Ecology

The rise of animals (metazoans) is a seminal event in the history of life. The Cambrian Radiation ~540 Ma marks the appearance of abundant and diverse metazoans and increasing ecosystem complexity in the fossil record1. A causal relationship between the redox and fossil records is proposed, where oxygen provision reached a threshold, or series of thresholds, which allowed for the diversification of metazoans with increasing metabolic demands2. Global geochemical data, however, suggest that oxygenation was not a simple, linear process, but rather occurred episodically via a series of short-lived pulses (1–3 Myr), or ‘oceanic oxygenation events’ (OOEs)3,4. Early and even later Cambrian seas likely had shallower, and more dynamic, oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) than modern oceans5,6. Such pulses of increased oxygenation (and related changes in productivity) are hypothesised to have increased the extent of shallow-ocean oxygenation and hence to have promoted diversification7. But what remains unquantified is the community-wide response of metazoans to such redox cycles, an insight into the evolutionary processes involved, and hence whether these pulses were indeed a driving force for the Cambrian Radiation.In order to test the hypothesis that oxic pulses led to diversification and potentially ecological development, a correlation between increased oxygenation, rates of origination, and metrics of metazoan ecosystem complexity needs to be demonstrated. Early Cambrian marine environments were heterogeneous with respect to oxygen provision and nutrient load at a regional scale, so in order to investigate potential correlations, we require the integration of global and local redox proxies, and biotic records in the same stratigraphically well-constrained geological successions.During the early Cambrian, the Siberian Platform was a vast isolated, tropical continent almost entirely covered by an epicontinental sea (Fig. 1a)8,9. The platform supported a single metacommunity, i.e. a species pool with many local, interacting communities e.g.10, representing a third of total early Cambrian metazoan benthic diversity with widespread metazoan (archaeocyath sponge) reefs that formed bioherms (Fig. 1b)7,11. Dynamic and synchronous changes of body size in archaeocyath sponges, hyoliths, and helcionelloid molluscs through the early Cambrian on the Siberian Platform have been quantified, which coincide with elevated biodiversity and rates of origination: these have been proposed to follow OOEs12. Here we consider temporal changes in both the position of archaeocyath sponge reefs as a function of relative water depth, and in individual reef size (diameter), as well as the ecological complexity of the reef-building and dwelling communities by quantification of changing reef community membership of sessile archaeocyath sponge, coralomorph, and cribricyath species, on the Siberian Platform.Fig. 1: Palaeogeographic and stratigraphic position of the early Cambrian archaeocyath reefs of the Lena-Aldan area on the Siberian Platform.a Early Cambrian palaeofacies zonation map of the Siberian Platform. b Cross section to show relative positions of sampled transects along the Lena River11,40,66,67,68. c Lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, carbon isotope (δ13C)29,31,32 and carbonate-associated sulfate sulfur isotope (δ34SCAS)7 data for sections from the middle Lena River (Isit’, Zhurinsky Mys, Achchagy-Kyyry-Taas, and Achchagy-Tuoydakh). S.E.—Sinsk Event; Tolb.—Tolba Formation; ATD., BOT., N.-D., TOM.—Atdabanian, Botoman, Nemakit-Daldynian, and Tommotian local stages, respectively.Full size imageTo quantify ecological complexity, we used metacommunity analyses, which compare the structure between communities in terms of taxa (generally species) compositions spatially and temporally10 (see Methods). The ‘Elements of Metacommunity Structure’ framework used here is a hierarchical analysis that identifies properties in site-by-species presence/absence matrices that are related to the underlying processes, such as species interactions, dispersal, and environmental filtering that shape species distributions10. Application to various marine and terrestrial palaeocommunities has demonstrated the robustness of these methods to fossil data and sample size variations13,14. There are fourteen different types of metacommunity structure which are determined by the calculation of three metacommunity metrics: Coherence, Turnover, and Boundary Clumping, which reveal different controlling processes of underlying metacommunity structure10,15,16,17,18.The most ecologically complex metacommunities are classified as Clementsian, and have positive coherence, turnover and boundary clumping16. Clementsian metacommunities contain groups of taxa with similar range boundaries that respond to the environment synchronously as taxa have physiological or evolutionary trade-offs within the communities associated with environmental thresholds19. By contrast, when taxa respond individualistically to the underlying environment, without accounting for other taxa within the community, the structure is Gleasonian, and is defined by positive coherence and turnover but no significant boundary clumping16. When coherence is positive, but turnover is not significantly different from random, then the resultant metacommunity structures are known as quasi-structures (e.g. quasi-Clementsian), which reflect weaker underlying structuring processes.We determined the metacommunity structure for archaeocyath sponge species on the Siberian Platform throughout their early Cambrian record using an entire previously published data set11 then on a sub-set of metacommunities which had a sufficient number of reef sites to be suitable for analyses, i.e. with a sufficient number of sites to be statistically significant. Further, to investigate the effects of water depth on metacommunity structure, we used Spearman rank correlations to test whether the metacommunity ranking (as determined by reciprocal averaging, a type of correspondence analysis which ordinates the sites based on their species composition17), is significantly correlated to water depth. Finally, to quantify how pairwise associations between taxa change between the three temporally different metacommunities, we determined which pairwise taxa co-occurrences are significantly non-random using a combinatorics approach, and whether any non-random co-occurrences are positive or negative20.Species richness estimates are highly sensitive to differences in sampling. When comparing species richness of assemblages from several