiss, E. R. Coupling concentration‐ and process‐discharge relationships integrates water chemistry and metabolism in streams. Water Resour. Res. 55, 10179–10190 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thellman, A. et al. The ecology of river ice. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2021JG006275 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maavara, T. et al. River dam impacts on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 103–116 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosentreter, J. A. et al. Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources. Nat. Geosci. 14, 225–230 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barros, N. et al. Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat. Geosci. 4, 593–596 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keller, P. S., Marcé, R., Obrador, B. & Koschorreck, M. Global carbon budget of reservoirs is overturned by the quantification of drawdown areas. Nat. Geosci. 14, 402–408 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Calamita, E. et al. Unaccounted CO2 leaks downstream of a large tropical hydroelectric reservoir. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2026004118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J.-H. et al. Reviews and syntheses: anthropogenic perturbations to carbon fluxes in Asian river systems – concepts, emerging trends, and research challenges. Biogeosciences 15, 3049–3069 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosamond, M. S., Thuss, S. J. & Schiff, S. L. Dependence of riverine nitrous oxide emissions on dissolved oxygen levels. Nat. Geosci. 5, 715–718 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stanley, E. H. et al. The ecology of methane in streams and rivers: patterns, controls, and global significance. Ecol. Monogr. 86, 146–171 (2016). Key paper highlighting the role of streams and rivers for methane production and emissions and developing a conceptual framework on the environmental drivers of methane dynamics in fluvial ecosystems.Article 

Google Scholar 
Breitburg, D. et al. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 359, eaam7240 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jane, S. F. et al. Widespread deoxygenation of temperate lakes. Nature 594, 66–70 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Triska, F. J., Kennedy, V. C., Avanzino, R. J., Zellweger, G. W. & Bencala, K. E. Retention and transport of nutrients in a third‐order stream in northwestern California: hyporheic processes. Ecology 70, 1893–1905 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, A. M., Blaszczak, J. R., Heffernan, J. B. & Bernhardt, E. S. Hypoxia dynamics and spatial distribution in a low gradient river. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 2251–2265 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kadygrov, N. et al. On the potential of the ICOS atmospheric CO2 measurement network for estimating the biogenic CO2 budget of Europe. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 12765–12787 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, P. C., Weathers, K. C. & Kratz, T. K. Networked lake science: how the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) works to understand, predict, and communicate lake ecosystem response to global change. Inland Waters 6, 543–554 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Claustre, H., Johnson, K. S. & Takeshita, Y. Observing the global ocean with biogeochemical-Argo. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 23–48 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jankowski, K. J., Mejia, F. H., Blaszczak, J. R. & Holtgrieve, G. W. Aquatic ecosystem metabolism as a tool in environmental management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 8, e1521 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, F. et al. Moving beyond the technology: a socio-technical roadmap for low-cost water sensor network applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 9145–9158 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J., Kim, K. T. & Lee, W. H. Recent advances in information and communications technology (ICT) and sensor technology for monitoring water quality. Water 12, 510 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yamazaki, D. et al. MERIT Hydro: a high‐resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset. Water Resour. Res. 55, 5053–5073 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, P., Pan, M., Wood, E. F., Yamazaki, D. & Allen, G. H. A new vector-based global river network dataset accounting for variable drainage density. Sci. Data 8, 28 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, G. H. & Pavelsky, T. M. Global extent of rivers and streams. Science 361, 585–587 (2018).Article 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Durand, M. et al. An intercomparison of remote sensing river discharge estimation algorithms from measurements of river height, width, and slope. Water Resour. Res. 52, 4527–4549 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frasson, R. P. M. et al. Exploring the factors controlling the error characteristics of the surface water and ocean topography mission discharge estimates. Water Resour. Res. 57, e2020WR028519 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dethier, E. N., Renshaw, C. E. & Magilligan, F. J. Rapid changes to global river suspended sediment flux by humans. Science 376, 1447–1452 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, A. D. et al. A review of carbon monitoring in wet carbon systems using remote sensing. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 025009 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, G. H. et al. Similarity of stream width distributions across headwater systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 610 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. & Rinaldo, A. Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-organization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001). Game-changing oeuvre formalizing the structure and function of river networks.Bertuzzo, E., Helton, A. M., Hall, Robert, O. & Battin, T. J. Scaling of dissolved organic carbon removal in river networks. Adv. Water Resour. 110, 136–146 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzadri, A., Dee, M. M., Tonina, D., Bellin, A. & Tank, J. L. Role of surface and subsurface processes in scaling N2O emissions along riverine networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4330–4335 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzadri, A. et al. Global riverine nitrous oxide emissions: the role of small streams and large rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145148 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Botter, G. & Durighetto, N. The stream length duration curve: a tool for characterizing the time variability of the flowing stream length. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2020WR027282 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wollheim, W. M. et al. River network saturation concept: factors influencing the balance of biogeochemical supply and demand of river networks. Biogeochemistry 141, 503–521 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durighetto, N., Vingiani, F., Bertassello, L. E., Camporese, M. & Botter, G. Intraseasonal drainage network dynamics in a headwater catchment of the Italian Alps. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR02556 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Montgomery, D. R. & Dietrich, W. E. Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resour. Res. 25, 1907–1918 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fatichi, S., Ivanov, V. Y. & Caporali, E. A mechanistic ecohydrological model to investigate complex interactions in cold and warm water‐controlled environments: 1. Theoretical framework and plot‐scale analysis. J. Adv. Model. Earth. Syst. 4, M05002 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Ulseth, A. J. et al. Distinct air–water gas exchange regimes in low- and high-energy streams. Nat. Geosci. 12, 259–263 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hall, R. O. in Streams and Ecosystems in a Changing Environment (eds. Jones, J. J. & Stanley, E. H.) 151–180 (Academic, 2016).Butman, D. & Raymond, P. A. Significant efflux of carbon dioxide from streams and rivers in the United States. Nat. Geosci. 4, 839–842 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Duvert, C., Butman, D. E., Marx, A., Ribolzi, O. & Hutley, L. B. CO2 evasion along streams driven by groundwater inputs and geomorphic controls. Nat. Geosci. 11, 813–818 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L. et al. Significant methane ebullition from alpine permafrost rivers on the East Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Nat. Geosci. 13, 349–354 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  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

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

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

Guillou, L. et al. Widespread occurrence and genetic diversity of marine parasitoids belonging to Syndiniales (Alveolata). Environ. Microbiol. 10, 3349–3365 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Massana, R. Eukaryotic picoplankton in surface oceans. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 65, 91–110 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rocke, E., Pachiadaki, M. G., Cobban, A., Kujawinski, E. B. & Edgcomb, V. P. Protist community grazing on prokaryotic prey in deep ocean water masses. PLoS ONE 10, e0124505 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Vargas, C. et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Science 348, 1261605 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibarbalz, F. M. et al. Global trends in marine plankton diversity across kingdoms of life. Cell 179, 1084–1097 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cordier, T. et al. Patterns of eukaryotic diversity from the surface to the deep-ocean sediment. Sci. Adv. 8, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj9309 (2022).Giner, C. R. et al. Marked changes in diversity and relative activity of picoeukaryotes with depth in the world ocean. ISME J. 14, 437–449 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Obiol, A. et al. A metagenomic assessment of microbial eukaryotic diversity in the global ocean. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 718–731 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pernice, M. C. et al. Large variability of bathypelagic microbial eukaryotic communities across the world’s oceans. ISME J. 10, 945–958 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santoferrara, L. et al. Perspectives from ten years of protist studies by high‐throughput metabarcoding. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 67, 612–622 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoenle, A. et al. High and specific diversity of protists in the deep-sea basins dominated by diplonemids, kinetoplastids, ciliates and foraminiferans. Commun. Biol. 4, 1–10 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sommeria-Klein, G. et al. Global drivers of eukaryotic plankton biogeography in the sunlit ocean. Science 374, 594–599 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, J. É. et al. Global and regional drivers of nutrient supply, primary production and CO2 drawdown in the changing Arctic Ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 139, 171–196 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zoccarato, L., Pallavicini, A., Cerino, F., Umani, S. F. & Celussi, M. Water mass dynamics shape Ross Sea protist communities in mesopelagic and bathypelagic layers. Prog. Oceanogr. 149, 16–26 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, T. E. G., Huisman, J. & Brussaard, C. P. D. Viral lysis modifies seasonal phytoplankton dynamics and carbon flow in the Southern Ocean. ISME J. 15, 3615–3622 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, L. J., Bestley, S., Bissett, A. & Deagle, B. E. A globally distributed Syndiniales parasite dominates the Southern Ocean micro-eukaryote community near the sea-ice edge. ISME J. 13, 734–737 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gast, R. J., Fay, S. A. & Sanders, R. W. Mixotrophic activity and diversity of Antarctic marine protists in austral summer. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 13 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grattepanche, J. D., Jeffrey, W. H., Gast, R. J. & Sanders, R. W. Diversity of microbial eukaryotes along the West Antarctic Peninsula in austral spring. Front. Microbiol. 13, 844856 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamilton, M. et al. Spatiotemporal variations in Antarctic protistan communities highlight phytoplankton diversity and seasonal dominance by a novel cryptophyte lineage. mBio 12, e0297321 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y. et al. Decline in plankton diversity and carbon flux with reduced sea ice extent along the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Nat. Commun. 12, 4948 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, K. et al. The biogeographic differentiation of algal microbiomes in the upper ocean from pole to pole. Nat. Commun. 12, 5483 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vernet, M. et al. The Weddell Gyre, Southern Ocean: present knowledge and future challenges. Rev. Geophysics 57, 623–708 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, J. E. The structure and circulation of deep water in the Antarctic. Deep‐Sea Res. 19, 563–575 (1972).
