Ecology

Peaucelle, M. et al. Spatial variance of spring phenology in temperate deciduous forests is constrained by background climatic conditions. Nat. Commun. 10, 5388 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hopkins, A. D. The bioclimatic law. Mon. Weather Rev. 48, 355–355 (1920).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Plant phenology and global climate change: current progresses and challenges. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1922–1940 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ge, Q., Wang, H., Rutishauser, T. & Dai, J. Phenological response to climate change in China: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 265–274 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Templ, B. et al. Pan European Phenological database (PEP725): a single point of access for European data. Int. J. Biometeorol. 62, 1109–1113 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. D. et al. Climate change, phenology, and phenological control of vegetation feedbacks to the climate system. Agric. For. Meteorol. 169, 156–173 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morisette, J. T. et al. Tracking the rhythm of the seasons in the face of global change: phenological research in the 21st century. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 253–260 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flynn, D. F. B. & Wolkovich, E. M. Temperature and photoperiod drive spring phenology across all species in a temperate forest community. New Phytol. 219, 1353–1362 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J., Rutishauser, T. & Filella, I. Phenology feedbacks on climate change. Science 324, 887–888 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Körner, C. & Basler, D. Plant science. Phenol. Glob. Warm. Sci. 327, 1461–1462 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Delpierre, N. et al. Temperate and boreal forest tree phenology: from organ-scale processes to terrestrial ecosystem models. Ann. For. Sci. 73, 5–25 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klosterman, S. T. et al. Evaluating remote sensing of deciduous forest phenology at multiple spatial scales using PhenoCam imagery. Biogeosciences 11, 4305–4320 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hufkens, K. et al. Linking near-surface and satellite remote sensing measurements of deciduous broadleaf forest phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. 117, 307–321 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garrity, S. R. et al. A comparison of multiple phenology data sources for estimating seasonal transitions in deciduous forest carbon exchange. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151, 1741–1752 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fracheboud, Y. et al. The control of autumn senescence in European aspen. Plant Physiol. 149, 1982–1991 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mariën, B. et al. Does drought advance the onset of autumn leaf senescence in temperate deciduous forest trees? Biogeosciences 18, 3309–3330 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fu, Y. H. et al. Larger temperature response of autumn leaf senescence than spring leaf-out phenology. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2159–2168 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N. & Roy, D. B. Altered geographic and temporal variability in phenology in response to climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 498–504 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gordo, O. & Sanz, J. J. Long-term temporal changes of plant phenology in the Western Mediterranean. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 1930–1948 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meier, M., Vitasse, Y., Bugmann, H. & Bigler, C. Phenological shifts induced by climate change amplify drought for broad-leaved trees at low elevations in Switzerland. Agric. For. Meteorol. 307, 108485 (2021).Basler, D. Evaluating phenological models for the prediction of leaf-out dates in six temperate tree species across central Europe. Agric. For. Meteorol. 217, 10–21 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, T. F. et al. Terrestrial biosphere model performance for inter-annual variability of land–atmosphere CO2 exchange. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1971–1987 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, G., Chen, X., Fu, Y. & Delpierre, N. Modelling leaf coloration dates over temperate China by considering effects of leafy season climate. Ecol. Modell. 394, 34–43 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, T. F. & Richardson, A. D. The timing of autumn senescence is affected by the timing of spring phenology: implications for predictive models. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2634–2641 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, C., Hou, X., Peng, D., Gonsamo, A. & Xu, S. Land surface phenology of China’s temperate ecosystems over 1999–2013: spatial–temporal patterns, interaction effects, covariation with climate and implications for productivity. Agric. For. Meteorol. 216, 177–187 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fu, Y. S. H. et al. Variation in leaf flushing date influences autumnal senescence and next year’s flushing date in two temperate tree species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7355–7360 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zani, D., Crowther, T. W., Mo, L., Renner, S. S. & Zohner, C. M. Increased growing-season productivity drives earlier autumn leaf senescence in temperate trees. Science 370, 1066–1071 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paul, M. J. & Foyer, C. H. Sink regulation of photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 52, 1383–1400 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herold, A. Regulation of photosynthesis by sink activity—the missing link. New Phytol. 86, 131–144 (1980).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, T. F. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 7, 13428 (2016).Campbell, J. E. et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature 544, 84–87 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.USA 112, 436–441 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO. New Phytol. 229, 2413–2445 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Q. et al. Modeling leaf senescence of deciduous tree species in Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4104–4118 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedl, M., Gray, J. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q2 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Dynamics Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (NASA, 2019).Zhang, X. et al. Monitoring vegetation phenology using MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 84, 471–475 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. D. et al. P-model v1.0: an optimality-based light use efficiency model for simulating ecosystem gross primary production. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 1545–1581 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pastorello, G. et al. The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data. Sci. Data 7, 225 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sitch, S. et al. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 161–185 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hänninen, H. & Tanino, K. Tree seasonality in a warming climate. Trends Plant Sci. 16, 412–416 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kikuzawa, K. & Lechowicz, M. J. Ecology of Leaf Longevity (Springer, 2011).Fu, Y. H. et al. Nutrient availability alters the correlation between spring leaf-out and autumn leaf senescence dates. Tree Physiol. 39, 1277–1284 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lim, P. O., Kim, H. J. & Nam, H. G. Leaf senescence. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 58, 115–136 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Viovy, N. & Demarty, J. Growing season extension and its impact on terrestrial carbon cycle in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 2 decades. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB3018 (2007).Jeong, S.-J., Ho, C.-H., Gim, H.-J. & Brown, M. E. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982–2008. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2385–2399 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cong, N. et al. Changes in satellite-derived spring vegetation green-up date and its linkage to climate in China from 1982 to 2010: a multimethod analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 881–891 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, T. F. et al. Net carbon uptake has increased through warming-induced changes in temperate forest phenology. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 598–604 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garonna, I., de Jong, R. & Schaepman, M. E. Variability and evolution of global land surface phenology over the past three decades (1982–2012). Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1456–1468 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, N. G. & Dukes, J. S. Plant respiration and photosynthesis in global-scale models: incorporating acclimation to temperature and CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 45–63 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Estiarte, M. & Peñuelas, J. Alteration of the phenology of leaf senescence and fall in winter deciduous species by climate change: effects on nutrient proficiency. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1005–1017 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delpierre, N. et al. Modelling interannual and spatial variability of leaf senescence for three deciduous tree species in France. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 938–948 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chung, H. et al. Experimental warming studies on tree species and forest ecosystems: a literature review. J. Plant Res. 126, 447–460 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaaf, C. B. et al. First operational BRDF, albedo nadir reflectance products from MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 135–148 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuck, S. L. et al. MODISTools—downloading and processing MODIS remotely sensed data in R. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4658–4668 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J. A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. rsofun: A modelling framework that implements the P-model for leaf-level acclimation of photosynthesis. R package version 4.3 https://github.com/computationales/rsofun (2020).Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7505–7514 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meek, D. W., Hatfield, J. L., Howell, T. A., Idso, S. B. & Reginato, R. J. A generalized relationship between photosynthetically active radiation and solar radiation 1. Agron. J. 76, 939–945 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. ingestr: A tool to extract environmental point data from large global files or remote data servers. R package version 1.4 https://github.com/computationales/ingestr (2020).Wang, H. et al. Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants. Nat. Plants 3, 734–741 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y. & Park, T. MCD15A3H MODIS/Terra+Aqua Leaf Area Index/FPAR 4-day L4 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2015). More

Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S., et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Locke, H., et al. A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020); https://library.wcs.org/doi/ctl/view/mid/33065/pubid/DMX3974900000.aspxOpen-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/3/3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Draft Recommendation Submitted by the Co-Chairs CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-ANNEX (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).Environment Act 2021 (UK) (HM Government, 2021); https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents/enactedBull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prendeville, S., Cherim, E. & Bocken, N. Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 26, 171–194 (2018).de Silva, G. C., Regan, E. C., Pollard, E. H. B. & Addison, P. F. E. The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus. Strategy Environ. 28, 1481–1495 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early‐adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12820 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGlyn, J., et al. Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020); https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/resource-repository/zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134798 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conserv. Biol. 33, 307–318 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maron, M. et al. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12816 (2021).Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, 2012).Arlidge, W. N. S., et al. A mitigation hierarchy approach for managing sea turtle captures in small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 49 (2020).Squires, D. & Garcia, S. The least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy with a focus on marine fisheries and bycatch issues. Conserv. Biol. 32, 989–997 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a risk-based framework for reconciling trade-offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives. Fish Fish. 21, 269–289 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, T. et al. Mitigation of elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case study in Indian fisheries. Front. Mari. Sci. 7, 571 (2020).Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Wolff, A., Gondran, N. & Brodhag, C. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784–797 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 15 Land Use and Land Cover Statistics: Global, Regional and Country Trends, 1990–2018 (FAO, 2020).Williams, D. R. et al. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4, 314–322 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benton, T. G. et al. A ‘net zero’ equivalent target is needed to transform food systems. Nat. Food 2, 905–906 (2021). 2021.Article 

Google Scholar 
Crenna, E., Sinkko, T. & Sala, S. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 378–391 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., et al. Analysis: the biodiversity footprint of the University of Oxford. Nature 604, 420–424 (2022).Harrington, R. A., Adhikari, V., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure. BMJ Open 9, e026652 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., De Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, L., Lehmann, A., Finogenova, N. & Finkbeiner, M. Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment—state of the art, gaps and research needs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 67, 88–100 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Global Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bates, B., et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Years 1 to 9 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2016/2017): Time Trend and Income Analyses (Public Health England & Food Standards Agency, 2019).Stewart, C., Piernas, C., Cook, B. & Jebb, S. A. Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e699–e708 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Selinske, M. J. et al. We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12721 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hollands, G. J. et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337, 1492–1495 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moran, D., Giljum, S., Kanemoto, K. & Godar, J. From satellite to supply chain: new approaches connect earth observation to economic decisions. One Earth 3, 5–8 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Godar, J., Suavet, C., Gardner, T. A., Dawkins, E. & Meyfroidt, P. Balancing detail and scale in assessing transparency to improve the governance of agricultural commodity supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035015 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
DeFries, R. S., Fanzo, J., Mondal, P., Remans, R. & Wood, S. A. Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 033001 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waddock, S. Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Glob. Sustain. 3, e12 (2020).Travers, H., Walsh, J., Vogt, S., Clements, T. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Delivering behavioural change at scale: what conservation can learn from other fields. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109092 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Astill, J. et al. Transparency in food supply chains: a review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91, 240–247 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J & Nemecek, T. Full Excel model: life-cycle environmental impacts of food drink products. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a63fb28c-98f8-4313-add6-e9eca99320a5 (2018).Clark, M., et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120584119 (2022).Clark, M., et al. Supplemental Data for ‘Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products’. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4ad0b594-3e81-4e61-aefc-5d869c799a87 (2022).Bianchi, F., Dorsel, C., Garnett, E., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis. IJBNPA 15, 102 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e384–e397 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillier-Brown, F. C. et al. The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 18, 227–246 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
von Philipsborn, P. et al. Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6, Cd012292 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Attwood, S., Voorheis, P., Mercer, C., Davies, K. & Vennard, D. Playbook for Guiding Diners toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://www.wri.org/research/playbook-guiding-diners-toward-plant-rich-dishes-food-serviceGarnett, E. E., Balmford, A., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A. & Marteau, T. M. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20923 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reinders, M. J., Huitink, M., Dijkstra, S. C., Maaskant, A. J. & Heijnen, J. Menu-engineering in restaurants—adapting portion sizes on plates to enhance vegetable consumption: a real-life experiment. IJBNPA 14, 41 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Brunner, F., Kurz, V., Bryngelsson, D. & Hedenus, F. Carbon label at a university restaurant—label implementation and evaluation. Ecol. Econ. 146, 658–667 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClain, A. D., Hekler, E. B. & Gardner, C. D. Incorporating prototyping and iteration into intervention development: a case study of a dining hall-based intervention. J. Am. Coll. Health 61, 122–131 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Vaan, J. Eating Less Meat: How to Stimulate the Choice for a Vegetarian Option without Inducing Reactance. MSc thesis, Radboud Univ. (2018). More

Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Sino-French Institute for Earth System Science, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, ChinaQian Zhao, Yao Zhang & Shilong PiaoSchool of Urban Planning and Design, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen, ChinaZaichun Zhu & Hui ZengKey Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Human—Earth Relations, Ministry of Natural Resources of China, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen, ChinaZaichun Zhu & Hui ZengDepartment of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USARanga B. MyneniCSIC, Global Ecology Unit CREAF-CSIC-UAB, Barcelona, Catalonia, SpainJosep PeñuelasCREAF, Barcelona, Catalonia, SpainJosep PeñuelasState Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment (TPESRE), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, ChinaShilong Piao More

Newmark, W. D. A land-bridge island perspective on mammalian extinctions in western North American parks. Nature 325, 430–432 (1987).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newmark, W. D. Isolation of African protected areas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 321–328 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Radeloff, V. C. et al. Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 940–945 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B., Dougherty, E. R. & Merenlender, A. M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay0814 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wasser, S. K. et al. Genetic assignment of large seizures of elephant ivory reveals Africa’s major poaching hotspots. Science 349, 84–87 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davis, C. R. & Hansen, A. J. Trajectories in land use change around U,S. national parks and challenges and opportunities for management. Ecol. Appl. 21, 3299–3316 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newmark, W. D. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American national parks. Conserv. Biol. 9, 512–526 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newmark, W. D. Insularization of Tanzanian parks and the local extinction of large mammals. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1549–1556 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P. & Sam, M. K. Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268, 2473–2478 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Turner, M. G. & Dale, V. H. Comparing large, infrequent disturbances: What have we learned?. Ecosystems 1, 493–496 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berger, J. The last mile: How to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 18, 320–331 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolger, D. T., Newmark, W. D., Morrison, T. A. & Doak, D. F. The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecol. Lett. 11, 63–77 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Sawyer, H., Kauffman, M. J., Nielson, R. M. & Horne, J. S. Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecol. Appl. 19, 2016–2025 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 469, 466–469 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Soulé, M. E. & Terborgh, J. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales-a scientific program for North America. Bioscience 49, 809–817 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hilty, J. et al. Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Best Pract. Prot. Area Guidel. Ser. 30, 122 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Haddad, N. & Tewksbury, J. Impacts of corridors on populations and communities. in Connectivity Conservation (eds. Crooks, K. R. & Sanjayan, M.) 390–415 (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Ramiadantsoa, T., Ovaskainen, O., Rybicki, J. & Hanski, I. Large-scale habitat corridors for biodiversity conservation: A forest corridor in Madagascar. PLoS One 10, 1–18 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newmark, W. D., Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., McNeally, P. B. & Halley, J. M. Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 114, 9635–9640 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Diamond, J. M. Biogeographic kinetics: Estimation of relaxation times for avifaunas of southwest Pacific islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 69, 3199–3203 (1972).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Terborgh, J. Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction prone species. Bioscience 24, 715–722 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt revisited. Nature 371, 65–66 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Halley, J. M., Monokrousos, N., Mazaris, A. D., Newmark, W. D. & Vokou, D. Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–6 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wearn, O. R., Reuman, D. C. & Ewers, R. M. Extinction debt and windows of conservation opportunity in the Brazilian amazon. Science 337, 228–232 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanski, I. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modelling the consequences of different approaches to conservation. Ann. Zool. Fennici 37, 271–280 (2000).
Google Scholar 
LaBarbera, M. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 97–117 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oakleaf, J. K. et al. Habitat selection by recolonizing wolves in the northern Rocky mountains of the United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 70, 554–563 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S. & Schwartz, M. K. Use of empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol. 23, 368–376 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwartz, M. K. et al. Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology 90, 3222–3232 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKelvey, K. S. et al. Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. Ecol. Appl. 21, 2882–2897 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carroll, C., Mcrae, B. H. & Brookes, A. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conserv. Biol. 26, 78–87 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parks, S. A., McKelvey, K. S. & Schwartz, M. K. Effects of weighting schemes on the identification of wildlife corridors generated with least-cost methods. Conserv. Biol. 27, 145–154 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peck, C. P. et al. Potential paths for male-mediated gene flow to and from an isolated grizzly bear population. Ecosphere 8, e01969 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wild Migrations: Atlas of Wyoming’s Ungulates. (Oregon State University, 2018).Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W. L. & Lehmkuhl, J. F. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: A geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. (2002).Long, R. A. et al. The Cascades carnivore connectivity project: A landscape genetic assessment of connectivity in Washington’s north Cascades ecosystem. Final report for the Seattle City Light Wildlife Research Program (2013).Diamond, J. M. The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7, 129–146 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, E. O. & Willis, E. O. Applied biogeography. In Ecological structure of ecological communities (eds. Cody, M. L, & Diamond, J. M.) 522–534 (Harvard University Press, 1975)
Google Scholar 
Halley, J. M. & Iwasa, Y. Neutral theory as a predictor of avifaunal extinctions after habitat loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2316–2321 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cushman, S. A., Lewis, J. S. & Landguth, E. L. Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways. Mov. Ecol. 1, 1–11 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singleton, P. H. & Lehmkuhl, J. F. I-90 Snoqualmie pass wildlife habitat linkage assessment. Final Report. USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station. (2000).Craighead, L., Craighead, A., Oeschslia, L. & Kociolek, A. Bozeman pass post-fencing wildlife monitoring. Final Report. FHWA/MT-10-006/8173 (2011).Andis, A. Z., Huijser, M. P. & Broberg, L. Performance of arch-style road crossing structures from relative movement rates of large mammals. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1–13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Millward, L. Small mammal microhabitat use and species composition at a wildlife crossing structure compared with nearby forest (Central Washington University, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Bischof, R., Steyaert, S. M. J. G. & Kindberg, J. Caught in the mesh: Roads and their network-scale impediment to animal movement. Ecography 40, 1369–1380 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Balkenhol, N. & Waits, L. P. Molecular road ecology: Exploring the potential of genetics for investigating transportation impacts on wildlife. Mol. Ecol. 18, 4151–4164 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clevenger, A. P. & Wierzchowski, J. Maintaining and restoring connectivity in landscapes fragmented by roads. In Connectivity Conservation, (eds. Crooks, K. R. & Sanjayan, M.) 502–535 (Cambridge University Press, 2010.)
Google Scholar 
Sawaya, M. A., Kalinowski, S. T. & Clevenger, A. P. Genetic connectivity for two bear species at wildlife crossing structures in Banff National Park. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20131705 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sawaya, M. A., Clevenger, A. P. & Schwartz, M. K. Demographic fragmentation of a protected wolverine population bisected by a major transportation corridor. Biol. Conserv. 236, 616–625 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamal, S., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. & Brown, G. Conservation on private land: A review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58, 576–597 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wasserman, T. N., Cushman, S. A., Littell, J. S., Shirk, A. J. & Landguth, E. L. Population connectivity and genetic diversity of American marten (Martes americana) in the United States northern Rocky Mountains in a climate change context. Conserv. Genet. 14, 529–541 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wasserman, T. N., Cushman, S. A., Shirk, A. S., Landguth, E. L. & Littell, J. S. Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 27, 211–225 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cushman, S. A., Landguth, E. L. & Flather, C. H. Evaluating the sufficiency of protected lands for maintaining wildlife population connectivity in the U.S. northern Rocky Mountains. Divers. Distrib. 18, 873–884 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beier, P., Spencer, W., Baldwin, R. F. & Mcrae, B. H. Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv. Biol. 25, 879–892 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2020). More

Ethics statementAnimals’ care was in accordance with institutional guidelines. Ethical permit was issued by Malmö-Lund djurförsöksetiska nämnd 5.8.18-00848/2018.Field workWe carried out the field work in Sweden during four breeding seasons (2018–2021). Adult male willow warblers were captured in their breeding territories using mist nets and playback of a song. From each bird, we collected the innermost primary feather from the right wing. From the birds that returned with a logger we also collected ~20 μl of blood from the brachial wing vein. The blood was stored in SET buffer (0.015 M NaCl, 0.05 M Tris, 0.001 M of EDTA, pH 8.0) at room temperature until deposited for permanent storage at −20 °C. We deployed Migrate Technology Ltd geolocators (Intigeo-W30Z11-DIP 12 × 5 × 4 mm, 0.32 g) and used a nylon string to mount them on birds with the “leg-loop” harness method as outlined in our previous work24. The mass of the logger relative to that of the bird was on average 3.3% (range 2.7–3.8%).The tagged birds were ringed with a numbered aluminum ring, and two, colored plastic rings for later identification in the field. In total, we tagged 466 males (349 in 2018 and 117 in 2020) at breeding territories. During the first tagging season (2018), birds were trapped at 17 locations (average 22 birds per site; range 7–30) distributed across Sweden (Fig. S1). Three of the sites were in southern Sweden to document migration routes of allopatric trochilus and three sites were located above the Arctic circle to record migratory routes of allopatric acredula, whereas the remaining (239) loggers were spread over 11 sites located in the migratory divide. Given the observed densities and distribution of hybrids after analyzing returning birds in 2019, we deployed 117 more loggers at one single site (63.439°N, 14.831°E) in 2020. We successfully retrieved tracks from 57 birds tagged in 2019 and 16 from birds tagged in 2021. In search for birds with loggers, we checked circa 3000 willow warbler males and covered an area of at least 0.5 km radius around each site the year after tagging.Geolocator data treatmentThe R package GeoLight (version 2.0)25 was used to extract and analyze locations from raw geolocator data. All twilight events were obtained with light threshold of 3 lux. The most extreme outliers were trimmed with “loessFilter” function and a K value of 3. We used GeoLight’s function “getElevation” for estimating the sun elevation angle for the breeding period: these sets of locations were used to infer the positions for autumn departure direction. In addition, we carried out a “Hill-Ekström” calibration for the longest stationary winter site during the period before the spring equinox. Winter calibration produced location sets that better reflected the winter coordinates of the main winter site in sub-Saharan Africa26. We reduced some of the inherent geolocation “noise” by applying cantered 5-day rolling means to the coordinates. The equinox periods were visually identified by inspecting standard deviations in latitude. Latitudes from equinox periods were omitted (on average autumn equinox obscured data for 45 days (range 25–68). For the main winter site, we used the longest period at which bird stayed stationary and from which in all cases begun the spring migration (mean = 118, SD = 23 days). Timing of autumn departure was estimated by manual inspection of longitudes and latitudes plotted in time series. To estimate at which longitude the birds crossed the Mediterranean, we extracted the longitude when birds crossed latitude 35 N° (Mediterranean crossing longitude). For 29 birds, it was possible to directly extract the longitude at crossing latitude 35 N°. For the rest of the cases, the birds had not reached latitude 35 N° before the latitude was obscured by the equinox, we calculated the mean longitude of 10 days from the onset of fall equinox as a measure of the Mediterranean crossing. This measurement correlated highly with the winter longitude (r = 0.78, p = 2.8 × 10−16). To control for the birds relative breeding site longitude, we extracted the departure direction (1°–360°) relative from the tagging site to the location where the birds crossed the Mediterranean (departure direction). The departure data was of circular type (measured in 360°), however the variance did not span more than 180° degrees (range 151°–224°). Therefore, we proceeded with analyses using linear statistics. Geographic distances and departure direction were calculated using R package “geosphere” (version 1.5-10). Complete set of positions of each individual bird with equinoxes excluded is presented in Supplementary Data 1.Laboratory work and molecular data extractionWe extracted DNA from blood samples following the ammonium acetate protocol16. Genotyping for divergent regions on chromosome 1 (InvP-Ch1) and chromosome 5 (InvP-Ch5) was done using a qPCR SNP assay16, which is based on one informative SNP per region (SNP 65 for chromosome 1 and SNP 285 for chromosome 5). Probes and primers were produced by Thermo Fisher Scientific and were designed using the online Custom TaqMan® Assay Design tool (Table S4). We used Bio-Rad CFX96™ Real-time PCR system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) and the universal Fast-two-steps protocol: 95 °C, 15 min—40*(95 °C, 10 s–60 °C, 30 s, plate read. Both regions contain inversion polymorphisms that restrict recombination between subspecies-specific haplotypes and contain nearly all the SNPs separating the two subspecies13. For each region, we scored genotypes as either “Tro” (homozygous for trochilus haplotypes), “Acr” (homozygous for acredula haplotypes) or “Het” (heterozygous). The method that we used to assess the presence of MARB-a is based on a qPCR assay that quantifies the copy number of a novel TE (previously known as AFLP-WW212) that has expanded in acredula. The quantification of repeats by this method has been shown to be highly repeatable (R2 = 0.88) when comparing estimates obtained from DNA in blood and feathers15. We used the forward (5′-CCTTGCATACTTCTATTTCTCCC-3′) and reverse (5′-CATAGGACAGACATTGTTGAGG-3′) primers developed by Caballero-López et al.15 to amplify the TE motif. For reference of a single copy region we used the primers SFRS3F and SFRS3R27. We diluted DNA to 1 ng/μl−1 and used a Bio-Rad CFX96™ Real-time PCR system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) with SYBR-green-based detection. Total reaction volume was 25 μl of which 4 μl of DNA, 12.5 μl of SuperMix, 0.1 μl ROX, 1 μl of primer (forward and reverse), and 6.4 μl of double distilled H2O. We ran quantifications of the single copy gene and the TE variant found on MARB-a on separate plates with the following settings: 50 °C for 2 min as initial incubation, 95 °C for 2 min X 43 (94 °C for 30 s [55.3 °C SFRS3 and 55.5 °C for TE, 30 s] and 72 °C for 45 s). Each sample was run in duplicate and together with a two-fold serial standard dilution (2.5–7.8 × 10−2 ng). Allopatric trochilus have 0–6 copies whereas allopatric acredula have 8–45 copies15; a bimodal distribution was also confirmed in this new data set (Fig. S2). Accordingly, for the present analyses, we split the data in two groups: birds with ≤6 TE copies and birds with >7, translating into absence or presence of MARB-a, with the former assumed to be homozygous for the absence of MARB-a and the latter heterozygous or homozygous for the presence of MARB-a. Data from two investigated willow warbler families suggest a Mendelian inheritance pattern and provide support for our interpretation of how TE copy numbers reflect the three genotypes (Table S5). Moreover, the TE copy numbers within the hybrid swarm have a distribution similar to a combination of allopatric trochilus and acredula, further supporting that the copies are inherited as intact blocks (haplotypes). However, a precise distinction between heterozygotes and homozygotes on MARB-a is still not possible15.Statistical analysisWe used linear models with departure direction, winter longitude, migration distance and departure timing as response variables and the three genetic markers: MARB-a (a factor with two levels), InvP-Ch1 (a factor with three levels) and InvP-Ch5 (a factor with three levels) as explanatory variables. Models were constructed with R base package “stats”. We reported Type II ANOVA for models with more than one explanatory variable and no interactions and type III ANOVA results for models with interaction term by using R package “Car” (version 3.0-12)28. We initially constructed mixed effect models with timing of departure and tagging year as random factors however, this delivered singular fits due to insufficient sample sizes across categories. Normality of residuals was checked with a Shapiro–Wilk test. For carrying out circular statistics on autumn migration direction we used the R package “circular” (version 0.4-93). Watson’s U2 pairwise comparisons of different groups delivered the same results as linear models (Table S2 and Fig. S5). Circular means were identical to conventional linear means in our data set, which we take as another evidence that linear models are appropriate for the analysis of our data (Table S3 and Fig. S5). Maps in Figs. 1 and 2b and S1, S3 and S4 were created with R package “ggplot2” (version 3.3.6) using continent contours from Natural Earth, naturalearthdata.com/. Heat gradient over the maps in Fig. 1a–d were created with R package “gstat” (version 2.0-8) and the inverse distance weighting power of 3.0. Circular plots were created with ORIANA (version 4.02). All analyses were carried out with R version 4.1.1 (R Core Team 2021).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Chase, J. M. et al. The interaction between predation and competition: A review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 5, 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00315.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Droge, E., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & M’Soka, J. Risky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0220-9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allesina, S. & Levine Jonathan, M. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 5638–5642. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014428108 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bairey, E., Kelsic, E. D. & Kishony, R. High-order species interactions shape ecosystem diversity. Nat. Commun. 7, 12285. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12285 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Letten, A. D. & Stouffer, D. B. The mechanistic basis for higher-order interactions and non-additivity in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 22, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13211 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotka, A. J. Elements of physical biology. Sci. Prog. Twent. Century (1919–1933) 21, 341–343 (1926).
Google Scholar 
Volterra, V. Variazioni e Fluttuazioni del Numero d’Individui in Specie Animali Conviventi. (Società Anonima Tipografica “Leonardo da Vinci”, 1926).Schmitz, O. J. Top predator control of plant biodiversity and productivity in an old-field ecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 6, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00412.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fey, K., Banks, P. B., Oksanen, L. & Korpimäki, E. Does removal of an alien predator from small islands in the Baltic Sea induce a trophic cascade?. Ecography 32, 546–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05637.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terborgh John, W. Toward a trophic theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11415–11422. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501070112 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, R. M. et al. Predator-induced collapse of niche structure and species coexistence. Nature 570, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1264-6 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sandom, C. et al. Mammal predator and prey species richness are strongly linked at macroscales. Ecology 94, 1112–1122. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1342.1 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louette, G. & De Meester, L. Predation and priority effects in experimental zooplankton communities. Oikos 116, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15381.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, N. K., Pu, Z. & Jiang, L. Predator identity influences metacommunity assembly. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 1161–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12551 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karakoc, C., Radchuk, V., Harms, H. & Chatzinotas, A. Interactions between predation and disturbances shape prey communities. Sci. Rep. 8, 2968. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21219-x (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (MPB-32) (Princeton University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2001).Book 

Google Scholar 
Daniel, J., Gleason, J. E., Cottenie, K. & Rooney, R. C. Stochastic and deterministic processes drive wetland community assembly across a gradient of environmental filtering. Oikos 128, 1158–1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05987 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. & Döll, P. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. J. Hydrol. 296, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M., Biro, E. G., Ryberg, W. A. & Smith, K. G. Predators temper the relative importance of stochastic processes in the assembly of prey metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1210–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01362.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Werner, E. E. & Peacor, S. D. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84, 1083–1100. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1083:AROTII]2.0.CO;2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, D. E., Ortega, Y. K., Eren, Ö. & Hierro, J. L. Community assembly theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.03.002 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duchesne, É. et al. Variable strength of predator-mediated effects on species occurrence in an arctic terrestrial vertebrate community. Ecography 44, 1236–1248. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05760 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ryberg, W. A., Smith, K. G. & Chase, J. M. Predators alter the scaling of diversity in prey metacommunities. Oikos 121, 1995–2000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.19620.x (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrete Vega, G. & Wiens, J. J. Why are there so few fish in the sea?. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 2323–2329. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0075 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, M. et al. Living planet report 2018: Aiming higher. (2018).Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M. et al. Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammerschlag, N. et al. Ecosystem function and services of aquatic predators in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. Amur tigers and leopards returning to China: direct evidence and a landscape conservation plan. Landsc Ecol 31, 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0278-1 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hong, S. et al. Stream health, topography, and land use influences on the distribution of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra in the Nakdong River basin, South Korea. Ecol. Indic. 88, 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.004 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guter, A., Dolev, A., Saltz, D. & Kronfeld-Schor, N. Using videotaping to validate the use of spraints as an index of Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) activity. Ecol. Indic. 8, 462–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.04.009 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sittenthaler, M., Bayerl, H., Unfer, G., Kuehn, R. & Parz-Gollner, R. Impact of fish stocking on Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) densities: A case study on two salmonid streams. Mamm. Biol. 80, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.01.004 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, B., Huang, H., Zhang, Y. & Dai, D. The Fishes of Tumen River (Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Fleishman, E., Murphy, D. D. & Brussard, P. F. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol Appl 10, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0569:ANMFSO]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberge, J.-M. & Angelstam, P. E. R. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGowan, J. et al. Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum. Nat. Commun. 11, 994. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14554-z (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Katano, I., Doi, H., Eriksson, B. K. & Hillebrand, H. A cross-system meta-analysis reveals coupled predation effects on prey biomass and diversity. Oikos 124, 1427–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02430 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: Trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversity patterns in communities. Am. Nat. 147, 784–812. https://doi.org/10.1086/285879 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
McPeek, M. A. The consequences of changing the top predator in a food web: A comparative experimental approach. Ecol. Monogr. 68, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0001:TCOCTT]2.0.CO;2 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches (University of Chicago Press, 2003).Book 

Google Scholar 
Gravel, D., Canham, C. D., Beaudet, M. & Messier, C. Reconciling niche and neutrality: The continuum hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 9, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00884.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Jones, L. E., Ellner, S. P., Fussmann, G. F. & Hairston, N. G. Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424, 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01767 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yin, X., Wang, J., Yin, H. & Ruan, Y. Does inducible defense mitigate physiological stress responses of prey to predation risk?. Hydrobiologia 843, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04046-7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chalcraft, D. R. & Resetarits, W. J. Jr. Predator identity and ecological impacts: Functional redundancy or functional diversity?. Ecology 84, 2407–2418. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0550 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9, 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burner, R. C. et al. Functional structure of European forest beetle communities is enhanced by rare species. Biol. Conserv. 267, 109491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109491 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Identification of broad-host-range rhizoplane colonization genes by Tn-seqThis work was focused on SF2 harboring a typical multipartite genome of Sinorhizobium (chromosome, chromid, and symbiosis plasmid) [59]. To perform genome-wide survey of rhizoplane colonization genes of SF2 (Fig. 1), the input mutant library was inoculated on filter paper of plant culture dish, and output mutant libraries were collected from filter papers at 1 h post inoculation (F1h) and 7 days post inoculation (dpi; F7d), and from rhizoplane of cultivated soybean (CS7d), wild soybean (WS7d), rice (R7d), and maize (Z7d) at 7 dpi. To facilitate Tn-seq library construction, all output mutant libraries were subject to 32 h cultivation in the TY rich medium, with input libraries cultivated at the same condition as control (TY). Tn-seq revealed that transposon insertion density in three input and 21 output samples ranged from 57.03 to 86.99% (Table S3), which are above the threshold of 50% insertion density for a good Tn-seq dataset [49]. A reproducible rhizosphere effect was observed in three independent experiments (Fig. S1), i.e., rhizoplane samples (CS7d, WS7d, R7d, and Z7d) consistently formed distinct clusters compared to those of TY, F1h, and F7d. A considerable signature of three independent input libraries was also identified (Data S1, Data S2, and Fig. S1). These results highlight that stochastic variations among multiple independent input libraries should be considered before making conclusions on gene fitness, which has been largely overlooked in earlier studies based on just one input library [49].Based on gene fitness scores of rhizoplane samples (CS7d, WS7d, R7d and Z7d) compared to corresponding F1h datasets (Fig. S2A; Data S2), 93, 91, 127, and 206 genes were identified as rhizoplane colonization genes for test plants of cultivated soybean, wild soybean, maize, and rice, respectively, accounting for 1.4–3.1% of the SF2 genome (p values  More

Ward, M. et al. Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4(10), 1321–1326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1251-1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Legge, S. et al. Estimates of the impacts of the 2019–20 fires on populations of native animal species, Brisbane (2021).Yibo, H. et al. Genomic evidence for two phylogenetic species and long-term population bottlenecks in red pandas. Sci. Adv. 6(9), eaax5751. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax5751 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossen, C., Guillaume, F., Keller, L. F. & Croll, D. Purging of highly deleterious mutations through severe bottlenecks in Alpine ibex. Nat. Commun. 11(1), 1001. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14803-1 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Aalst, M. K. The impacts of climate change on the risk of natural disasters. Disasters 30(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00303.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Banholzer, S., Kossin, J. & Donner, S. The impact of climate change on natural disasters. In Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems For Climate Change (eds Singh, A. & Zommers, Z.) 21–49 (Springer Netherlands, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8598-3_2.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D. & Briscoe, D. A. Introduction to Conservation Genetics 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Book 

Google Scholar 
Bouzat, J. L. Conservation genetics of population bottlenecks: The role of chance, selection, and history. Conserv. Genet. 11(2), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0049-0 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leigh, D. M., Hendry, A. P., Vázquez-Domínguez, E. & Friesen, V. L. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol. Appl. 12(8), 1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12810 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Willi, Y., Van Buskirk, J. & Hoffmann, A. A. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37(1), 433–458 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tanaka, M. M., Wahl, L. M. & Wahl, L. M. Surviving environmental change: When increasing population size can increase extinction risk. Proc. R. Soc. B 289, 20220439. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0439 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gomulkiewicz, R. & Holt, R. D. When does evolution by natural selection prevent extinction?. Evolution 49(1), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb05971.x (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell, G. Evolutionary rescue. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48(1), 605–627. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-023011 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, J. L. A., Yates, M. C. & Fraser, D. J. Are heritability and selection related to population size in nature? Meta-analysis and conservation implications. Evol. Appl. 9(5), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12375 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sgrò, C. M., Lowe, A. J. & Hoffmann, A. A. Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol. Appl. 4(2), 326–337 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hohenlohe, P. A., Funk, W. C. & Rajora, O. P. Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management. Mol. Ecol. 30(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15720 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walters, A. D. & Schwartz, M. K. Population genomics for the management of wild vertebrate populations. In Population Genomics: Wildlife 419–436 (Springer, 2020).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Willi, Y. et al. Conservation genetics as a management tool: The five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105076119 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, J. F. et al. The potential and practice of arboreal camera trapping. Methods Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13666 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R. Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143(9), 1919–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.011 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allendorf, F. W., Luikart, G. H. & Aitken, S. N. Conservation and the Genetics of Populations 2nd edn. (Wiley, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Franklin, I. Evolutionary change in small populations. In Conservation Biology—An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective 135–149 (Sinauer Associates, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Soulé, M. E. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective 151–169 (Sinauer, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Hoban, S. et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2020.108654 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGregor, D. C. et al. Genetic evidence supports three previously described species of greater glider, Petauroides volans, P. minor, and P. armillatus. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76364-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hogg, C. J. et al. Threatened species initiative: Empowering conservation action using genomic resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(4), e2115643118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115643118 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pierson, J. C. et al. Genetic factors in threatened species recovery plans on three continents. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14(8), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1323 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, J. M. & Maloney, K. S. S. Petauroides volans (Diprotodontia: Pseudocheiridae). Mamm. Species 42(866), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1644/866.1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kavanagh, R. P. & Lambert, M. J. Food selection by the greater glider, Petauroides volans: Is foliar nitrogen a determinant of habitat quality?. Austral. Wildl. Res. 17(3), 285–299 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Youngentob, K. N. et al. Foliage chemistry influences tree choice and landscape use of a gliding marsupial folivore. J. Chem. Ecol. 37(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-010-9889-9 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jensen, L. M., Wallis, I. R. & Foley, W. J. The relative concentrations of nutrients and toxins dictate feeding by a vertebrate browser, the greater glider Petauroides volans. PLoS ONE 10(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121584 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kehl, J. & Borsboom, A. Home range, den tree use and activity patterns in the greater glider, Petauroides volans. Possums Gliders 229–236 (1984).Goldingay, R. L. Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian arboreal and scansorial mammals. Aust. J. Zool. 59(5), 277–294 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eyre, T. J. Regional habitat selection of large gliding possums at forest stand and landscape scales in southern Queensland, Australia: I. Greater glider (Petauroides volans). For. Ecol. Manag 235(1–3), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.338 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kavanagh, R. P. & Bamkin, K. L. Distribution of nocturnal forest birds and mammals in relation to the logging mosaic in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 71(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00019-M (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Fire severity and landscape context effects on arboreal marsupials. Biol. Conserv. 167, 137–148 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
May-Stubbles, J. C., Gracanin, A. & Mikac, K. M. Increasing fire severity negatively affects greater glider density. Wildl. Res. https://doi.org/10.1071/wr21091 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, P. & Smith, J. Decline of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in the lower Blue Mountains, New South Wales. Aust. J. Zool. 66(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO18021 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M. R., Wintle, B. A. & Porter, W. P. Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change. Conserv. Lett. 3(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00097.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, B. et al. Climate change drives habitat contraction of a nocturnal arboreal marsupial at its physiological limits. Ecosphere 11(10), e03262 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McLean, C. M., Kavanagh, R. P., Penman, T. & Bradstock, R. The threatened status of the hollow dependent arboreal marsupial, the greater glider (Petauroides volans), can be explained by impacts from wildfire and selective logging. For. Ecol. Manag. 415, 19–25 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Conservation conundrums and the challenges of managing unexplained declines of multiple species. Biol. Conserv. 221, 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.007 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. B. B. et al. How to make a common species rare: a case against conservation complacency. Biol. Conserv. 144(5), 1663–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.022 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2022) https://www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 17 Nov 2022).Rübsamen, K., Hume, I. D., Foley, W. J. & Rübsamen, U. Implications of the large surface area to body mass ratio on the heat balance of the greater glider (Petauroides volans: Marsupialia). J. Comp. Physiol. B. 154(1), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00683223 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wintle, B. A., Legge, S. & Woinarski, J. C. Z. After the megafires: What next for Australian wildlife?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35(9), 753–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.009 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Legge, S. et al. Estimates of the impacts of the 2019–2020 fires on populations of native animal species, Brisbane (2021).Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgró, C. M. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470(7335), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09670 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. A., Sgrò, C. M. & Kristensen, T. N. Revisiting adaptive potential, population size, and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(7), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.012 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rossetto, M. et al. A conservation genomics workflow to guide practical management actions. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 26, e01492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01492 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mcmahon, B. J., Teeling, E. C. & Höglund, J. How and why should we implement genomics into conservation?. Evol. Appl. 7(9), 999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12193 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. et al. A framework for incorporating evolutionary genomics into biodiversity conservation and management. Clim. Change Responses https://doi.org/10.1186/s40665-014-0009-x (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Integrating demographic and genetic studies of the greater glider Petauroides volans in fragmented forests: predicting movement patterns and rates for future testing. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 5(1), 2–8 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, A. C., Kraaijeveld, K. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Microsatellites for the greater glider, Petauroides volans. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2(1), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2002.00148.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, A. C., Tyndale-Biscoe, H. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Unexpected persistence on habitat islands: Genetic signatures reveal dispersal of a eucalypt-dependent marsupial through a hostile pine matrix. Mol. Ecol. 16(13), 2655–2666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03331.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
NSW Scientific Committee. Greater glider population in the Mount Gibraltar Reserve area” endangered population listing. Final Determination to list an endangered ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (2015).NSW Scientific Committee. Greater glider, Petauroides volans, in the Eurobodalla local government area endangered population listing. Final Determination to list an endangered ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. (2007).NSW Scientific Committee. Greater Glider population at Seven Mile Beach National Park Endangered population listing. Final Determination to list an endangered ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (2016).Woinarski, J. C. Z., Burbidge, A. A. & Harrison, P. L. The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 (CSIRO Publishing, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
W. and the E. Department of Agriculture. Conservation advice for Petauroides volans (Greater Glider (southern)), Canberra (2021).Gracanin, A., Pearce, A., Hofman, M., Knipler, M. & Mikac, K. Greater glider (Petauroides volans) live capture methods. Austral. Mammal. 44(2), 280–286 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Comport, S. S., Ward, S. J. & Foley, W. J. Home ranges, time budgets and food-tree use in a high-density tropical population of greater gliders, Petauroides volans minor (Pseudocheiridae: Marsupialia). Wildl. Res. 23(4), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9960401 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Henry, S. R. Social organisation of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in Victoria. In Possums and Gliders (eds Smith, A. P. & Hume, I. D.) 221–228 (1984).Kilian, A. et al. Diversity arrays technology: A generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. Methods Mol. Biol. 888, 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-870-2_5 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gruber, B., Unmack, P. J., Berry, O. F. & Georges, A. dartr: An r package to facilitate analysis of SNP data generated from reduced representation genome sequencing. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18(3), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12745 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Privé, F., Luu, K., Vilhjálmsson, B. J. & Blum, M. G. B. Performing highly efficient genome scans for local adaptation with R package pcadapt version 4. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37(7), 2153–2154. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa053 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luu, K., Bazin, E. & Blum, M. G. B. pcadapt: An R package to perform genome scans for selection based on principal component analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12592 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dabney, A., Storey, J. D. & Warnes, G. R. qvalue: Q-value estimation for false discovery rate control. R package version, vol. 1, no. 0 (2010).Oksanen, J. et al. Package “vegan”. Community ecology package, version, vol. 2, no. 9, 1–295 (2013).Pratt, E. A. L. et al. Seascape genomics of coastal bottlenose dolphins along strong gradients of temperature and salinity. Mol. Ecol. 31(8), 2223–2241 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H. & Urban, D. L. Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. Mol. Ecol. 27(9), 2215–2233 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zimmerman, S. J. et al. Environmental gradients of selection for an alpine-obligate bird, the white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura). Heredity 126(1), 117–131 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lott, M. J. et al. Future‐proofing the koala: Synergising genomic and environmental data for effective species management. Mol. Ecol. (2022).Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37(12), 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. HIERFSTAT, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5(1), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-8286.2004.00828.X (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nei, M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (Columbia University Press, 1987).Book 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1755-0998.2010.02927.X (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D. & Briscoe, D. A. Introduction to Conservation Genetics (Cambridge University Press, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.12.001.Book 

Google Scholar 
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6), 1358. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408641 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pembleton, L. W., Cogan, N. O. I. & Forster, J. W. StAMPP: An R package for calculation of genetic differentiation and structure of mixed-ploidy level populations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13(5), 946–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12129 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonferroni, S. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. cir.nii.ac.jp, vol. 8, 3–62 (1936).Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2), 945–959 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94/FIGURES/9 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janes, J. K. et al. The K = 2 conundrum. Mol. Ecol. 26(14), 3594–3602. https://doi.org/10.1111/MEC.14187 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller, J. M., Cullingham, C. I. & Peery, R. M. The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: Simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method. Heredity 125, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-020-0348-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cullingham, C. I. et al. Confidently identifying the correct K value using the ΔK method: When does K = 2?. Mol. Ecol. 29(5), 862–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15374 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard, J., Wen, X. & Falush, D. Documentation for STRUCTURE software: version 2.3|Request PDF (2003).Earl, D. A. & VonHoldt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stankiewicz, K. H., Vasquez Kuntz, K. L. & Baums, I. B. The impact of estimator choice: Disagreement in clustering solutions across K estimators for Bayesian analysis of population genetic structure across a wide range of empirical data sets. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 22(3), 1135–1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13522 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24(11), 1403–1405. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon, L. J. & Braude, S. Conservation of small populations: effective population sizes, inbreeding, and the 50/500 rule. In An Introduction to Methods and Models in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology 125–138 (Princeton University Press, 2010).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Do, C. et al. NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne ) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14(1), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12157 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waples, R. S. & Do, C. LDNE: A program for estimating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8(4), 753–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1755-0998.2007.02061.X (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potvin, D. A. et al. Genetic erosion and escalating extinction risk in frogs with increasing wildfire frequency. J. Appl. Ecol. 54(3), 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12809 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catullo, R. A. et al. Benchmarking taxonomic and genetic diversity after the fact: Lessons learned from the catastrophic 2019–2020 Australian bushfires. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEVO.2021.645820/BIBTEX (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
DPIE. Fire Extent and Severity Mapping (FESM) 2019/20 (2021) https://datasets.seed.nsw.gov.au/dataset/fire-extent-and-severity-mapping-fesm-2019-20 (Accessed 23 June 2021).Banks, S. C. et al. Fire severity and landscape context effects on arboreal marsupials. Biol. Conserv. 167, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.028 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andrew, D., Koffel, D., Harvey, G., Griffiths, K. & Fleming, M. Rediscovery of the greater glider Petauroides volans (Marsupialia: Petauroidea) in the Royal National Park, NSW. Austral. Zool. 37(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2013.008 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindenmayer, D. et al. What 15 years of monitoring is telling us about mammals in Booderee National Park (2018).Chafer, C. J. et al. The post-fire measurement of fire severity and intensity in the Christmas 2001 Sydney wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 13(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF03041 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vinson, S. G., Johnson, A. P. & Mikac, K. M. Current estimates and vegetation preferences of an endangered population of the vulnerable greater glider at Seven Mile Beach National Park. Austral. Ecol. 46(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12979 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kavanagh, R. & Wheeler, R. Home-range of the greater glider Petauroides volans in tall montane forest of southeastern New South Wales, and changes following logging. In The Biology of Possums and Gliders (eds Goldingay, R. & Jackson, S.) 413–425 (Surrey Beatty & Sons, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Fleay, D. Gliders of the Gum Trees: The Most Beautiful and Enchanting Australian Marsupials (1947).Wright, S. Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics 31, 39–59 (1946).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGowan, B. & Wright, C. Braidwood’s enduring Chinese heritage. Historic Environ. 23(3), 34–39 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Pérez, I. et al. What is wrong with current translocations? A review and a decision-making proposal. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10(9), 494–501 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mace, G. M. et al. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22(6), 1424–1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, I. ‘Evolutionary change in small populations. In Conservation Biology—An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective 135–149 (Sinauer Associates, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Frankham, R., Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Brook, B. W. Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol. Conserv. 170, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2013.12.036 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seaborn, T. et al. Integrating genomics in population models to forecast translocation success. Restor. Ecol. 29(4), e13395. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13395 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, M. R. & Knowles, L. L. Habitat corridors facilitate genetic resilience irrespective of species dispersal abilities or population sizes. Evol. Appl. 8(5), 454–463 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Office of Environment and Heritage. Woody extent and foliage projective cover (2016) http://data.auscover.org.au/xwiki/bin/view/Product+pages/nsw+5m+woody+extent+and+fpc (Accessed 29 Oct 2020).Ashman, K. R., Watchorn, D. J., Lindenmayer, D. B. & Taylor, M. F. J. Is Australia’s environmental legislation protecting threatened species? A case study of the national listing of the greater glider. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 1980, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20077 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
ESRI. ArcGIS 10.7.1. (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2011). More