time intervals, it is advisable to standardise sampling across those assemblages to ensure that changes in species richness are not attributable to sampling differences. One approach is to subsample each time interval down to a standardised number of individuals (size-based rarefaction), but this approach can underestimate changes in richness because it tends to sample low-richness assemblages more completely than high-richness ones21. Coverage-based rarefaction, where each sample is down-sampled to a standardised level of taxonomic completeness, avoids this potential issue. The coverage of a sample is the proportion of species in the assemblage which are represented in that sample, and it can be estimated by subtracting the proportion of singletons in a sample from 1 (e.g.22; see also21 for details). We used the estimateD function from R package iNEXT23 to produce coverage-standardised species richness estimates with 95% confidence intervals, by repeatedly down-sampling the sampled assemblage from each time interval to match the coverage of the lowest-coverage interval. We did this by setting datatype = “abundance”, base = “coverage” and leaving all other arguments as default.In sum, we test the biotic response to OOEs by compiling metrics of archaeocyath reef size, location, and metacommunity complexity, integrated with existing data on archaeocyath individual size, species richness and origination and extinction rates12 and high-resolution geochemistry4,7 recalculated to the same stratigraphic scale, on the Siberian Platform over 11 Myr through Cambrian stages 2–3 (mid-Tommotian to early Botoman on the Siberian stratigraphic scale; 525–514 Ma). These results are used to quantify the community-wide response of metazoans to extrinsic redox cycles, and hence gain insight into the evolutionary processes involved.Geological setting and evolution of redoxDuring the early Cambrian shallow marine carbonates associated with evaporites and siliciclastics dominated the inner Siberian Platform, passing to shallow marginal carbonates of transitional facies known as the transitional zone (or the Anabar-Sinsk), thence to deep ramp and slope settings that accumulated organic-rich limestone and shale (Fig. 1a)24,25,26. Archaeocyathan reefs or bioherms were almost entirely restricted to the transitional facies. Such reefs appeared and proliferated during Cambrian stages 2 and 3 (Tommotian, Atdabanian and earliest Botoman), disappeared at the beginning of Stage 4 (middle Botoman) and re-appeared briefly at the end of this stage (Toyonian).We integrate palaeontological (archaeocyath species number and individual size), palaeoecological (reef size and palaeodepth location) and chemostratigraphic information (carbon isotope cycles 5p, 6p, and II–VII) for sections of the Aldan, Selinde and Lena rivers with sub-metre-scale lithostratigraphic subdivisions27,28,29,30,31,32,33 (Figs. 1c, 2a–c, 3a). This results in negligible uncertainty associated with sample heights, which are fixed relative to a consistent datum within each section.Fig. 2: Lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and carbon isotope (δ13C) data for sections of the Aldan and Selinde rivers bearing the earlierst archaeocyath reef communities of the Siberian Platform.a Dvortsy27,28,30 b Ulakhan-Sulugur33,34, and c Selinde69,70.Full size imageFig. 3: Summary of geochemical and biotic changes through the early Cambrian, Siberian Platform, and uranium isotope data representing a global record.a International and Siberian timescale, within age model C of 57. ND—Nemakit-Daldynian regional stage; U’-Y—Ust’-Yudoma Formation. b Summary of carbon and sulphur isotopes (from the Lena River, Siberia7). c Uranium isotopes from Siberia (grey; Sukharikha and Bol’shaya Kuonamka rivers), South China (blue), and Morocco (orange) (all data points are larger than 2SE)4. d Archaeocyath sponge species diversity and maximum diameter12. Plotted richness values are the species richness estimator21 with accompanying 95% confidence interval, calculated using the estimated function from R package iNEXT62. e Rates of archaeocyath sponge species origination and extinction12. f Reef location as a function of relative water depth (Supplementary Table 1). FWWB—Fair weather wave base. SWB—Storm weather wave base. g Reef/bioherm diameter, coloured by relative water depth (see column f, and Supplementary Table 2). h Number of reef community types (Supplementary Table 3). i Archaeocyath reef ecosystem complexity, with percentage of species co-occurrence as changing proportions of total non-random and positive and negative. G = Gleasonian, QG = Quasi-Gleasonian, C = Clementsian.Full size imageThroughout Cambrian stages 2 and 3, high-amplitude positive δ13C carbon isotope excursions show a strong positive covariation with the sulphur isotope composition of carbonate-associated sulphate (δ34SCAS) in sections from the Lena River (Fig. 3b)7. The rising limbs of these excursions are interpreted as intervals of progressive burial of reductants under anoxic bottom water conditions, and a progressive increase in atmospheric oxygen7. Coincident δ13C and δ34SCAS peaks (numbered II–VII) correspond with a pulse of atmospheric oxygen into the shallow marine environment (creating an OOE), followed by a corresponding decrease in reductant burial under more widespread marine oxia (falling limbs of δ13C and δ34SCAS), and leading to gradual de-oxygenation over Myr7. In addition, phosphorous retention might have occurred under oxic shallow marine conditions, acting to reduce primary productivity and further oxygenate the shallow marine environment in the short-term ( More

Fossil record of insectsWe compiled all species-level fossil occurrences of insects using https://paleobiodb.org/ (PBDB) as a starting point (downloaded October 12, 2021). The dataset obtained from PBDB contained initially 5808 occurrences for a period ranging from the Asselian to the Rhaetian. The dataset was cleaned of synonyms, outdated combinations, nomina dubia, and other erroneous and doubtful records, based on revisions provided in the literature and/or on the expertise of the authors. After correction, including data addition from the literature, our dataset was composed of 3636 species (1784 genera, and 418 families) for 17,250 occurrences resulting from an in-depth study and curation of the entire bibliography of fossil insects, spanning from the Asselian (lowermost Permian) to the Rhaetian (uppermost Triassic). Although most of the taxa included in the datasets are nominal taxa (published and named), a few unnamed taxa (genera or species) that are considered separate from others were also included, although not formally named in the literature or not published yet. These unpublished taxa are identifiable by the notation ‘fam. nov.’ or ‘gen. nov.’ following their names.Occurrences used here are specimens originating from a given stratigraphic horizon assigned to a given taxon. The age of each occurrence is based on data from PBDB, corrected with a more precise age (generally stage, sometimes substage), and the age of each time bin boundaries relies on the stratigraphic framework proposed in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (updated to correspond with the ICS 2022/0295). Similarly, the ages of some species assigned to the wrong stage were corrected. In fact, some species from the French Permian deposit of Lodève were initially considered to be of Artinskian age in PBDB but most species from this deposit originate from the Merifons member, which is of Kungurian age96.Our data compilation allows a robust integration of data before and after our period of interest (i.e. the lower Permian and all geologic stages after the Carnian) to encompass occurrences of genera that may survive until the Late Triassic and to generate a sufficient background for the model to correctly estimate the extinction events around the P/T boundary. Since we used different datasets, the differences between genus-level or family-level occurrence numbers are explained by the systematic placement of some specimens that can only be placed confidently in a family but not in a genus (Supplementary Table 1). Tentative species identifications originally placed with uncertainty (reported as ‘aff.’ or ‘?’) were always included at a higher taxonomic level. Uncertain generic attributions were integrated as occurrences at the family level (e.g. a fossil initially considered Tupus? is recorded as an occurrence of Meganeuridae). Our total dataset was subdivided into smaller datasets, which represent orders or other subclades of insects (e.g. Mecoptera, Holometabola and Polyneoptera). Note that all the ichnospecies—a species name assigned to trace fossils (e.g. resting trace, nest and leaf damage)— and insect eggs (e.g. Clavapartus latus, Furcapartus exilis and Monilipartus tenuis) were not included in the analyses97. To prevent potential issues regarding the diversification estimates for clades with poor delineation, we refrained from analysing several orders that serve as taxonomic ‘wastebaskets’ (e.g. Grylloblattodea). These groups are poorly defined, likely polyphyletic or paraphyletic, and not supported by apomorphic characters—e.g. the monophyly of the ‘Grylloblattodea’ (Grylloblattida Walker, 1914 plus numerous fossil families and genera of uncertain affinities) is not supported by any synapomorphy, nor the relationships within this group. The occurrences assigned to these orders were rather included in analyses conducted at a higher taxonomic level (at the Polyneoptera level in the case of the ‘Grylloblattodea’). The detail of the composition of all the datasets is given in Supplementary Table 14, and each dataset is available in Supplementary Data 1.Studying extinction should, when possible, rely on species-level diversity to better circumscribe extinction events at this taxonomic rank, which is primarily affected by extinction98,99,100. However, in palaeoentomology, species-level occurrence data may contain less information than genus-level data, mainly because species are most of the time only known from one deposit, resulting in reduced life span, and are also sometimes poorly defined. Insects are also less prone to long-lasting genera or species than other lineages, maybe because of the relatively short time between generations (allowing for rapid evolution) or because morphological characters are better preserved or more diagnostic than in other lineages (i.e. wing venation), allowing easier differentiation. Another argument for the use of genus-level datasets is the possibility to add occurrences represented by fossils that cannot be assigned at the species level because of poor preservation or an insufficient number of specimens/available characters. By extension, the genus life span provides clues as to survivor taxa and times of origination during periods of post-extinction or recovery. A genus encompassing extinction events indicates that at least one species of this genus crossed the extinction. To get the best signal and infer a robust pattern of insect dynamics around the P/T events, we have chosen to analyse our dataset at different taxonomic ranks (e.g. genus, family and order levels) to extract as much evidence as possible.To further support our choice to work at these different levels, most recent works aiming to decipher the diversification and extinction in insect lineages have worked using a combination of analyses21,22,26; this also applies to non-insect clades51,101,102. This multi-level approach should maximise our understanding of the Permo–Triassic events.Assessing optimal parameters and preliminary testsPrior to choosing the settings for the final analyses (see detail in Dynamics of origination and extinction), a series of tests were carried out to better evaluate the convergence of our analyses. First, we analysed our genus-level dataset with PyRate36 running for 10 million generations and sampling every 10,000 generations, on ten randomly replicated datasets using the reversible-jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo (RJMCMC) model37 and the parameters of PyRate set by default. As the convergence was too low, new settings were used, notably increasing the number of generations to 50 million generations and monitoring the MCMC mixing and effective sample size (ESS) each 10 million generations. We modified the minimal interval between two shifts (-min_dt option, testing 0.5, 1.5 and 2), and found no major difference in diversification patterns between our tests. We have opted for 50 million generations with a predefined time frame set for bins corresponding to the Permian and Triassic stages, and a minimum interval between two shifts of two Ma. These parameters allow for maintaining a short bin frame and high convergence values while correctly identifying periods of diversification and extinction. For each analysis, ten datasets were generated using the extract.ages function to randomly resample the age of fossil occurrences within their respective temporal ranges (i.e. resampled ages are randomly drawn between the minimum and the maximum ages of the geological stratum). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 after excluding the first 10% of the samples as a burn-in period. The parameters are considered convergent when their ESS are greater than 200.Dynamics of origination and extinctionWe carried out the analyses of the fossil datasets based on the Bayesian framework implemented in the programme PyRate36. We analysed the fossil datasets under two models: the birth–death model with constrained shifts (BDCS38) and the RJMCMC (-A 4 option37). These models allow for a simultaneous estimate for each taxon: (1) the parameters of the preservation process (Supplementary Fig. 17), (2) the times of origination (Ts) and extinction (Te) of each taxon, (3) the origination and extinction rates and their variation through time for each stage and (4) the number and magnitude of shifts in origination and extinction rates.All analyses were set with the best-fit preservation process after comparing (-PPmodeltest option) the homogeneous Poisson process (-mHPP option), the non-homogeneous Poisson process (default option), and the time-variable Poisson process (-qShift option). The preservation process infers the individual origination and extinction times of each taxon based on all fossil occurrences and on an estimated preservation rate, denoted q, expressed as expected occurrences per taxon per Ma. The time-variable Poisson process assumes that preservation rates are constant within a predefined time frame but may vary over time (here, set for bins corresponding to stages). This model is thus appropriate when rates over time are heterogeneous.We ran PyRate for 50 million MCMC generations and a sampling every 50,000 generations for the BDCS and RJMCMC models with time bins corresponding to Permian and Triassic stages (-fixShift option). All analyses were set with a time-variable Poisson process (-qShift option) of preservation and accounted for varying preservation rates across taxa using the Gamma model (-mG option), that is, with gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity with four rate categories36. As explained above, the minimal interval between two shifts (-min_dt option) was modified and a value of 2 was used. The default prior to the vector of preservation rates is a single gamma distribution with shape = 1.5 and rate = 1.5. We reduced the subjectivity of this parameter, and favoured a better adequation to the data, allowing PyRate to estimate the rate parameter of the prior from the data by setting the rate parameter to 0 (-pP option). Therefore, PyRate assigns a vague exponential hyper-prior to the rate and samples the rate along with all other model parameters. Similarly, because our dataset does not encompass the entire fossil record of insects, we assumed that a possible edge effect may interfere with our analyses, with a strong diversification during the lowermost Permian and, conversely a strong extinction during the uppermost Triassic. Because the RJMCMC and BDCS algorithms look for rate shifts, we constrained the algorithm to only search for shifts (-edgeShift option) within the following time range 295.0 to 204.5 Ma. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 after excluding the first 10% of the samples as a burn-in period. The parameters are considered convergent when their ESS are greater than 200.We then combined the posterior estimates of the origination and extinction rates across all replicates to generate rates through-time plots (origination, extinction, and net diversification). Shifts of diversification were considered significant when log Bayes factors were >6 in the RJMCMC model, while we considered shifts to be significant in the BDCS model when mean rates in a time bin did not overlap with the 95% credibility interval (CI) of the rates of adjacent time bins.We replicated all the analyses on ten randomly generated datasets of each clade and calculated estimates of the Ts and the Te as the average of the posterior samples from each replicate. Thus, we obtained ten posterior estimates of the Ts and Te for all taxa and we used these values to estimate the past diversity dynamics by calculating the number of living taxa at each time point. For all the subsequent analyses, we used the estimated Ts and Te of all taxa to test whether or not the origination and the extinction rate dynamics were correlated with particular abiotic factors, as suggested by the drastic changes in environmental conditions known during the Permo–Triassic. We used proxies for abiotic factors, such as global continental fragmentation or the dynamic of major clades of plants, and for biotic factors via species interaction within and between ecological guilds. This approach avoids re-modelling preservation and re-estimating times of origination and extinction, which reduces drastically the computational burden, while still allowing to account for the preservation process and the uncertainties associated with fossil ages. Similarly, the times of origination and extinction used in all the subsequent analyses were obtained while accounting for the heterogeneity of preservation, origination and extinction rates. To discuss the magnitude of the periods of extinction and diversification, we compared the magnitude of these events to the background origination and extinction rates (i.e. not during extinction or diversification peaks).The PyRate approach has proven to be robust following a series of tests and simulations that reflect commonly observed biases when modelling past diversity dynamics31,38. These simulations were based on datasets simulated under a range of potential biases (i.e. violations of the sampling assumptions, variable preservation rates, and incomplete taxon sampling) and reflecting the limitations of the fossil record. Simulation results showed that PyRate is able to correctly estimate the dynamics of origination and extinction rates, including sudden rate changes and mass extinction, even if the preservation levels are low (down to 1–3 fossil occurrences per species on average), the taxon sampling is partial (up to 80% missing) or if the datasets have a high proportion of singletons (exceeding 30% of the taxa in some cases). The strongest bias in birth–death rate estimates is caused by incomplete data (i.e. missing lineages) altering the distribution of taxa; a pervasive effect often mentioned for phylogeny-based models104,105,106. However, in the case of PyRate, the simulations confirm the absence of consistent biases due to an incomplete fossil record36. Finally, the recently implemented RJMCMC model was shown to be very accurate for estimating origination and extinction rates (i.e. more accurate than the BDCS model, the boundary-crossing and three-time methods) and is able to recover sudden extinction events regardless of the biases in the fossil dataset37.The severity of extinctions and survivorsFor each event—the Roadian–Wordian, the LPME, and the Ladinian–Carnian—we quantified the percentage of extinctions and survivors at the genus level. We used the Te and Ts from our RJMCMC analysis and computed the mean for the Te (Tem) and for the Ts (Tsm) of each genus. We then filtered our dataset to keep only the genera with a Tsm older than the upper boundary of the focal event, i.e., we only kept the genera that appeared before the end of the event. Then, we discarded the genera that have disappeared before the lower boundary of the focal event, i.e. Tem older that the lower boundary of the event. The remaining genera, which corresponds to all the genera (total) present during the crisis (Ttgen), can be classified into two categories, ‘survivor genera’ (Sgen), i.e. those that survived the crisis, and those that died: ‘extinct genera’ (Egen). The survivors have a Tem younger than the upper boundary of the focal event, while the ‘extinct genera’ died out during the event and have a Tem between the lower and upper boundaries of the event of interest. To obtain the percentage of survivors, we used the following formula: (Sgen/Ttgen) × 100. Similarly, the percentage of extinction is calculated as: (Egen/Ttgen) × 100.Age-dependent extinction modelWe assessed the effect of taxon age on the extinction probability by fitting the age-dependent extinction (ADE; -ADE 1 option) model50. This model estimates the probability for a lineage to become extinct as a function of its age, also named longevity, which is the elapsed time since its origination. It is recommended to run the ADE model over time windows with roughly constant origination and extinction rates, as convergence is difficult—but not impossible—to reach in extinction or diversification contexts50. We ran PyRate for 50 million MCMC generations with a sampling every 50,000 generations, with a time-variable Poisson process of preservation (-qShift option), while accounting for varying preservation rates across taxa using the Gamma model (-mG option). We replicated the analyses on ten randomised datasets and combined the posterior estimates across all replicates. We estimated the shape (Φ) and scale (Ψ) parameters of the Weibull distribution, and the taxon longevity in a million years. According to ref. 50, there is no evidence of age-dependent extinction rates if Φ = 1. However, the extinction rate is higher for young species and decreases with species age if Φ  1. Although ADE models are prone to high error rates when origination and extinction rates increase or decrease through time, simulations with PyRate have shown that fossil-based inferences are robust50. We investigated the effect of ADE during three different periods (-filter option) as follows: (1) between 264.28 Ma and 255 Ma (pre-decline), (2) between 254.5 Ma and 251.5 Ma (decline) and (3) between 234 Ma and 212 Ma (post-crisis). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Selection of abiotic and biotic variablesTo test correlations of insect diversification with environmental changes, we examined the link between a series of environmental variables and origination/extinction rates over a period encompassing the GEE, the LPME and the CPE but also for each extinction event. We focused on the role of nine variables, also called proxies, which have been demonstrated or assumed to be linked to extinctions and changes in insect diversity26,67.The variations in the atmospheric CO2 and O2 concentrations are thought to be correlated with the diversification of several insect lineages, including the charismatic giant Meganeuridae65,66,67. Because the increase of O2 concentration has likely driven the diversification of some insects, its diminution may have resulted in the extinction or decline of some lineages. Therefore, we investigated the potential correlation of the variations of this variable with insect dynamics using data from ref. 55. We extracted the data, with 1-million-year time intervals, spanning the Permo–Triassic.Similarly, the modification of CO2 concentration, notably its increase, is known to promote speciation in some modern insect groups107. Therefore, a similar effect may have occurred during the Permian and Triassic but remains to be tested. We based our analyses on the dataset of ref. 108. We used their cleaned dataset and extracted all verified values for the Permo–Triassic interval. Because the initial data (i.e. independent estimates) were made in various locations for the same age, different values of the CO2 concentration are provided. We incorporated all these values in our analysis, allowing PyRate to search for a correlation for each value of the CO2 concentration. We obtain a final correlation independent of the sampling location, in line with our large-scale analysis.The continental fragmentation, as approximated by plate tectonic change over time, has recently been proposed as a driver of Plecoptera dynamics26. Because the period studied encompasses a major geological event, the fragmentation of the supercontinent Pangea, we investigated the effect of continental fragmentation on insect diversification dynamics. We retrieved the index of continental fragmentation developed by ref. 69 using paleogeographic reconstructions for 1-million-year time intervals. This index approaches 1 when all plates are disjoined (complete plate fragmentation) and approaches 0 when the continental aggregation is maximal.Climate change (variations in warming and cooling periods) is a probable driver of diversification changes over the history of insects21,109. Temperature is likely directly linked with insect dynamics109 but also with their food sources, notably plants110. Because it was demonstrated that modification of temperature impacted floral assemblages110, we tested the correlation between temperature variations and the diversification dynamic of insects. Major trends in global climate change through time are typically estimated from relative proportions of different oxygen isotopes (δ18O) in samples of benthic foraminiferan shells111. We used the data from ref. 112, converted to absolute temperatures following the methodology described in Condamine et al.113 (see their section Global temperature variations through time). The resulting temperature data reflects planetary-scale climatic trends, with time intervals inferior to 1-million-year, which can be expected to have led to temporally coordinated diversification changes in several clades rather than local or seasonal fluctuations.The fluctuation in relative diversity of gymnosperms, non-Polypodiales ferns, Polypodiales ferns, spore-plants, and later the rise of angiosperms has likely driven the diversification of numerous insects57,60,61,114. Close interactions between insects and plants are well-recorded during the Permian and Triassic57,60,61. In fact, herbivorous insects are known to experience high selection pressure from bottom-up forces, resulting from interactions with their hosts or feeding plants30,72. Therefore, it appears crucial to investigate the effect of these modifications on the insects’ past dynamics. We used the data from ref. 38 for the different plant lineages (all with 1-million-year time intervals). All the datasets for these variables are available in the publications cited aside from each variable or in Supplementary Data 1.Multivariate birth–death modelWe used the multivariate birth–death (MBD) model to assess to what extent biotic and abiotic factors can explain temporal variation in origination and extinction rates55. The model is described in ref. 55, where origination and extinction rates can change through time in relation to environmental variables so that origination and extinction rates depend on the temporal variations of each factor. The strength and sign (positive or negative) of the correlations are jointly estimated for each variable. The sign of the correlation parameters indicates the sign of the resulting correlation. When their value is estimated around zero, no correlation is estimated. An MCMC algorithm combined with a horseshoe prior, controlling for over-parameterisation and for the potential effects of multiple testing, jointly estimates the baseline origination (λ0) and extinction (µ0) rates and all correlation parameters (Gλ and Gµ)55. The horseshoe prior is used to discriminate which correlation parameters should be treated as noise (shrunk around 0) and which represent a true signal (i.e. significantly different from 0). In the MBD model, a correlation parameter is estimated to quantify independently the role of each variable on the origination and the extinction.We ran the MBD model using 20 (for short intervals) or 50 million MCMC generations and sampling every 20,000 or 50,000 to approximate the posterior distribution of all parameters (λ0, µ0, nine Gλ, nine Gµ and the shrinkage weights of each correlation parameter, ωG). The MBD analyses used the Ts and the Te derived from our previous analyses under the RJMCMC model. The results of the MBD analyses were summarised by calculating the posterior mean and 95% CI of all correlation parameters and the mean of the respective shrinkage weights (across ten replicates), as well as the mean and 95% CI of the baseline origination and extinction rates. We carried out six analyses, over: (1) the Permo–Triassic (between 298.9 and 201.3 Ma); (2) the Roadian–Wordian (R/W) boundary (between 270 and 265 Ma), (3) the LPME (between 254.5 and 250 Ma), (4) the Ladinian–Carnian (L/C) boundary (between 240 to 234 Ma), (5) the Permian period (between 298.9 and 251.902 Ma) and (6) the Triassic period (between 251.902 and 201.3 Ma). We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Multiple clade diversity-dependence modelTo assess the potential effect of diversity-dependence on the diversity dynamics of three or four insect guilds, we used the multiple clade diversity-dependence (MCDD) model in which origination and extinction rates are correlated with the diversity trajectory of other clades31. This model postulates that competitive interactions linked with an increase in diversity results in decreasing origination rates and/or increasing extinction rates. The MCDD model allows for testing diversity-dependence between genera of a given clade or between genera of distinct clades sharing a similar ecology.We estimated the past diversity dynamics for three (i.e. herbivores, predators, and a guild composed of generalists + detritivores/fungivores dubbed ‘others’) or four insect groups or guilds (i.e. herbivores, predators, generalists and detritivores/fungivores) by calculating the number of living species at every point in time based on the times of origination (Ts) and extinction (Te) estimated under the RJMCMC model (see above) (Supplementary Figs. 19–24). We defined our four insect groups with a cautious approach i.e. insect genera, families or orders for which nothing is known about the ecology or about the ecology of their close relatives were not considered for the analysis. For example, no diet was assigned to Diptera, Mecoptera or Glosselytrodea. The ecology of the Triassic Diptera and Permo–Triassic Mecoptera is difficult to establish because extant Diptera and Mecoptera have a wide diversity of ecology. Fossil Mecoptera are also putatively involved in numerous interactions with plants (species with elongated mouthparts), suggesting a placement in the herbivore group, while other species were likely predators. Therefore, we cannot decide to which group each species belongs. Similarly, nothing is known about the body and mouthparts of the Glosselytrodea, most of the time described based on isolated wings; we did not assign the order to any group. The definition and delineation of insect clades have also challenged the placement of several orders (e.g. ‘Grylloblattodea’) in one of our four groups. The order ‘Grylloblattodea’ is poorly delineated and mostly serves as a taxonomic ‘wastebasket’ to which it is impossible to assign a particular ecology. Finally, genera, species, or families not placed in a higher clade (e.g. Meshemipteron, Perielytridae) were not included in the analysis. Oppositely, the guilds ‘herbivores’ and ‘predators’ are well defined, and their ecology is evidenced by the morphology of their representatives and the principle of actualism. For example, the ecology of Meganeurites gracilipes (Meganeuridae) has been deeply studied, and its enlarged compound eyes, its sturdy mandibles with acute teeth, its tarsi and tibiae bearing strong spines, and the presence of a pronounced thoracic skewness are specialisations today found in dragonflies that capture their prey while in flight115. All Odonatoptera are well-known predator insects. The raptorial forelegs of the representatives of the order Titanoptera and their mouthparts with strong mandibles are linked with predatory habits81. The Palaeodictyopteroidea were herbivorous insects with long, beak-like, piercing mouthparts, and probably a sucking organ81,82. Most Hemiptera are confidently considered herbivorous insects by comparison with their extant representatives. For example, the Cicadomorpha or Sternorrhyncha are known to feed on plants and their fossil representatives likely possessed the same ecology because of similar morphologies116. Some hemipteran families (e.g. Nabidae) are predators and we cautiously distinguished herbivorous and carnivorous taxa among Hemiptera. The detail of the ecological assignations for the 1009 genera included in our analyses can be found in Supplementary Data 1 (Table MCCD).We calculated ten diversity trajectories from the ten replicated analyses under the RJMCMC model. The estimation of past species diversity might be biased by low preservation rates or taxonomic uncertainties. However, such trajectory curves are likely to provide a reasonably accurate representation of the past diversity changes in the studied clades, notably because the preservation during the Permian and Triassic period is relatively good for insects (i.e. no gaps).Our MCDD analyses comprise all the insect genera spanning from the lowermost Permian to the uppermost Triassic and were run and repeated on ten replicates (using the Te and Ts estimated under the RJMCMC model) with 50 million MCMC generations and a sampling frequency of 50,000. For each of the four insect groups, we computed the median and the 95% CI of the baseline origination and extinction rates (λi and µi), the within-group diversity-dependence parameters gλi and gµi, and the between-groups diversity dependence parameters gλij and gµij. The mean of the sampled diversity dependence parameters (e.g. gλij) was used as a measure of the intensity of the negative (if positive) or positive interactions (if negative) between each pair of groups. The interactions were considered significant when their median was different from 0 and the 95% CI did not overlap with 0. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.We cross-validated the result of the MCDD model using the MBD model. The MBD model can be used to run a multiple clade diversity-dependence analysis by providing the diversity trajectories of insect guilds as a continuous variable. These data are directly generated by PyRate using the lineages-through-time generated by the RJMCMC analyses (-ltt option). We ran the MBD model using 50 million MCMC generations and sampling every 50,000 to approximate the posterior distribution of all parameters (λ0, µ0, four Gλ, four Gµ and the shrinkage weights of each correlation parameter, ωG). We carried out three analyses, over the period encompassing the three extinction events (between 275 and 230 Ma): (1) for herbivores; (2) for predators; and (3) for ‘others’. For each analysis, the lineages-through-time data of the two other guilds are used as continuous variables to investigate a diversity dependence effect. We monitored chain mixing and ESS by examining the log files in Tracer 1.7.1103 and considered the convergence of parameters sufficient when their ESS were greater than 200.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

SamplesWe examined 1,022 avian species (~ 10% recorded species) in this study, representing 418 genera, from 91 families (37% recorded families) and 29 orders (73% of all orders). Specimens were from the skin collection of the World Museum Liverpool, Tring Natural History Museum, Manchester Museum and Wollaton Hall Museum, all situated in the United Kingdom. All work was carried out in accordance with ethical regulations at Manchester Metropolitan University and with the permission of all aforementioned museums. Only the best-preserved adult specimens (no signs of cut off feathers or holes in the skin near the beak) were chosen for this study to ensure accurate measurements of bristle length, shape and presence, which should not be affected by the process of skin removal and specimen conservation. Species were randomly chosen, without targeting our sampling towards species known a priori to have bristles. Where possible, two specimens per species were measured (occurring in 82% of all species examined). Specimens of each sex were measured when present; however, this was not always possible since labelling was often inaccurate or missing. In total, the sample included 508 males, 412 females and 374 individuals of unknown sex. Both sexes were examined in 274 species and there was no difference whatsoever between the presence of bristles on male or female species (n = 97 with bristles present and n = 180 with bristles absent for both males and females). Length (Mann–Whitney U test, W = 37,962, N = 552, P = 0.94) and shape (Chi-square test, χ2 = 0, N = 552, df = 3, P = 1) of rictal bristles also did not significantly differ between males and females. Therefore, rictal bristles are likely to be sexually monomorphic and data for males and females was pooled for further analyses. Overall, rictal bristles were absent in 64% of species examined (n = 656) and just over a third of species (n = 366) had bristles present.Bristle descriptionsFacial bristles were initially identified by sight and touch in each specimen. Bristles were recorded as either present or absent from the upper rictal, lorial, lower rictal, narial and interramal regions (Fig. 1a). We use the term ‘rictal bristle’ here for bristles on both the upper rictal and/or the lorial region, since there was no clear differentiation and morphological differences between the bristles found in these regions forming a continuum of bristles above the edge of the beak. When present, rictal bristle shape was recorded as: (i) unbranched rictal bristles, (ii) rictal bristles with barbs only at the base (“Base”) and (iii) branched rictal bristles (“Branched”), i.e. barbs and barbules present along the bristle rachis (Fig. 1b). The three longest rictal bristles were measured on both sides of the head of each specimen using digital callipers, and these lengths were averaged to provide a mean length of rictal bristles per species. In species lacking rictal bristles, a length of “0” and a shape category of “Absent” was recorded.Ancestral reconstruction of facial bristle presenceFollowing Felice et al.19, a single consensus phylogenetic tree was generated from the Hackett posterior distribution of trees from Birdtree.org20 with a sample size of 10,000 post burn-in, using the TreeAnnotator utility in BEAST software21 with a burn-in of 0. Maximum Clade Credibility (MCC) with the option “-heights ca” was selected as the method of reconstruction. The common ancestor trees option (-heights ca) builds a consensus tree by summarising clade ages across all posterior trees. Both the consensus tree and posterior distribution of 10,000 trees were imported into RStudio v. 1.2.5 for R22,23 and pruned so that only species present in the dataset of this study remained in the phylogeny. Taxon names were modified where necessary to match those from the Birdtree.org (http://birdtree.org) species record. Negative terminal branches in our consensus tree were slightly lengthened to be positive using ‘edge.length[tree$edge.length  More

Huijbers, P. M. C., Flach, C.-F. & Larsson, D. G. J. A conceptual framework for the environmental surveillance of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. Environ. Int. 130, 104880 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aarestrup, F. M. & Woolhouse, M. E. J. Using sewage for surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. Science 367, 630–632 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
European Commission. Proposal for a revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. European Commission https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-revised-urban-wastewater-treatment-directive_en (2022).US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 impacts on environment (e.g., water, soil) and sanitation: addressing antimicrobials and antimicrobial resistant threats in the environment. US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/covid19/COVID19-Impacts-AR-Environment-Sanitation-508.pdf (2021).Flach, C.-F., Hutinel, M., Razavi, M., Åhrén, C. & Larsson, D. G. J. Monitoring of hospital sewage shows both promise and limitations as an early-warning system for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in a low-prevalence setting. Water Res. 200, 117261 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Larsson, D. G. J. & Flach, C.-F. Antibiotic resistance in the environment. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 257–269 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newton, R. J. et al. Sewage reflects the microbiomes of human populations. mBio 6, e02574 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huijbers, P. M. C., Larsson, D. G. J. & Flach, C. F. Surveillance of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli in human populations through urban wastewater in ten European countries. Environ. Pollut. 261, 114200 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laxminarayan, R. & Macauley, M. K. The Value of Infromation: Methodological Frontiers and New Applications in Environment and Health 1st edn (Springer Dordrecht, 2012).Munk, P. et al. Genomic analysis of sewage from 101 countries reveals global landscape of antimicrobial resistance. Nat. Commun. 13, 7251 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Schulze, K. et al. An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12435 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bingham, H. C. et al. (eds). Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2021); https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H., Chandler, G. & Gregory, R. D. Assessment of national-level progress towards elements of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Ecol. Indic. 116, 106497 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, H. et al. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 411–418 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on Its Third Meeting (CBD Secretariat, 2022); https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/wg2020-03/documentsRodrigues, A. S. & Cazalis, V. The multifaceted challenge of evaluating protected area effectiveness. Nat. Commun. 11, 5147 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Starnes, T. et al. The extent and effectiveness of protected areas in the UK. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 30, e01745 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cazalis, V. et al. Mismatch between bird species sensitivity and the protection of intact habitats across the Americas. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2394–2405 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gamero, A. et al. Tracking progress toward EU biodiversity strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common farmland birds. Conserv. Lett. 10, 395–402 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellissier, V. et al. Effects of Natura 2000 on nontarget bird and butterfly species based on citizen science data. Conserv. Biol. 34, 666–676 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Princé, K., Rouveyrol, P., Pellissier, V., Touroult, J. & Jiguet, F. Long-term effectiveness of Natura 2000 network to protect biodiversity: a hint of optimism for common birds. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108871 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunningham, C. A., Thomas, C. D., Morecroft, M. D., Crick, H. Q. P. & Beale, C. M. The effectiveness of the protected area network of Great Britain. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109146 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duckworth, G. D. & Altwegg, R. Effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation depends on guild. Divers. Distrib. 24, 1083–1091 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rada, S. et al. Protected areas do not mitigate biodiversity declines: a case study on butterflies. Divers. Distrib. 25, 217–224 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terraube, J., Van Doninck, J., Helle, P., & Cabeza, M. Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation. Nat. Commun. 11, 2957 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track the shifting isotherms in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
van Teeffelen, A., Meller, L., van Minnen, J., Vermaat, J. & Cabeza, M. How climate proof is the European Union’s biodiversity policy? Regional Environ. Change 15, 997–1010 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. & Gillingham, P. K. The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 115, 718–730 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillingham, P. K. et al. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical ranges. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 115, 707–717 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stokstad, E. Species? Climate? Cost? Ambitious goal means trade-offs. Science 371, 555 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brlík, V. et al. Long-term and large-scale multispecies dataset tracking population changes of common European breeding birds. Sci. Data 8, 21 (2021).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stanbury, A. et al. The status of bird populations: the fifth Birds of Conservation Concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man and second IUCN Red List assessment of extinction risk for Great Britain. Br. