Philippa Kaur

1.
Hutchinson, G. E. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 22, 415–427 (1957).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Nelson, J. S., Grande, T. C. & Wilson, M. V. H. Fishes of the World (Wiley, Hoboken, 2016).
Google Scholar 

3.
Song, A. M., Scholtens, J., Stephen, J., Bavinck, M. & Chuenpagdee, R. Transboundary research in fisheries. Mar. Policy 76, 8–18 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Fredston-Hermann, A., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Biogeographic constraints to marine conservation in a changing climate. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 367, 49–13 (2018).
Google Scholar 

5.
Østhagen, A. Maritime boundary disputes: what are they and why do they matter?. Mar. Policy 120, 104118 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
United Nations. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—Part V. (1986).

7.
Munro, G., Van Houtte, A. & Willmann, R. The Conservation and Management of Shared Fish Stocks: Legal and Economic Aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 456. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome (2004).

8.
Miller, K. & Munro, G. Cooperation and Conflicts in the Management of Transboundary Fishery Resources. (Proceeding of the Second World Conference of the Second World Congress of the American; European Associations of Environmental; Resource Economics, 2002).

9.
Englander, G. Property rights and the protection of global marine resources. Nature Sustainability 2, 981–987 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Spijkers, J. & Boonstra, W. J. Environmental change and social conflict: the northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1835–1851 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Miller, K. A., Munro, G. R., Sumaila, U. R. & Cheung, W. W. L. Governing marine fisheries in a changing climate: a game-theoretic perspective. Can J Agric Econ 61, 309–334 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
United Nations. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. (1995).

14.
Caddy, J. Establishing a consultative mechanism or arrangement for managing shared stocks within the jurisdiction of contiguous states. In Taking stock Defining and Managing Shared Resources (ed. Hancock, D. A.) 80–123 (Australian Society for Fish Biology, Adelaide, 1997).
Google Scholar 

15.
Teh, L. S. L. & Sumaila, U. R. Trends in global shared fisheries. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 530, 243–254 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). Carta Nacional Pesquera. Poder Ejecutivo—Secreataría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca (SAGARPA). Diario Oficial de la Federación DOF, 1–268 (2018).

17.
MAP. Dictamen de Extracción No Perjudicial (DENP) de la población de “tiburón martillo” Sphyrna zygaena. Oficio N. 1038–2017-PRODUCE/DGPCHDI (Tra. N. 18254–2017). Ministerio del Ambiente, Viceministerio de Desarrollo Estratégico de los Recursos Naturales, Peru (2017).

18.
Ramesh, N., Rising, J. A. & Oremus, K. L. The small world of global marine fisheries: The cross-boundary consequences of larval dispersal. Science 364, 1192–1196 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

19.
Levin, N., Beger, M., Maina, J., McClanahan, T. & Kark, S. Evaluating the potential for transboundary management of marine biodiversity in the Western Indian Ocean. Australas. J. Environ.Manag. 25, 62–85 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Popova, E. et al. Ecological connectivity between the areas beyond national jurisdiction and coastal waters: safeguarding interests of coastal communities in developing countries. Mar. Policy 104, 90–102 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Dunn, D. C. et al. The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 286, 20191472 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Kaplan, D. M. et al. Uncertainty in empirical estimates of marine larval connectivity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1723–1734 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Archambault, B. et al. Adult-mediated connectivity affects inferences on population dynamics and stock assessment of nursery-dependent fish populations. Global Environ. Change 181, 198–213 (2016).
Google Scholar 

24.
Cashion, T. et al. Establishing company level fishing revenue and profit losses from fisheries: A bottom-up approach. Journals Plos.Org 13, e0207768 (2018).
Google Scholar 

25.
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. 1–227 (2018).

26.
UNDP. Chile and Peru sign Landmark Agreement to Sustain world’s Largest Single Species Fishery (2016).

27.
NOAA FIsheries. Bilateral Agreement Between the United States and Russia (2019).

28.
Kleisner, K. & Pauly, D. Stock-Status Plots of Fisheries for Regional Seas. in The State of Biodiversity and Fisheries in Regional Seas (eds. Christensen, V., Lai, S., Palomares, M. L. D., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D.) 37–40 (The Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia; Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 2011).

29.
Jensen, F., Frost, H., Thogersen, T., Andersen, P. & Andersen, J. L. Game theory and fish wars: the case of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel fishery. Fisheries 172, 7–16 (2015).
Google Scholar 

30.
Munro, G. R. The management of shared fishery resources under extended jurisdiction. Mar. Resour. Econ. 3, 271–296 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Eide, A., Heen, K., Armstrong, C., Flaaten, O. & Vasiliev, A. Challenges and successes in the management of a shared fish stock—the case of the Russian-Norwegian barents sea cod fishery. Acta Borealia 30, 1–20 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Sumaila, U. R., Ninnes, C. & Oelofsen, B. Management of Shared Hake Stocks in the Benguela Marine Ecosystem. In Papers presented at the norway-fao expert consultation on the management of shared fish stocks, 143–159 (2003).

33.
Clark, C. W. Restricted Access to Common-Property Fishery Resources: A Game-Theoretic Analysis. In Dynamic optimization and mathematical economics, 117–132 (Springer, Boston, MA, 1980).

34.
Spijkers, J. et al. Global patterns of fisheries conflict: forty years of data. Global Environ. Change 57, 101921 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Oremus, K. L. et al. Governance challenges for tropical nations losing fish species due to climate change. Nat. Sustain. 6, 1–4 (2020).
Google Scholar 

36.
Palacios-Abrantes, J., Rashid Sumaila, U. & Cheung, W. W. L. Challenges to transboundary fisheries management in North America under climate change. Ecol. Soc. (in press).

37.
Sumaila, U. R., Palacios-Abrantes, J. & Cheung, W. W. L. Climate change, shifting threat points and the management of transboundary fish stocks. Ecol. Soc. (in press).

38.
Reygondeau, G. Current and future biogeography of marine exploited groups under climate change. In Predicting Future Oceans Sustainability of Ocean and Human Systems Amidst Global Environmental Change (eds. Cheung, W. W. L., Ota, Y. & Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M.) 87–99 (2019).

39.
Schill, S. R. et al. No reef is an island: integrating coral reef connectivity data into the design of regional-scale marine protected area networks. PLoS ONE 10, e0144199 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Perez, A. U., Schmitter-Soto, J. J., Adams, A. J. & Heyman, W. D. Connectivity mediated by seasonal bonefish (Albula vulpes) migration between the Caribbean Sea and a tropical estuary of Belize and Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fishes 102, 197–207 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Pauly, D., Weatherdon, L. V. & Ota, Y. A Global estimate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 11, e0166681 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

42.
Hanich, Q. et al. Small-scale fisheries under climate change in the Pacific Islands region. Mar. Policy 88, 279–284 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Cabral, R. B. & Geronimo, R. C. How important are coral reefs to food security in the Philippines? Diving deeper than national aggregates and averages. Mar. Policy 91, 136–141 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Zeller, D. et al. Still catching attention: Sea Around Us reconstructed global catch data, their spatial expression and public accessibility. Mar. Policy 70, 145–152 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R. & Araújo, M. B. BIOMOD—a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32, 369–373 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Beaugrand, G., Lenoir, S., Ibanez, F. & Manté, C. A new model to assess the probability of occurrence of a species, based on presence-only data. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 424, 175–190 (2011).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Asch, R. G., Cheung, W. W. L. & Reygondeau, G. Future marine ecosystem drivers, biodiversity, and fisheries maximum catch potential in Pacific Island countries and territories under climate change. Mar. Policy 88, 285–294 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Close, C. et al. Distribution ranges of commercial fishes and invertebrates. In Fisheries Centre Research Reports. Fishes in Databases and Ecosystems (eds. Palomares, M. D., Stergiou, K. I. & Pauly, D.) 27–37 (2006).

50.
Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Global Atlas of Marine Fisheries 1–520 (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2016).
Google Scholar 

51.
Kaschner, K. et al. AquaMaps: Predicted range maps for aquatic species www.aquamaps.org (2016).

52.
Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun. 7:10244,1–9 (2019).

53.
Pebesma, E. et al. Package sf; Simple Features for R. R ( >= 3.3.0), (2018).

54.
Tai, T. C., Cashion, T., Lam, V. W. Y. & Sumaila, U. R. Ex-vessel fish price database: disaggregating prices for low-priced species from reduction fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–10 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Sumaila, U. R., Teh, L., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. The global ex-vessel fish price database. In Catch Reconstructions: Concepts, Methods and Data Sources (eds. Pauly D., & Zeller, S.) www.searoundus.org (2015).

56.
Grainger, R. J. R. & Garcia, S. M. Chronicles of Marine Fishery Landings (1950 1994) Trend Analysis and Fisheries Potential (1996).

57.
Pauly, D., Hilborn, R. & Branch, T. A. Fisheries: does catch reflect abundance?. Nature 494, 303–306 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

58.
Branch, T. A. Not all fisheries will be collapsed in 2048. Mar. Policy 32, 38–39 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Dowle, M. et al. Package data.table; Extension of ‘data.frame‘. R ( >= 3.1.0), MPL–2.0 | file LICENSE (2019).

60.
Firke, S., Haid, C., Knight, R. & Denney, B. Package janitor; Simple tools for examining and cleaning dirty data. R ( >= 3.1.2), (2018).

61.
Ram, K., Wickham, H., Richards, C. & Baggett, A. Package wesanderson; A Wes Anderson Palette Generator. R ( >= 3.0), MIT + file LICENSE (2018).

62.
Boettiger, C., Chamberlain, S., Lang, D. T. & Wainwright, P. Package rfishbase; R Interface to ’FishBase’. R ( >= 3.0), (2019).

63.
Bengtsson, H., Jacobson, A. & Riedy, J. Package R.matlab: Read and Write MAT Files and Call MATLAB from Within R. R ( 2.14.0), LGPL–2.1 | LGPL–3 (2018).

64.
Pebesma, E. et al. Package sp; Classes and methods for Spatial Data. R ( 3.0.0), GPL–2 | GPL–3 (2019).

65.
Wickham, H. Package tidyverse; Easily Install and Load the ’Tidyverse’. R (3.5.0), MIT + file LICENSE (2017).

66.
De Queiroz, G. et al. Package tidytext; Text Mining using ’dplyr’, ’ggplot2’, and Other Tidy Tools. R ( 2.10), MIT (2019).

67.
Zeileis, A., Grothendieck, G., Ryan, J. A., Ulrich, J. M. & Andrews, F. Package zoo; S3 Infrastructure for Regular and Irregular Time Series (Z’s Ordered Observations). R ( >= 3.1.0), GPL–2 | GPL–3 (2019).

68.
Chambers, J. M., Freeny, A. E. & Heiberger, R. M. Analysis of Variance; Designed Experiments. In Statistical models in s (eds Chambers, J. M. & Hastie, T. J.) 145–193 (Routledge, London, 1992).
Google Scholar 

69.
Krzanowski, W. J. Principles of Multivariate Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990).
Google Scholar 

70.
Hollander, M. & Wolfe, D. A. Nonparametric Statistical Methods (Wiley, Hoboken, 2013).
Google Scholar 

71.
Moore, B. R. et al. Defining the stock structures of key commercial tunas in the Pacific Ocean I: current knowledge and main uncertainties. Global Environ. Change 230, 105525 (2020).
Google Scholar 

72.
Sepulveda, C. A., Wang, M., Aalbers, S. A. & Alvarado-Bremer, J. R. Insights into the horizontal movements, migration patterns, and stock affiliation of California swordfish. Fish. Oceanogr. 29, 152–168 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Vandeperre, F. et al. Movements of Blue Sharks (Prionace glauca) across Their Life History. PLoS ONE 9, e103538–e103614 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

74.
Chavez, F. P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S. E. & Niquen, C. M. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299, 217–221 (2003).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

1.
Fox, L. R. Cannibalism in natural populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6, 87–106 (1975).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Polis, G. A. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 12, 225–251 (1981).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Elgar, M. A. & Crespi, B. J. Ecology and evolution of cannibalism. In Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa (eds Elgar, M. A. & Crespi, B. J.) 1–12 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992).
Google Scholar 

4.
Richardson, M. L., Mitchell, R. F., Reagel, P. F. & Hanks, L. M. Causes and consequences of cannibalism in noncarnivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 39–53 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Vilaça, A. Relations between funerary cannibalism and warfare cannibalism: The question of predation. Ethnos 65, 83–106 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Lopez-Riquelme, G. O. & Fanjul-Moles, M. L. The funeral ways of social insects. Social strategies for corpse disposal. Trends Entomol. 9, 71–129 (2013).
Google Scholar 

7.
Walls, S. C. & Roudebush, R. E. Reduced aggression toward siblings as evidence of kin recognition in cannibalistic salamanders. Am. Nat 138, 1027–1038 (1991).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Pfennig, D. W. Cannibalistic tadpoles that pose the greatest threat to kin are most likely to discriminate kin. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 57–61 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bilde, T. & Lubin, Y. Kin recognition and cannibalism in a subsocial spider. J. Evolut. Biol. 14, 959–966 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Santana, A. F. K., Roselino, A. C., Cappelari, F. A. & Zucoloto, F. S. Cannibalism in insects. In Insect bioecology and nutrition for integrated pest management (eds Panizzi, A. R. & Parra, J. R. P.) 177–190 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012).
Google Scholar 

11.
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. The ants (The Belknap Press of Harvard University, London, 1990).
Google Scholar 

12.
Schmickl, T. & Crailsheim, K. Cannibalism and early capping: strategy of honeybee colonies in times of experimental pollen shortage. J. Comput. Physiol. A 187, 541–547 (2001).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Sun, Q. & Zhou, X. Corpse management in social insects. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 9, 313–321 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Davis, H. E., Meconcelli, S., Rudek, R. & McMahon, D. P. Termites shape their collective behavioural response based on stage of infection. Sci. Rep. 8, 14433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32721-7 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

15.
Mabelis, A. A. Wood ant wars: the relationship between aggression and predation in the red wood ant (Formica polyctena Först.). Neth. J. Zool. 29, 451–620 (1979).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Driessen, G. J. J., Van Raalte, ATh. & De Bruyn, G. Cannibalism in the red wood ant, Formica polyctena (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Oecologia 63, 13–22 (1984).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Yao, M. et al. The ancient chemistry of avoiding risks of predation and disease. Evol. Biol. 36, 267–281 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Visscher, P. K. The honey bee way of death: Necrophoric behaviour in Apis mellifera colonies. Anim. Behav. 31, 1070–1076 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Oi, D. H. & Pereira, R. M. Ant behavior and microbial pathogens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Entomol. 76, 63–74 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Nazzi, F., Della Vedova, G. & D’Agaro, M. A semiochemical from brood cells infested by Varroa destructor triggers hygienic behaviour in Apis mellifera. Apidologie 35, 65–70 (2004).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Renucci, M., Tirrard, A. & Provost, E. Complex undertaking behavior in Temnothorax lichtensteini ant colonies: From corpse-burying behavior to necrophoric behavior. Insect. Soc. 58, 9–16 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Diez, L., Le Borgne, H., Lejeune, P. & Detrain, C. Who brings out the dead? Necrophoresis in the red ant Myrmica rubra. Anim. Behav. 6, 1259–1264 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Baracchi, D., Fadda, A. & Turillazzi, S. Evidence for antiseptic behaviour towards sick adult bees in honey bee colonies. J. Insect. Physiol. 58, 1589–1596 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Pull, Ch. D. et al. Destructive disinfection of infected brood prevents systemic disease spread in ant colonies. eLife 7, e32073. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32073 (2018).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Leclerc, J.-B. & Detrain, C. Ants detect but do not discriminate diseased workers within their nest. Sci. Nat. 103, 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-016-1394-8 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Williams, T. & Hernandez, O. Costs of cannibalism in the presence of an iridovirus pathogen of Spodoptera frugiperda. Ecol. Entomol. 31, 106–113 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Rudolf, V. H. W. & Antonovics, J. Disease transmission by cannibalism: rare event or common occurrence?. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274, 1205–1210 (2007).
Google Scholar 

28.
Sadeh, A. & Rosenheim, J. A. Cannibalism amplifies the spread of vertically transmitted pathogens. Ecology 97, 1994–2002 (2016).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Claessen, D., de Roos, A. M. & Persson, L. Population dynamic theory of size-dependent cannibalism. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 333–340 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Pfennig, D. W., Ho, S. G. & Hoffman, E. A. Pathogen transmission as a selective force against cannibalism. Anim. Behav. 55, 1255–1261 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Loreto, R. G. & Hughes, D. P. Disease in the society: infectious cadavers result in collapse of ant sub-colonies. PLoS ONE 11, e0160820 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Hughes, W. H., Eilenberg, J. & Boomsmal, J. J. Trade-offs in group living: Transmission and disease resistance in leaf-cutting ants. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1811–1819 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Cremer, S. & Sixt, M. Analogies in the evolution of individual and social immunity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 129–142 (2009).
Google Scholar 

34.
Konrad, M. et al. Social transfer of pathogenic fungus promotes active immunisation in ant colonies. PLoS ONE 10, 1–15 (2012).
Google Scholar 

35.
Liu, L., Ganghua, L., Pengdong, S., Chaoliang, L. & Quiying, H. Experimental verification and molecular basis of active immunization against fungal pathogens in termites. Sci. Rep. 5, 15106. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15106 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Marikovsky, P. I. On some features of behaviour of the ants Formica rufa L. infected with fungus disease. Insect. Soc. 2, 173–179 (1962).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Rutkowski, T. et al. Ants trapped for years in an old bunker; survival by cannibalism and eventual escape. J. Hymenopt. Res. 72, 177–184 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Seifert, B. Die Ameisen Mittel- und Nordeuropas (Lutra-Verlags-und Vertriebsgesellschaft, Görlitz, 2007).
Google Scholar 

39.
Czechowski, W., Radchenko, A., Czechowska, W. & Vepsäläinen, K. The ants of Poland with reference to the myrmecofauna of Europe. Fauna Poloniae (n.s.) 4. (Natura Optima Dux Foundation, 2012).

40.
Meyling, N. V. & Eilenberg, J. Ecology of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in temperate agroecosystems: Potential for conservation biological control. Biol. Control 43, 145–155 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Reber, A. & Chapuisat, M. Diversity, prevalence and virulence of fungal entomopathogens in colonies of the ant Formica selysi. Insect. Soc. 59, 231–239 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

42.
Hajek, A. E. & St. Leger, R. J. Interactions between fungal pathogens and insect hosts. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39, 293–322 (1994).
Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Maák, I. et al. Cues or meaningless objects? Differential responses of the ant Formica cinerea to corpses of competitors and enslavers. Anim. Behav. 91, 53–59 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Csata, E. & Dussutour, A. Nutrient regulation in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): A review. Myrmecol. News 29, 111–124 (2019).
Google Scholar 

45.
Nonacs, P. Death in the distance: Mortality risk as information for foraging ants. Behaviour 112, 23–35 (1990).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Roces, F. & Núṅez, J. A. Information about food quality influences load-size selection in recruited leaf-cutting ants. Anim. Behav. 45, 135–143 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Song, D., Hu, X. P. & Su, N.-Y. Survivorship, cannibalism, body weight loss, necrophagy, and entombement in laboratory groups of the Formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus under starvation (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 47, 27–39 (2006).
Google Scholar 

48.
Heifig, I., Lima, J. T., Janei, V. & Costa-Leonardo, A. M. Effects of group size and starvation on survival of the Asian subterranean termite Coptotermes gestroi (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Austral Entomol. 57, 279–284 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Pompilio, L., Kacelnik, A. & Behmer, S. T. State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science 311, 1613–1615 (2006).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Akino, T. & Yamaoka, R. Origin of oleic acid: Corpse recognition signal in the ant Formica japonica Motschlsky (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Z. 40, 265–271 (1996).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Chouvenc, T., Robert, A., Sémon, E. & Bordereau, C. Burial behaviour by dealates of the termite Pseudacanthotermes spiniger (Termitidae, Macrotermitinae) induced by chemical signals from termite corpses. Insect. Soc. 59, 119–125 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Kok-Boon, N., Beng-Keok, Y., Kunio, T., Tsuyoshi, Y. & Chow-Yang, L. Do termites avoid carcasses? Behavioral responses depend on the nature of the carcasses. PLoS ONE 7, 1–11 (2012).
Google Scholar 

53.
Diez, L., Moquet, L. & Detrain, C. Post-mortem changes in chemical profile and their influence on corpse removal in ants. J. Chem. Ecol. 39, 1424–1432 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Bignell, D. E., Roisin, Y. & Lo, N. Biology of Termites: A modern synthesis (Springer, Berlin, 2010).
Google Scholar 

55.
Dlusskij, G. M. Ants of the genus Formica (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, g. Formica) (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 

56.
Czechowski, W. Ants cemeteries. Przegląd Zoologiczny 20, 417–427 (1976) (in Polish with English summary).
Google Scholar 

57.
Czechowski, W. Around nest cemeteries of Myrmica schencki Em. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): their origin and a possible significance. Pol. J. Ecol. 56, 359–363 (2008).
Google Scholar 

58.
Gibb, H. Experimental evidence for mediation of competition by habitat succession. Ecology 92, 1871–1878 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Chouvenc, T., Su, N.-Y. & Elliott, M. L. Interaction between the subterranean termite Reticulitermes flavipes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) and the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in foraging arenas. J. Econ. Entomol. 101, 885–893 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Yanagawa, A., Yokohari, F. & Shimizu, S. The role of antennae in removing entomopathogenic fungi from cuticle of the termite Coptotermes formosanus. . J. Insect Sci. 9, 1–9 (2009).
Article  Google Scholar 

61.
Tranter, Ch., LeFevre, L., Evison, S. E. F. & Hughes, W. O. H. Threat detection: Contextual recognition and response to parasites by ants. Behav. Ecol. 26, 396–405 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Bonadies, E., Wcislo, W. T., Gálvez, D., Hughes, W. O. H. & Fernández-Marin, H. Hygiene defense behaviors used by a fungus-growing ant depend on the fungal pathogen stages. Insects 10, 130 (2019).
PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Simone-Finstrom, M. D. & Spivak, M. Increased resin collection after parasite challenge: A case of self-medication in honey bees?. PLoS ONE 7, e34601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034601 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

64.
Brütsch, T. & Chapuisat, M. Wood ants protect their brood with tree resin. Anim. Behav. 93, 157–161 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Ormond, E. L., Thomas, A. P. M., Pell, J. K., Freeman, S. N. & Roy, H. E. Avoidance of a generalist entomopathogenic fungus by the ladybird Coccinella septempunctata. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 77, 229–237 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Fernández-Marín, H., Zimmerman, J. K., Rehner, S. A. & Wcislo, W. T. Active use of the metapleural glands by ants in controlling fungal infection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273, 1689–1695 (2006).
Google Scholar 

67.
Tragust, S. et al. Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison. Curr. Biol. 23, 1–7 (2013).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

68.
Tragust, S., Herrmann, C., Häfner, J., Braasch, R., Tilgen, Ch., Hoock, M., Milidakis, M. A., Gross, R. & Feldhaar, H. Formicine ants swallow their highly acidic poison for gut microbial selection and control. bioRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.13.947432 (2020).

69.
Cremer, S., Pull, Ch. D. & Fürst, M. A. Social immunity: emergence and evolution of colony-level disease protection. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 105–123 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

70.
Rosengaus, R. B., Jordan, C., Lefebvre, M. L. & Traniello, J. F. A. Pathogen alarm behavior in a termite: A new form of communication in social insects. Naturwissenschaften 86, 544–548 (1999).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

71.
Hernandez-Lopez, J., Reissberger-Gallé, U., Crailsheim, K. & Schuehly, W. Cuticular hydrocarbon cues of immune-challenged workers elicit immune activation in honeybee queens. Mol. Ecol. 26, 3062–3073 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

72.
Chouvenc, T. & Su, N.-Y. When subterranean termites challenge the rules of fungal epizootics. PLoS ONE 7, 84. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034484 (2012).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

73.
Csata, E., Erős, K. & Markó, B. Effects of the ectoparasitic fungus Rickia wasmannii on its ant host Myrmica scabrinodis: changes in host mortality and behavior. Insect. Soc. 61, 247–252 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Diez, L., Urbain, L., Lejeune, Ph. & Detrain, C. Emergency measures: adaptive response to pathogen intrusion in the ant nest. Behav. Process. 116, 80–86 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
Qui, H.-L. et al. Differential necrophoric behaviour of the ant Solenopsis invicta towards fungal infected corpses of workers and pupae. Bull. Entomol. Res. 105, 607–614 (2015).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

76.
Pereira, H. & Detrain, C. Pathogen avoidance and prey discrimination in ants. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 191705 (2020).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Cremer, S., Armitage, S. A. O. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Social immunity. Curr. Biol. 17, 693–702 (2007).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

78.
Pull, Ch. D. & Cremer, S. Co-founding ant queens prevent disease by performing prophylactic undertaking behaviour. BMC Evol. Biol. 219, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-1062-4 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

79.
Kramm, K. R., West, D. F. & Rockenbach, P. G. Pathogens of termites: transfer of the entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae between the termites of Reticulitermes sp.. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 40, 1–6 (1982).
Article  Google Scholar 

80.
Kesäniemi, J., Koskimäki, J. J. & Jurvansuu, J. Corpse management of the invasive Argentine ant inhibits growth of pathogenic fungi. Sci. Rep. 9, 7593. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44144-z (2019).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

81.
Greenwald, E. E., Baltiansky, L. & Feinerman, O. Individual crop loads provide local control for collective food intake in ant colonies. eLife 7, e31730 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

82.
Horstmann, K. Untersuchungen über den Nahrungserwerb der Waldameisen (Formica polyctena Foerster) im Eichenwald. Oecologia 5, 138–157 (1970).
ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

83.
Bhatkar, A. & Whitcomb, W. H. Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants. Florida Entomol. 53, 229–232 (1970).
Article  Google Scholar 

84.
Choe, D. H. & Rust, M. K. Horizontal transfer of insecticides in laboratory colonies of the argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 101, 1397–1405 (2008).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

85.
Pereira, R. M. & Stimac, J. L. Transmission of Beauveria bassiana within nests of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the laboratory. Environ. Entomol. 21, 1427–1432 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Liu, H., Skinner, M., Parker, B. L. & Brownbridge, M. Pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes), and other entomopathogenic fungi against Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae). J. Econ. Entomol. 95, 675–681 (2002).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Loreto, R. G. & Hughes, D. P. Disease dynamics in ants. Adv. Genet. 94, 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2015.12.005 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

88.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017). https://www.R-project.org/.

89.
Therneau, T. coxme: Mixed Effects Cox Models. R package version 2.2-5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=coxme (2015).

90.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (2013).

91.
Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.9.13. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (2013).

92.
Grueber, C. E., Nakagawa, S., Laws, R. J. & Jamieson, I. G. Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: Challenges and solutions. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 699–711 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar  More

The nature of the slug movement data collected in our field experiment (i.e. position on or beneath the soil surface observed at discrete moments of time) makes it possible to analyse the slug locomotory track in terms of the discrete-time random movement framework12,16,35,36. Within this framework, a curvilinear movement path is approximated by a broken line (see Fig. 2) and the movement of an individual slug is parameterized by the following frequency distributions:
1.
The distribution of the step sizes along the movement path (i.e. the distance between sequential pairs of recorded positions; Fig. 2) or the corresponding average speed

2.
The distribution of turning angle (the angle between the straight lines drawn between sequential pairs of recorded positions; Fig. 2).

Figure 2

A sketch of animal movement path and its discretization (adapted from36). (a) The original movement path is normally curvilinear. (b) Due to the limitations of the radio-tracking technique, position of the animal is only known at certain discrete moments of time; correspondingly, the curve is approximated by a broken line. (c) The movement path as a broken line is fully described by the sequence of the step sizes (lengths) along the path, i.e. the distances travelled between any two sequential recorded positions, and the sequence of the corresponding turning angles.

Full size image

Once all the information is available, it is possible to calculate the mean squared displacement as a function of time12,37. Additionally, in case the movement consists of alternating periods of active movement and immobility (periods with no recorded displacement resulting from feeding or inactivity, hereafter referred to as“resting time”), one should also consider the distribution of the corresponding periods.
Speed, squared displacements and the straightness index
It is apparent from the data that slug movement is intermittent, with periods of locomotion interspersed between periods in which they remain motionless. Tables 1 and 2 show, for the sparse and dense releases respectively, the number of ‘active’ time intervals when the slugs were moving. Periods during which slugs were motionless are marked by the zeros in Tables 1 and 2, but all these individuals resumed their movement during the following hours, confirming that they were alive throughout the assessment period. We therefore retain the zeros in the data for the subsequent analysis.
Table 1 Slug mean speed (averaged over the whole movement path), the mean SSD (see Eqs. (3) and (5), respectively) and the straightness index in the case of sparse release for each of 17 slugs used in the experiment. Here the straightness index is calculated using Eq. (4) where the values of the step size are immediately available from our field data.
Full size table

Table 2 Slug mean speed (averaged over the whole movement path), the mean SSD (see Eqs. (3) and (5), respectively) and the straightness index in the case of dense release for each of 11 slugs used in the experiment. Here the straightness index is calculated using Eq. (4) where the values of the step size are immediately available from our field data.
Full size table

The baseline discrete-time framework considers animal position at equidistant moments of time. However, in the field experiment (as described in the previous section), time taken to locate slugs at each assessment resulted in the time interval varying between measurements (sparse release treatment: 27–87 mins; dense release treatment: 20–103 mins). The step size, i.e. the displacement during one time interval, depends in part on the duration of that interval, hence risking bias in the results. We address this issue by scaling the step size by the duration of the corresponding time interval, i.e. by considering the average speed during the step:

$$begin{aligned} v_k(i)=, & {} frac{|Delta {mathbf{r}|_k(i)}}{Delta {t}_k(i)}, quad i=1,2,ldots ,N, end{aligned}$$
(1)

where

$$begin{aligned} |Delta {mathbf{r}|_k(i)}=, & {} |mathbf{r}_k(t_i)-mathbf{r}_k(t_{i-1})|, end{aligned}$$
(2)

is the displacement of the kth slug during the ith time interval, i.e. the distance between the two sequential positions in the field. Here N is the total number of steps made by the given slug during the full period of the experiment (in our field data, for all slugs (N=10)).
For each individual slug, we then calculate the mean speed over all steps along the movement path:

$$begin{aligned} _k=, & {} frac{1}{N} sum ^{N}_{i=1} v_k(i). end{aligned}$$
(3)

The results for the sparse and dense releases are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively; see also Fig. 3a.
The mean speed of slug movement, although being an important factor for slug dispersal, does not provide enough information about the rate at which the slug increases its linear distance from the point of release, because it does not provide information on the frequency of turning or the turning angle. In order to take that into account, we calculate the straightness index35, i.e. the ratio of the total displacement (distance between the point of release and the final position at the end of the experiment) to the total distance travelled along the path:

$$begin{aligned} s_k= & {} |mathbf{r}_k(t_N)-mathbf{r}_k(t_0)|/left( sum ^{N}_{i=1}|Delta {mathbf{r}}|_k(i) right) , end{aligned}$$
(4)

where (t_0) is the time of slug release and (t_N) is the time of the final observation. The actual distance travelled is approximated by the length of the corresponding broken line (see the dark solid line in Fig. 2).
Figure 3

(a) Slug mean spead and (b) slug mean SSD, black diamonds for the sparse release and red circles for the dense release.

Full size image

The straightness index quantifies the amount of turning (a combination of the frequency and angles of turns) along the whole movement path, i.e. over the whole observation time, but it says nothing about the rate of turning on the shorter time scale of a single ‘step’ along the movement path. To account for this, along with the mean speed we calculate the mean scaled squared displacement (SSD):

$$begin{aligned} langle sigma ^2 rangle _k=, & {} frac{1}{N} sum ^{N}_{i=1} sigma ^2_k(i) qquad text{ where }qquad sigma ^2_k(i)~=~frac{|Delta {mathbf{r}|^2_k(i)}}{Delta {t}_k(i)}, end{aligned}$$
(5)

see Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 3b. For the same value of mean speed, a larger value of the SSD corresponds to a straighter movement on the timescale of a single step, with a smaller turning rate.
An immediate observation from visual analysis of the data shown in Fig. 3 is that both slug speed and the SSD are smaller in the case of dense release than in the sparse release. Therefore, a preliminary conclusion can be drawn that average slug movement is slower in the dense release compared to the sparse release treatment.
Turning angles
Figure 4

Frequency distribution of the turning angle in the case of (a) sparse and (b) dense releases of slugs. In calculating the turning angle, the periods of no movement were disregarded. The red curve shows the best-fitting of the data with the exponential function; see details in the text.

Full size image

We now proceed to analyse the distribution of turning angles. The histogram of different values of the angle is shown in Fig. 4. Let us consider first the case of sparse release (see Fig. 4a). We readily observe that the distribution is roughly symmetrical and has a clear maximum at (theta _T=0). The latter indicates that, on this timescale, slug movement is better described as the CRW than the standard diffusion1,16. Indeed, the standard diffusion (also known as the simple random walk) assumes that there is no bias in the movement direction, in particular there is no correlation in the movement direction in the intervals before and after the recorded position, which means that the turning angle is uniformly distributed over the whole circle. On the contrary, in the case where a correlation between the movement directions exists (hence resulting in the CRW), the distribution of the turning angle becomes hump-shaped. This is in agreement with the results of previous studies on animal movement (in particular, invertebrates12,38) as well as a general theoretical argument13.
In order to provide a more quantitative insight, we look for a functional description of the turning angle distribution using several distributions that are commonly used in movement ecology. The results are shown in Table 3. We establish that the turning angle data are best described by the exponential distribution. Somewhat unexpectedly, it outperforms the Von Mises distribution, although the latter is often regarded as a benchmark and its use has some theoretical justification1. However, the exponential distribution of the turning angle has previously been observed in movement data on some other species, e.g. on swimming invertebrates39.
Table 3 The (r^2) values for the turning angle movement data (in case of sparsely released slugs) described by different standard frequency distributions. The corresponding data are shown in Fig. 4a.
Full size table

The distribution of turning angle obtained in the case of dense release exhibit different features; see Fig. 4b. However, in this case, the distribution is not symmetric and has a clear bias towards positive values: the mean turning angle corresponding to the data shown in Fig. 4b is (langle theta _T rangle = 0.772approx pi /4). Since the slugs used in the dense release are from the same cohort as those used in the sparse release, we consider this bias as an effect of the slug density: the movement pattern of an individual slug is affected by the presence of con-specifics. We discuss possible specific mechanisms for the responsiveness to this factor in the Discussion.
An attempt to describe the turning angle data from the dense release by a symmetric distribution returns low values of (r^2) (see Suppl. Appendix A.1). However, the accuracy of data fitting comparable with the sparse release can be achieved by using an asymmetric distribution, i.e. where the corresponding function has different parameters for the positive and negative values of the angle. The results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 The (r^2) values for the turning angle movement data (in case of densely released slugs) described by asymmetric frequency distributions. In calculating the turning angle, the periods of no movement were disregarded; the corresponding data are shown in Fig. 4b.
Full size table

The turning angle data shown in Fig. 4 were obtained using all active steps along the movement paths. However, since periods of slug movement alternate with periods of resting, it may raise the question of the relevance of the turning angle at the locations where slugs remained motionless for some time. In order to check the robustness of our results, we now repeat the analysis to calculate the turning angle differently by omitting the segments adjoined with the rest position. The results are shown in Fig. 5. In this case, a reliable fit may not be possible due to there being insufficient data. However, a visual inspection of the corresponding histograms suggests that the main properties of the turning angle distribution agree with those observed above for the bigger data set. Namely, in both cases the distribution has a clear maximum at (theta _T=0) (this is seen particularly well in the case of sparse release). In the case of sparse release the distribution is approximately symmetric, while in the case of dense release there is a clear bias towards positive values. We therefore conclude that the properties of the turning angle distribution are robust with regard to the details of its definition.
Figure 5

Frequency distribution of the turning angle in case of (a) sparse release, (b) dense release. The turning angle is only calculated for consecutive movements, i.e. if a slug does not move during a time step then its previous angle of movement is not used.

Full size image

Movement and resting times
Figure 6

Distribution of the proportion of the total time spent in movement in case of (a) sparse release and (b) dense release. The red curve shows the best-fit of the data with the normal distribution; see details in the text.

Full size image

Our field data shows that, while foraging, slugs do not move continuously but alternate periods of movement and rest; see the second column in Tables 1 and 2. Such behaviour is typical of many animal species38,40. In this section, we analyse the proportion of time that slugs spend moving, in particular to reveal the differences, if any, between the sparse and dense release.
Figure 6 shows the corresponding data where for the convenience of analysis the slugs are renumbered in a hierarchical order, so that slug 1 spends the highest proportion of time moving, slug 2 has the second highest, etc. We readily observe that the sparse release slugs tend to move more frequently than those from the dense release treatment: slugs that move for more than half of the total observation time constitute about 50% of the group in the case of sparse release but less than 30% in the case of dense release.
Figure 7

Distribution of the movement frequencies in case of (a) sparse release and (b) dense release.

Full size image

In order to make a more quantitative insight, we endeavour to describe the data using several standard distributions; see Tables 5 and 6. We find that the normal distribution performs better than others both in sparse and dense release treatments. Importantly, however, the parameters of the distribution are significantly different between the two cases; in particular, the standard deviation appears to be approximately twice as large in the case of sparse release. Arguably, it confirms the above conclusion that slugs move more frequently or for longer in the case of sparse release. Slugs released as a group tend to spend considerably more time at rest compared to the slugs released individually.
Table 5 The (r^2) values for the proportion of movement time described by different standard frequency distributions in the case of sparse release.
Full size table

To avoid a possible bias due to the different group size (17 slugs in the sparse release and 11 in the dense release), we now rearrange the data in terms of the proportion of the group that moves with a given frequency. The results are shown in Fig. 7. Although the amount of data in this case does not allow us to describe them using a particular function, the two cases clearly exhibit distributions with different properties. In particular, the average movement frequency is 0.467 for the sparse release and 0.264 for the dense release, and the corresponding variances are 0.090 and 0.065, respectively.
Table 6 The (r^2) values for the proportion of movement time described by different standard frequency distributions in the case of dense release.
Full size table

To further quantify the differences, Fig. 8 shows the number of slugs moving in each observation interval. Once again, we observe that the graph exhibits essentially different properties between the two releases. In particular, over the first interval, the majority of slugs (14 out of 17) move in the case of sparse release but none of the slugs move in the case of dense release. In the second half of the observation time (intervals 6–10) on average about 50% of slugs (8 out of 17) move in the case of sparse release but only about 25% of slugs (2–3 out of 11) move in the case of dense release.
Based on the differences between the two releases, we conclude that the presence of con-specifics is the factor that affects the distribution of slug movement time. Thus, along with the results of the previous sections, it suggests that slug movement is density dependent.
Figure 8

The number of moving slugs at each observation moment in case of (a) sparse release and (b) dense release.

Full size image More

Definitions of terms
GPP is defined here as ‘the sum of gross carbon fixation (carboxylation minus photorespiration) by autotrophic carbon-fixing tissues per unit area and time54. GPP is expressed as mass of organic carbon produced per unit area and time, over at least one year. NPP consists of all organic carbon that is fixed, but not respired over a given time period54:

$${mathrm{NPP}} = {mathrm{GPP}}-R_{mathrm{a}} = {Delta}B + L + F + H + O = {mathrm{BP}} + O$$
(3)

with all terms expressed in unit of mass of carbon per unit area and time. Ra is autotrophic respiration (composed of growth and maintenance respiration components); ΔB is the annual change in standing biomass carbon; litter production (roots, leaves and woody debris) is L; fruit production is F; the loss to herbivores is H, which was not accounted here because of the very limited number of observations available. BP is biomass production4. Symbol O represents occult, carbon flows, i.e. all other allocations of assimilated carbon, including changes in the nonstructural carbohydrate pool, root exudates, carbon subsidies to symbiotic fungi (mycorrhizae) or bacteria (e.g. nitrogen fixers), and BVOCs emissions (Supplementary Fig. 1). These ‘occult’ components are often ignored or unaccounted when estimating NPP, hence this bias is necessarily propagated into the Ra estimate when Ra is calculated as the difference between GPP and NPP55.
Estimation methods
We grouped the ‘methods’ into four categories:

biometric: direct tree stock measurements, or proxy data together with biomass expansion factors, allometric equations and the stock change as a BP component. If not otherwise stated, we assumed that the values included both above- and below-ground plant parts (n = 13 for GPP; n = 200 for NPP or BP).

micrometeorological: micrometeorological flux measurements using the eddy-covariance technique to measure CO2 flux and partitioning methods to estimate ecosystem respiration and GPP (n = 98 for GPP; n = 4 for NPP or BP).

model: model applications ranging from single mathematical equations (for canopy photosynthesis and whole-tree respiration) to more complex mechanistic process-based models to estimate GPP and Ra, with NPP as the net difference between them (n = 53 for GPP; n = 24 for NPP or BP).

scaling: upscaling of chamber-based measurements of assimilation and respiration (GPP and Ra) fluxes at the organ scale, or the entire stand (n = 73 for GPP; n = 9 for NPP or BP).

The difference between ‘scaling’ and ‘modelling’ lies in the data used. In the case of ‘scaling’ the data were derived from measurements at the site. ‘Model’ means that a dynamic process-based model was used, but with parameters calibrated and optimized at the site, based on either biometric or micrometeorological measurements.
Data selection
The data were obtained from more than 300 peer-reviewed articles (see also ref. 5), adding, merging and extending published works worldwide on CUE or BPE4,9,11,23,25,56,57. Data were extracted from the text, Tables or directly from Figures using the Unix software g3data (version 1.5.2, Jonas Frantz). In most studies, NPP, BP and GPP were estimated for the tree stand only. However, GPP estimated from CO2 flux by micrometeorological methods applies to the entire stand including ground vegetation. We therefore included only those micrometeorological studies where the forest stand was the dominant primary producer. The database contains 244 records (197 for BPE and 47 for CUE) from >100 forest sites (including planted, managed, recently burned, N-fertilized, irrigated and artificially CO2-fertilized forests; Supplementary Information, Supplementary Fig. 3 and online Materials; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3953478), representing 89 different tree species. Globally, 170 records out of the total data are from temperate sites, 51 from boreal, and 23 for tropical sites, corresponding to 79 deciduous broad-leaf (DBF), 14 evergreen broad-leaf (EBF), 132 evergreen needle-leaf (ENF) and 19 mixed-forests records (MX). The majority of the data (∼93%) cover the time-span from 1995 to 2015. We assume that when productivity data came from biometric measurements the reported NPP would have to be considered as BP because ‘occult’, nonstructural and secondary carbon compounds (e.g. BVOCs or exudates) are not included. In some cases, multiple datasets from the same site were included, covering different years or published by different authors. We considered only those values where either NPP (or BP) and GPP referred to the same year. From studies where data were available from more than 1 year, mean values across years were calculated. When the same reference for data was found in different papers or collected in different databases, where possible, we used data from the original source. When different authors described the same values for the same site, one single reference (and value) was used (in principle the oldest one). By using only commonly available environmental drivers to analyse the spatial variability in CUE and BPE, we were able to include almost all of the data that we found in the literature. We examined as potential predictors site-level effects of: average stand age (n = 204; range from 5 to ∼500 years), mean annual temperature (MAT; n = 230; range −6.5 to 27.1 °C) and total annual precipitation (TAP; n = 232; range from ∼125 to ∼3500 mm yr−1), method of determination (n = 237), geographic location (latitude and longitude; n = 241, 64°07′N to −42°52′S and 155°70′W to −173°28′E), elevation (n = 217; 5–2800 m, above sea level), leaf area index (LAI, n = 117; range from 0.4 to 13 m2 m−2), treatment (e.g.: ambient or artificially increased atmospheric CO2 concentration; n = 34), disturbance type (e.g.: fire n = 6; management n = 55), and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) vegetation classification and biomes (n = 244), as reported in the published articles (online Materials). The methods by which GPP, NPP, BP (and Ra) were determined were included as random effects in a number of possible mixed-effects linear regression models (Supplementary Table 4).
We excluded from statistical analysis all data where GPP and NPP were determined based on assumptions (e.g. data obtained using fixed fractions of NPP or Ra of GPP). In just one case GPP was estimated as the sum of upscaled Ra and NPP58; however, this study was excluded from the statistical analysis. NPP or Ra estimates obtained by process-based models (n = 23) were also not included in the statistical analysis. No information was available on prior natural disturbance events (biotic and abiotic, e.g. insect herbivore and pathogen outbreaks, and drought) that could in principle modify production efficiency, apart from fire. The occurrence of fire was reported by only a few studies59,60,61. These data were included in the database but fire, as an explanatory factor, was not considered due to the small number of samples in which it was reported (n = 6).
Data uncertainty
Uncertainties of GPP, NPP and BP data were all computed following the method based on expert judgment as described in Luyssaert et al.55. First, ‘gross’ uncertainty in GPP (gC m−2 yr−1) was calculated as 500 + 7.1 × (70−|lat|) gC m−2 yr−1 and gross uncertainties in NPP and BP (gC m−2 yr−1) were calculated as 350 + 2.9 × (70−|lat|). The absolute value of uncertainty thus decreases linearly with increasing latitude for GPP and for NPP and BP, because we assumed that the uncertainty is relative to the magnitude of the flux, which also decreases with increasing |lat|. Subsequently, as in Luyssaert et al.55, uncertainty was further reduced considering the methodology used to obtain each variable, by a method-specific factor (from 0 to 1, final uncertainty (δ) = gross uncertainty × method-specific factor). Luyssaert et al.55 reported for GPP-Micromet a method-specific factor of 0.3 (i.e. gross uncertainty is reduced by 70% for micrometeorological measurements); and for GPP-Model, 0.6. GPP-Scaling and GPP-Biometric were not explicitly considered in ref. 55 for GPP. We we used values of 0.8 and 0.3, respectively. For BP-Biometric and NPP-Micromet we used a reduction factor of 0.3; for NPP-Model, 0.6; and for NPP-Scaling (as obtained from chamber-based Ra measurements), 0.8. When GPP and/or NPP or BP methods were not known (n = 7), a factor of 1 (i.e. no reduction of uncertainty for methods used, hence maximum uncertainty) was used. The absolute uncertainties on CUE (δCUE) and BPE (δBPE) were considered as the weighted means62 by error propagation of each single variable (δNPP or δBP and δGPP) as follows:

$$delta {mathrm{CUE}} = sqrt {left( {frac{{delta {mathrm{NPP}}}}{{{mathrm{GPP}}}}} right)^2 + left( {delta {mathrm{GPP}}frac{{{mathrm{NPP}}}}{{{mathrm{GPP}}^2}}} right)^2}$$
(4)

and similarly for δBPE, by substituting NPP with BP and CUE with BPE.
Data and model selection
The CUE and BPE data were combined into a single variable, as sites for which both types of estimates existed did not show any significant differences between these entities (Supplementary Fig. 2). CUE values based on modelling were excluded (in our database we do not have BPE data from modelling). Tests showed that the CUE value was systematically higher when GPP was estimated with micrometeorological methods, compared to values based on biometric or scaling methods. Only data with complete information on CUE, MAT, age, TAP, and latitude were used. Altogether, 142 observations were selected.
In order to use the most complete information possible, a full additive model was constructed first (Eq. (1)). The method used for estimation of GPP (GPPmeth) was specified as a random effect on the intercept, as visual inspection suggested that CUE values were smaller where ‘scaling’ was used to estimate GPP compared to cases where ‘micromet’ was used to estimate GPP.
In Eq. (1) the variable ‘age’ represents the development status of the vegetation, i.e. either average age of the canopy forming trees or the period since the last major disturbance. The other three parameters represent different aspects of the climate. The absolute latitude, |lat|, was chosen as a proxy of radiation climate, i.e. day length and the seasonality of daily radiation. The term ηZGPPMeth represents the random effect on the intercept due to the different methods of estimating GPP.
These variables were not independent (Supplementary Table 1). If the different driver variables contain information that is not included in any of the other driver variables, multiple linear regression is nonetheless able to separate the individual effects. If, on the contrary, two variables exert essentially the same effect on the response variable (CUE) this can be seen in an ANOVA based model comparison. These considerations led us to the selection procedure in which we started with the full model (Eq. (1)) and compared it with all possible reduced models (Supplementary Table 2). The result of this analysis is the model with the smallest number of parameters that does not significantly differ from the full model.
We also examined, whether there were any significant interactions of predictor variables. There were not.
We used the R function lmer from the R-package lme463 to fit the mixed and ordinary multiple linear models to the data. We checked for potential problems of multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF)64. All predictors had VIF  More

In this study we analysed data from monthly ASP episodes over a 25 year period to determine if there was a seasonal pattern of presentation. We found a seasonal variation in scrotal torsion events (TT and TA), with higher frequency in the colder months, and an inverse correlation between monthly frequency and ambient temperature. There was increased frequency of EO in March, May and October but no correlation with temperature.
There has been interest in the seasonality of TT for many years6. Decreasing temperature causes increased contractility of the cremasteric muscles4,5, which may lead to an increase in the frequency of TT in colder months. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results3. Most of these studies reported case series of a relatively small number of patients (n = 39 to n = 2876). A large study from Brazil3 analysing 21,289 episodes of TT found seasonality of presentation with higher incidence in colder months, which was more significant in the more temperate regions than tropical regions of Brazil. A previous report from Dundee in Scotland showed an increased frequency of TT during the colder months from a series of 173 patients1. The present report is a larger study involving 33,855 episodes, of which 7882 had torsion events, and provides more robust evidence of seasonality of torsion.
Seasonal variation in the frequency of EO has not previously been reported to our knowledge. We were unable to explain the increased frequency of EO in March, May and October within our dataset. Further epidemiological study will be required to elucidate the reasons. Possibilities to consider include sexual behaviour patterns of the male population.
Limitations of this study include the use of data from a large public database with well reported advantages and disadvantages7, and the ecological fallacy, meaning that it may not be appropriate to apply these generalised population-based findings to individual patient care.
We do not suggest, based on our findings, that the threshold for surgical exploration be raised for patients with ASP presenting during warmer months. Public health measures could be considered, for example encouraging the wearing of warm clothing and undergarments by young males during colder months may reduce the frequency of TT and TA, as the style of clothing could have a direct effect on scrotal temperature8.
In conclusion, the findings of this large ecological study provide further robust evidence of seasonality of ASP, with the frequency of torsion events correlating negatively with ambient temperature. Further study is required to explain monthly variations in presentation of EO. More

1.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359, 80–83 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50, 839–866 (1999).
Google Scholar 

3.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Stuart-Smith, R. D., Brown, C. J., Ceccarelli, D. M. & Edgar, G. J. Ecosystem restructuring along the Great Barrier Reef following mass coral bleaching. Nature 560, 92–96 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Richardson, L. E., Graham, N. A., Pratchett, M. S., Eurich, J. G. & Hoey, A. S. Mass coral bleaching causes biotic homogenization of reef fish assemblages. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3117–3129 (2018).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Robinson, J. P. et al. Productive instability of coral reef fisheries after climate-driven regime shifts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 183 (2019).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
McClanahan, T., Allison, E. H. & Cinner, J. E. Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish Fish. 16, 78–103 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Hanich, Q. et al. Small-scale fisheries under climate change in the Pacific Islands region. Mar. Policy 88, 279–284 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bell, J. D. et al. Mixed responses of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 591 (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Sale, P. F. & Hixon, M. A. in Interrelationships Between Corals and Fisheries (ed S.A. Bortone) 7–18 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2015).

11.
Pratchett, M. S., Hoey, A. S., Wilson, S. K., Messmer, V. & Graham, N. A. Changes in biodiversity and functioning of reef fish assemblages following coral bleaching and coral loss. Diversity 3, 424–452 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Brown, C. J. et al. The assessment of fishery status depends on fish habitats. Fish Fish. 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12318 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Pratchett, M. S. et al. Effects of climate change on coral grouper (Plectropomus spp) and possible adaptation options. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 27, 297–316 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Schuerch, M. et al. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561, 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Cheal, A. J., MacNeil, M. A., Emslie, M. J. & Sweatman, H. The threat to coral reefs from more intense cyclones under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1511–1524 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Wilson, L. J. et al. Climate-driven changes to ocean circulation and their inferred impacts on marine dispersal patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 923–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12456 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Brown, C. J. et al. Habitat change mediates the response of coral reef fish populations to terrestrial run-off. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 576, 55–68 (2017).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Great Barrier Reef Foundation. www.barrierreef.org (2020).

20.
State of Queensland. Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017–2020 (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2018).
Google Scholar 

21.
Jiddawi, N. S. & Öhman, M. C. Marine fisheries in Tanzania. Ambio 31, 518–527 (2002).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Nordlund, L. M., Unsworth, R. K., Gullström, M. & Cullen-Unsworth, L. C. Global significance of seagrass fishery activity. Fish Fish. 19, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12259 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
State of Queensland Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. QFish data cube. https://qfish.fisheries.qld.gov.au/ (2020).

24.
Taylor, S., Webley, J. & McInnes, K. 2010 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2012).
Google Scholar 

25.
Anderson, S. C. et al. Benefits and risks of diversification for individual fishers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 10797–10802 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26.
Fulton, C. J. et al. Macroalgal meadow habitats support fish and fisheries in diverse tropical seascapes. Fish Fish. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12455 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Graham, N. A. et al. Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries, and ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1291–1300 (2007).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Pratchett, M. S. et al. Bleaching susceptibility of aquarium corals collected across northern Australia. Coral Reefs 39, 663–673 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Delbeek, J. C. in Biology of Butterflyfishes (eds MS Pratchett, Michael L Berumen, & B Kapoor) 292–395 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013).

30.
Wilson, S. K., Graham, N. A. & Pratchett, M. S. in Biology of Butterflyfishes (eds MS Pratchett, Michael L Berumen, & B Kapoor) 226–245 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013).

31.
Beldade, R., Blandin, A., O’Donnell, R. & Mills, S. C. Cascading effects of thermally-induced anemone bleaching on associated anemonefish hormonal stress response and reproduction. Nat. Commun. 8, 716 (2017).
ADS  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32.
Donnelly, R. Stewardship Action Plan 2013: Mitigating Ecological Risk in a Changing Climate (Pro-Vision Reef Inc., Cairns, 2013).
Google Scholar 

33.
Leigh, G. M., Campbell, A. B., Lunow, C. P. & O’Neill, M. F. Stock Assessment of the Queensland East Coast Common Coral Trout (Plectropomus leopardus) fishery (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2014).
Google Scholar 

34.
Russell, D. & Garrett, R. Use by juvenile barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), and other fishes of temporary supralittoral habitats in a tropical estuary in northern Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 34, 805–811 (1983).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Eriksson, H., Fabricius-Dyg, J., Lichtenberg, M., Perez-Landa, V. & Byrne, M. Biology of a high-density population of Stichopus herrmanni at One Tree Reef, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 30, 41–45 (2010).
Google Scholar 

36.
Wen, C., Pratchett, M., Almany, G. & Jones, G. Patterns of recruitment and microhabitat associations for three predatory coral reef fishes on the southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs 32, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0985-x (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Graham, N. A. J. et al. Extinction vulnerability of coral reef fishes. Ecol. Lett. 14, 341–348 (2011).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

38.
DNRME. Reefs and Shoals—Queensland. (2018).

39.
Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 71, 319–392 (2009).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Teixeira, D., Zischke, M. T. & Webley, J. A. Investigating bias in recreational fishing surveys: Fishers listed in public telephone directories fish similarly to their unlisted counterparts. Fish. Res. 181, 127–136 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Webley, J., McInnes, K., Teixeira, D., Lawson, A. & Quinn, R. 2014 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2015).
Google Scholar 

42.
Hilborn, R. et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 2218–2224 (2020).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
Millar, R. B. & Meyer, R. Non-linear state space modelling of fisheries biomass dynamics by using Metropolis-Hastings within-Gibbs sampling. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 49, 327–342 (2000).
MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Meynecke, J.-O., Lee, S. Y., Duke, N. C. & Warnken, J. Effect of rainfall as a component of climate change on estuarine fish production in Queensland, Australia. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 69, 491–504 (2006).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Mercier, A., Battaglene, S. C. & Hamel, J.-F. Settlement preferences and early migration of the tropical sea cucumber Holothuria scabra. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 249, 89–110 (2000).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46.
Campbell, A., Leigh, G., Bessel-Browne, P. & Lovett, R. Stock assessment of the Queensland east coast common coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) fishery. April 2019. (State of Queensland., Brisbane, 2019).

47.
Leigh, G., Williams, A., Begg, G., Gribble, N. & Whybird, O. Stock Assessment of the Queensland East Coast Red Throat Emperor (Lethrinus miniatus), Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2006).
Google Scholar 

48.
Rudd, M. B. & Branch, T. A. Does unreported catch lead to overfishing?. Fish Fish. 18, 313–323 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Hempson, T. N. et al. Coral reef mesopredators switch prey, shortening food chains, in response to habitat degradation. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2626–2635 (2017).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50.
Williamson, D. H., Ceccarelli, D. M., Evans, R. D., Jones, G. P. & Russ, G. R. Habitat dynamics, marine reserve status, and the decline and recovery of coral reef fish communities. Ecol. Evol. 4, 337–354 (2014).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Rogers, A., Blanchard, J. L. & Mumby, P. J. Fisheries productivity under progressive coral reef degradation. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1041–1049 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Graham, N. & Nash, K. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 32, 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0984-y (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Robinson, J. P. et al. Diversification insulates fisher catch and revenue in heavily exploited tropical fisheries. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz0587 (2020).
ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

54.
Edgar, G. J., Ward, T. J. & Stuart-Smith, R. D. Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no-fishing’reserves. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 28, 1337–1350 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Johansen, J. et al. Large predatory coral trout species unlikely to meet increasing energetic demands in a warming ocean. Sci. Rep. 5, 13830 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Clark, T. D., Messmer, V., Tobin, A. J., Hoey, A. S. & Pratchett, M. S. Rising temperatures may drive fishing-induced selection of low-performance phenotypes. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–11 (2017).
Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

57.
Brodeur, R. D., Hunsicker, M. E., Hann, A. & Miller, T. W. Effects of warming ocean conditions on feeding ecology of small pelagic fishes in a coastal upwelling ecosystem: a shift to gelatinous food sources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 617, 149–163 (2019).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

58.
Krieger, J. R., Beaudreau, A. H., Heintz, R. A. & Callahan, M. W. Growth of young-of-year sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in response to temperature and prey quality: insights from a life stage specific bioenergetics model. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 526, 151340 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

59.
Ryan, S. Ecological assessment of the Queensland East Coast Spanish Mackerel fishery. 103 (Queensland Government, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane, Queensland, 2004).

60.
Rogers, A. & Mumby, P. J. Mangroves reduce the vulnerability of coral reef fisheries to habitat degradation. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000510 (2019).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Morais, R. A. & Bellwood, D. R. Pelagic subsidies underpin fish productivity on a degraded coral reef. Curr. Biol. 29, 1521–1527 (2019).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62.
Dee, L., Karr, K., Landesberg, C. & Thornhill, D. Assessing vulnerability of fish in the U.S. marine aquarium trade. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00527 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Plagányi, É. E., Skewes, T., Murphy, N., Pascual, R. & Fischer, M. Crop rotations in the sea: Increasing returns and reducing risk of collapse in sea cucumber fisheries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6760–6765 (2015).
ADS  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

1.
Mack, R. N. et al. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl. 10, 689–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641039 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Rembold, K., Mangopo, H., Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. S. & Kreft, H. Plant diversity, forest dependency, and alien plant invasions in tropical agricultural landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 213, 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.020 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Simberloff, D. et al. Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 (2013).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Weber, E., Sun, S. G. & Li, B. Invasive alien plants in China: diversity and ecological insights. Biol. Invasions. 10, 1411–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9216-3 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Wu, W., Zhou, R. C., Ni, G. Y., Shen, H. & Ge, X. J. Is a new invasive herb emerging? Molecular confirmation and preliminary evaluation of natural hybridization between the invasive Sphagneticola trilobata (Asteraceae) and its native congener S. calendulaceain South China. Biol. Invasions. 15, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0269-y (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Sun, Z. Y. et al. Responses of the hybrid between Sphagneticola trilobata and Sphagneticola calendulacea to low temperature and weak light characteristic in south china. Sci. Rep. 5, 16906. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16906 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Song, L. Y., Sun, L. L., Shu, Z., Li, W. H. & Peng, C. L. Physiological functions of the red leaves of Wedelia trilobata induced by high irradiance in summer. Biodivers. Sci. 17, 188. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09007 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Vilà, M. et al. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14, 702–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x (2011).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Liu, Y. J. et al. Do invasive alien plants benefit more from global environmental change than native plants?. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13579 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Qiu, J., Shalimu, D. & Tan, D. Reproductive characteristics of the invasive species Solanum rostratum in different habitats of Xinjiang, China. Biodivers. Sci. 21, 590–600. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1003.2013.11044 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Čuda, J., Skálová, H., Janovský, Z. & Pyšek, P. Competition among native and invasive impatiens species: the roles of environmental factors, population density and life stage. Aob Plants. 7, plv033. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv033 (2015).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Jiang, L., Zhang, Y. W., Guo, Q., Liu, Y. & Li, C. M. Cytological study on Mikania cordata (Asteraceae),a native plant in China. Guihaia 38, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.11931/guihaia.gxzw20170302 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Cipollini, D., Stevenson, R., Enright, S., Eyles, A. & Bonello, P. Phenolic metabolites in leaves of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, and their potential phytotoxic and anti-herbivore effects. J. Chem. Ecol. 34, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-008-9426-2 (2008).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

14.
Banerjee, A. K. & Dewanji, A. Role of intraspecific trait plasticity in, Mikania micrantha, Kunth growth and impact of its abundance on community composition. J. Asia-Pac Biodivers. 10, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2017.04.003 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Lu, Z. F. et al. The photosynthetic and structural differences between leaves and siliques of Brassica napus exposed to potassium deficiency. BMC Plant Biol. 17, 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-017-1201-5 (2017).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Song, L. Y., Li, C. H. & Peng, S. L. Elevated CO2 increases energy-use efficiency of invasive Wedelia trilobataover its indigenous congener. Biol. Invasions. 12, 1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9541-1 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Li, T. et al. Comparative analysis of growth and physiological traits between the natural hybrid, Sphagneticola trilobata × calendulacea, and its parental species. Nord. J. Bot. 34, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.00910 (2016).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Song, L. Y., Peng, C. L. & Peng, S. L. Comparison of leaf construction costs between three invasive species and three native species in South China. Biodivers. Sci. 17, 378. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09077 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Wheat, C. W. Rapidly developing functional genomics in ecological model systems via 454 transcriptome sequencing. Genetica 138, 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-008-9326-y (2010).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Cahais, V. et al. Reference-free transcriptome assembly in non-model animals from next-generation sequencing data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03148.x (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21.
Strickler, S. R., Bombarely, A. & Mueller, L. A. Designing a transcriptome next-generation sequencing project for a non-model plant species1. Am. J. Bot. 99, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1100292 (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Geng, Y. et al. Metabolic characteristics of invasive plant Ipomoea Cairica in south china by de novo transcriptomics. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot. 24, 128–142. https://doi.org/10.11926/j.issn.1005-3395.2016.02.002 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
de Carvalho, J. F. et al. Transcriptome de novo assembly from next-generation sequencing and comparative analyses in the hexaploid salt marsh species Spartina maritima and Spartina alterniflora (Poaceae). Heredity 110, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.76 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Li, L., Xu, L., Wang, X. Y., Pan, G. & De Lu, L. M. novo characterization of the alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) transcriptome illuminates gene expression under potassium deprivation. J. Genet. 94, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-015-0493-1 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Evans, J. R. Improving photosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 162, 1780–1793. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.219006 (2013).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26.
Sun, Z. R., Zhu, N. N., Cheng, L. L. & Yang, C. N. Comparison of photosynthesis and fluorescent parameters between Dendrobium officinale and Dendrobium loddigesii. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 8, 13163–13170 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Wang, L. F., Sun, J. T., Wang, C. Y. & Shangguang, Z. P. Leaf photosynthetic function duration during yield formation of large-spike wheat in rainfed cropping systems. PeerJ. 6, e5532. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5532 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

28.
Simkin, A. J., Lopez-Calcagno, P. E. & Raines, C. A. Feeding the world: improving photosynthetic efficiency for sustainable crop production. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 1119–1140 (2019).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Murchie, E. H. & Lawson, T. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. J. Exp. Bot. 64, 3983–3998. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert208 (2013).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30.
Zhang, Q. L., Zhai, J. J., Shao, L., Lin, W. & Peng, C. L. Accumulation of anthocyanins: an adaptation strategy of Mikania micrantha to low temperature in winter. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1049. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01049 (2019).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Vicente, R., Morcuende, R. & Babiano, J. Differences in rubisco and chlorophyll content among tissues and growth stages in two tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) varieties. Agron. Res. 9, 501–507 (2011).
Google Scholar 

32.
Blankenship, R. E. Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis, 2nd edn. (Wiley Blackwell, Weinheim, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0687-42.

33.
Das, K. & Roychoudhury, A. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00053 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Racchi, M. Antioxidant defenses in plants with attention to Prunus and Citrus spp. Antioxidants. 2, 340–369. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox2040340 (2013).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Johnson, G. N., Young, A. J., Scholes, J. D. & Horton, P. The dissipation of excess excitation energy in British plant species. Plant Cell Environ. 16, 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00485.x (1993).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Jin, H. L. et al. Optimization of light harvesting pigment improves photosynthetic efficiency. Plant Physiol. 172, 1720–1731. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00698 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37.
Nickelsen, J. & Rengstl, B. Photosystem II assembly: from cyanobacteria to plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64, 609–635. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120124 (2013).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Liu, H. M. et al. Effects of low temperature on photosynthetic proteins and photosynthetic capacities of two species of spiraea. Acta Horticult. Sin. 42, 321–331. https://doi.org/10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2014-0221 (2015).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Pi, X. et al. Unique organization of photosystem I-light-harvesting supercomplex revealed by cryo-EM from a red alga. PNAS 115, 4423–4428. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722482115 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40.
Aguilera, A. G., Alpert, P., Dukes, J. S. & Harrington, R. Impacts of the invasive plant Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) on plant communities and ecosystem processes. Biol. Invasions. 12, 1243–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9543-z (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
Long, S. P., Zhu, X. G., Naidu, S. L. & Ort, D. R. Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields?. Plant Cell. Environ. 29, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01493.x (2006).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Li, G. L., Wu, H. X., Sun, Y. Q. & Zhang, S. Y. Response of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters to drought stress in sugar beet seedlings. Russian J. Plant Physiol. 60, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443713020155 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

43.
Wellburn, A. R. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as Total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 144, 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)81192-2 (1994).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

44.
Zhang, X. H., Zheng, X. T., Sun, B. Y. & Peng, C. L. Over-expression of the CHS gene enhances resistance of Arabidopsisleaves to high light. Environ. Exp. Bot. 154, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.12.011 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Pan, C. Z., Ahammed, G. J., Li, X., Shi, K. Elevated CO2 improves photosynthesis under high temperature by attenuating the functional limitations to energy fluxes, electron transport and redox homeostasis in tomato leaves. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1739. https://doi.org/10.2289/fpls.2018.01739 (2018).

46.
Ahammed, G. J., Xu, W., Liu, A. R., Chen, S. C. COMT1 silencing aggravates heat stress-induced reduction in photosynthesis by decreasing chlorophyll content, photosystem II activity, and electron transport efficiency in tomato. Front Plant Sci. 9, 998. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00998 (2018). More

A comprehensive description of the methodological aspects used during the field surveys and image analysis have been published in González-Rivero et al.23,25,35. Therefore, here we include a synopsis of how this dataset was generated and made available to the wider community.
Our approach involved the rapid acquisition of high-resolution imagery over large extent of reefs and efficient image analysis to provide key information about the state of coral reef benthic habitat across multiple spatial scales23. The data generation and processing involved three main components: (1) photographic surveys, (2) post-processing of images and (3) image analysis, which are described and summarised below in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

The workflow for generating the global dataset of coral reef imagery and associated data. The 860 photographic surveys from the Western Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Asia, Central Pacific Ocean, Central Indian Ocean, and Eastern Australia, were conducted between 2012 and 2018. Reef locations are represented by points colour-coded according to the survey region. Surveys images were post-processed in order to transform raw fish-eye images into 1 × 1 m quadrats for manual and automated annotation (inset originally published in González-Rivero et al.23 as Figure S1). For the image analysis, nine networks were trained. For each network, images were divided in two groups: Training and Testing images. Both sets were manually annotated to create a training dataset and verification dataset. The training dataset was used to train and fine-tune the network. The fully trained network was then used to classify the test images, and contrast the outcomes (Machine) against the human annotations (Observer) in the test dataset during the validation process. Finally, the non-annotated images (photo-quadrats) were automatically annotated using the validated network. The automated classifications were processed to originate the benthic covers that constitute this dataset. QGIS software was used to generate the map using the layer “Countries WGS84” downloaded from ArcGIS Hub (http://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/UIA::countries-wgs84).

Full size image

Photographic surveys
An underwater propulsion vehicle customised with a camera system (“SVII”, Supplementary Fig. 1), consisting of three synchronised DSLR (Digital Single-Lens Reflex) cameras (Cannon 5D-MkII cameras and Nikon Fisheye Nikkor lens with 10.5 mm focal length), was used to survey the fore-reef (reef slope) habitats from five major coral reef regions: Central Pacific Ocean, Western Atlantic Ocean, Central Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and Eastern Australia in 23 countries or territories (Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 2). Within each region, multiple reef locations were surveyed aiming to capture the variability and status of fore-reefs environments across regions and within each region. Sampling design varied according to particular environmental and socioeconomic factors potentially influencing the distribution and structure of coral reef assemblages at each region and/or country. Overall, prior to field expeditions, reef localities were selected considering factors such as wave exposure, reef zones (i.e. fore-reefs), local anthropogenic stressors (e.g. coastal development), fishing pressures, levels of management (e.g. marine park, protected areas), and presence of monitoring sites.
Table 1 Summary of the photographic surveys conducted between 2012 and 2018.
Full size table

Underwater images were collected in each reef location once every three seconds, approximately every 2 m apart, following a transect along the seascape at a standard depth of 10 m (±2 m). Although overlap between consecutive images is possible, the process for extracting standardised photo-quadrats from an image ensures that the photo-quadrats are non-overlapping between and within images (see further details next section). Each transect averaged 1.8 km in length, hereafter referred to as a “survey”. See Supplementary Fig. 3 for an explanation of the hierarchical structure of the photographic surveys. No artificial illumination was used during image capture, but light exposure was manually adjusted by modifying the ISO during the dive, using an on-board tablet computer encased in an underwater housing (Supplementary Fig. 1). This computer enabled the diver to control camera settings (exposure and shutter speed) according to light conditions. Images were geo-referenced using a surface GPS unit tethered to the diver (Supplementary Fig. 1). Altitude and depth of the camera relative to the reef substrate and surface were logged at half-second intervals using a Micron Tritech transponder (altitude, Supplementary Fig. 1) and pressure sensor (depth) in order to select the imagery within a particular depth and to scale and crop the images during the post-processing stage. Further details about the photographic surveys are provided in González-Rivero et al.25,35.
Post-processing of images for manual and automated annotation
The post-processing pipeline produced images with features required for manual and automated annotation in terms of size and appearance. The process involved several steps that transformed the raw images from the downward facing camera into photo-quadrats of 1 m2, hereafter referred to as a “quadrat” (Fig. 1). As imagery was collected without artificial light using a fisheye lens, each image was processed prior to annotation in order to balance colour and to correct the non-linear distortion introduced by the fisheye lens23 (Fig. 1). Initially, colour balance and lens distortion correction were manually applied on the raw images using Photoshop (Adobe Systems, California, USA). Later, in order to optimise the manual post-processing time of thousands of images, an automatic batch processing was conducted on compressed images23 (jpeg format) using Photoshop and ImageMagick, the latter an open-source software for image processing (https://imagemagick.org/index.php). In addition, using the geometry of the lens and altitude values, images were cropped to a standardised area of approximately 1 m2 of substrate23,35 (Fig. 1). Thus, the number of nonoverlapping quadrats extracted from one single raw image varied depending on the distance between the camera and the reef surface. Figure 1 illustrates a situation where the altitude of the camera allowed for the extraction of two quadrats from one raw image. Further details about colour balance and lens distortion correction and cropping are provided in González-Rivero et al.23,35.
Image analysis: manual and automated annotation for estimating covers of benthic categories
Manual annotation of the benthic components by a human expert took at least 10 minutes per quadrat, creating a bottleneck between image post-processing and the required data-product. To address this issue, we developed an automated image analysis to identify and estimate the relative abundance of benthic components such as particular types of corals, algae, and other organisms as well as non-living components. To do this, automated image annotation based on deep learning methods (Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks)23 were applied to automatically identify benthic categories from images based on training using human annotators (manual annotation). The process for implementing a Convolutional Neural Network (hereafter “network”) and classify coral reef images implied three main stages: (i) label-set (benthic categories) definition, (ii) training and fine-tuning of the network, and (iii) automated image annotation and data processing.
Label-set definition
As a part of the manual and automated annotation processes to extract benthic cover estimates, label-sets of benthic categories were established based on their functional relevance to coral reef ecosystems and their features to be reliably identified from images by human annotators25. The labels were derived, modified and/or simplified from existing classification schemes40,41, and were grouped according to the main benthic groups of coral reefs including hard coral, soft coral, other invertebrates, algae, and other. Since coral reef assemblages vary in species composition at global and regional scales, and surveys were conducted at different times between 2012 and 2018 across the regions, nine label-sets accounted for such biogeographical and temporal disparity. In general, a label-set was developed after each main survey expedition to a specific region. The label-sets varied in complexity (from 23 to 61 labels), considering the differential capacity to visually recognise (in photographs) corals to the lowest possible taxon between the regions. While label-sets for the Atlantic and Central Pacific (Hawaii) included categories with coral genus and species, for the Indian Ocean (Maldives, Chagos Archipelago), Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Philippines, Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, and Taiwan), and Eastern Australia, corals comprised labels based on a combination of taxonomy (e.g., family and genus) and colony morphology (e.g., branching, massive, encrusting, foliose, tabular).
The other main benthic groups were generally characterised by labels reflecting morphology and/or functional groups across the regions. “Soft Corals” were classified into three groups: 1) Alcyoniidae (soft corals), the dominant genera; 2) Sea fans and plumes from the family Gorgoniidae; and 3) Other soft corals. “Algae” groups were categorised according to their functional relevance: 1) Crustose coralline algae; 2) Macroalgae; and 3) Epilithic Algal Matrix. The latter is a multi-specific algal assemblage smothering the reef surface of up to 1 cm in height (dominated by algal turfs). “Other Invertebrates” consisted of labels to classify sessile invertebrates different to soft corals (e.g., Millepora, bryozoans, clams, tunicates, soft hexacorrallia, hydroids) and some mobile invertebrates observed in the images (mostly echinoderms). The remaining group, “Other”, consisted of sand, sediments, and occasional organisms or objects detected in the images such as fish, human debris (e.g., plastic, rope, etc.), and transect hardware. The exception within these main groups were the “Sponges”, which were classified and represented by multiple labels only in the Atlantic (given their abundance and diversity in the Caribbean), including categories with sponge genus and species, and major growth forms (rope, tube, encrusting, massive).
Training and fine-tuning of the network
The deep learning approach used relies on a convolutional neural network architecture named VGG-D 1642. Details on the initialisation and utilisation of this network are provided in González-Rivero et al.23. A total of nine networks were used, one for each country within the regions, except for the Western Atlantic Ocean, where the network was trained using data from several countries, and the Philippines and Indonesia, where the network was trained using data from those two countries. (Table 2). The first step in implementing a network was to randomly select a subset of images from the whole regional set to be classified, which were then divided into training and testing sets (Fig. 1). Human experts manually annotated both sets using the corresponding label-set under CoralNet43, an online platform designed for image analysis of coral reef related materials (https://coralnet.ucsd.edu/). The number of images and points manually annotated per network is presented in Table 2 (generally 100 points per image for training sets and 40 or 50 points per image for testing sets).
Table 2 Summary of the images, manual point annotations, and test transects used during the train and test processes of each network.
Full size table

Each training and testing data set were exported from CoralNet43 and used along with the associated quadrats to support an independent training and fine-tuning process aimed to find the network configuration that produced the best outcomes. Initially, each quadrat used from the training and testing sets was converted to a set of patches cropped out around each annotation point location. The patch area to crop around each annotation point was set to 224 × 224 pixels to align with the pre-defined image input size of the VGG-D architecture. The fine-tuning exercise ran in general for 40 K iterations to establish the best combination of model parameters or weights that minimised the cross-entropy loss while the overall accuracy increased. An independent 20% subset from the original set of quadrats was used to assess the performance of the final classification (% of accuracy). In addition, parameters of learning rate and image scale were independently optimised for each network by running an experiment using different values for such parameters in order to select the values that derived the smallest errors per label. Further details of the model parametrisation for each network are provided in González-Rivero et al.23 (see Supplementary Material).
Automated image annotation and data processing
Once optimised, a network was used to automatically annotate the corresponding set of non-annotated quadrats. The quadrats were processed through the network, where for each quadrat, 50 points (input patches) were classified using the associated labels. Upon completion of automated image annotation for a specific region/country, the annotation outputs containing locations of 50 pixels (i.e., their x and y coordinates) with their associated labels per quadrat (a csv file per quadrat) were incorporated and collated into a MySQL database along with information about the field surveys. In addition to the manual and automated annotations tables (raw data), we provide two levels of aggregation for the benthic data. First, the relative abundance (cover) for each of the benthic labels per quadrat, which was calculated as the ratio between the numbers of points classified for a given label by the total number of points evaluated in a quadrat. Second, the relative abundance for each of the main benthic groups (hard coral, soft coral, other invertebrates, algae, and other) per survey, which involved three calculations: 1) summarise the quadrat covers by image averaging all the quadrats from one single image per label, 2) summarise image covers by survey averaging all the images across one survey per label, and 3) merge survey data by main benthic groups summing the covers of all labels belonging to the same group across one survey. More