Google Scholar 
Janout, M. A. et al. FRIS revisited in 2018: on the circulation and water masses at the Filchner and Ronne ice shelves in the southern Weddell Sea. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 126, e2021JC017269 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orsi, A. H., Smethie, W. M. & Bullister, J. L. On the total input of Antarctic waters to the deep ocean: a preliminary estimate from chlorofluorocarbon measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 3122 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoppema, M., Fahrbach, E. & Schröder, M. On the total carbon dioxide and oxygen signature of the circumpolar deep water in the Weddell Gyre. Oceanol. Acta 20, 783–798 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karstensen, J. & Tomczak, M. Age determination of mixed water masses using CFC and oxygen data. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 18599–18609 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Cáceres, M. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P. & Moretti, M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dufrene, M. & Legendre, P. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 345–366 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Agogué, H., Lamy, D., Neal, P. R., Sogin, M. L. & Herndl, G. J. Water mass-specificity of bacterial communities in the North Atlantic revealed by massively parallel sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 20, 258–274 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Celussi, M., Bergamasco, A., Cataletto, B., Umani, S. F. & Del Negro, P. Water masses bacterial community structure and microbial activities in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Antarct. Sci. 22, 361–370 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galand, P. E., Potvin, M., Casamayor, E. O. & Lovejoy, C. Hydrography shapes bacterial biogeography of the deep Arctic Ocean. ISME J. 4, 564–576 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamdan, L. J. Ocean currents shape the microbiome of Arctic marine sediments. ISME J. 7, 685–696 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins, D., van Sebille, E., Rintoul, S. R., Lauro, F. M. & Cavicchioli, R. Advection shapes Southern Ocean microbial assemblages independent of distance and environment effects. Nat. Commun. 4, 2457 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flegontova, O. et al. Extreme diversity of diplonemid eukaryotes in the ocean. Curr. Biol. 26, 3060–3065 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. A. et al. Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1819–1827 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jeong, H. J. et al. Growth, feeding and ecological roles of the mixotrophic and heterotrophic dinoflagellates in marine planktonic food webs. Ocean Sci. 45, 65–91 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker, D. K., Hansen, P. J., Caron, D. A. & Mitra, A. Mixotrophy in the marine Plankton. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 311–335 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boeuf, D. et al. Biological composition and microbial dynamics of sinking particulate organic matter at abyssal depths in the oligotrophic open ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11824–11832 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gutierrez-Rodriguez, A. et al. High contribution of Rhizaria (Radiolaria) to vertical export in the California Current Ecosystem revealed by DNA metabarcoding. ISME J. 13, 964–976 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lampitt, R. S., Salter, I. & Johns, D. Radiolaria: major exporters of organic carbon to the deep ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB1010 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suzuki, N. & Not, F. In Marine Protists: Diversity and Dynamics 179–222 (Springer Japan, 2015).Decelle, J. et al. Diversity, ecology and biogeochemistry of cyst-forming Acantharia (Radiolaria) in the oceans. PLoS ONE 8, e53598 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tashyreva, D. et al. Diplonemids—a review on “new“ flagellates on the oceanic block. Protist 173, 125868 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flegontova, O. et al. Environmental determinants of the distribution of planktonic diplonemids and kinetoplastids in the oceans. Environ. Microbiol 22, 4014–4031 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, D. et al. Microbial eukaryote diversity and activity in the water column of the South China sea based on DNA and RNA high throughput sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1121 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bråte, J. et al. Radiolaria associated with large diversity of marine alveolates. Protist 163, 767–777 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strassert, J. F. H. et al. Single cell genomics of uncultured marine alveolates shows paraphyly of basal dinoflagellates. ISME J. 12, 304–308 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yabuki, A. & Tame, A. Phylogeny and reclassification of Hemistasia phaeocysticola (Scherffel) Elbrächter & Schnepf, 1996. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 62, 426–429 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Larsen, J. & Patterson, J. Some flagellates (Protista) from tropical marine sediments. J. Nat. Hist. 24, 801–937 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prokopchuk, G. et al. Trophic flexibility of marine diplonemids – switching from osmotrophy to bacterivory. ISME J. 16, 1409–1419 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arístegui, J. & Gasol, J. Microbial oceanography of the dark ocean’s pelagic realm. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 1501–1529 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amaral-Zettler, L. A., McCliment, E. A., Ducklow, H. W. & Huse, S. M. A method for studying protistan diversity using massively parallel sequencing of V9 hypervariable regions of small-subunit ribosomal RNA genes. PLoS ONE 4, e6372 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mahé, F., Rognes, T., Quince, C., de Vargas, C. & Dunthorn, M. Swarm v2: highly-scalable and high-resolution amplicon clustering. PeerJ 3, e1420 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolisko, M. et al. EukRef-excavates: seven curated SSU ribosomal RNA gene databases. Database 2020, baaa080 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Adl, S. M. et al. Revisions to the classification, nomenclature, and diversity of eukaryotes. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 66, 4–119 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salazar, G. et al. Gene expression changes and community turnover differentially shape the global ocean metatranscriptome. Cell 179, 1068–1083 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  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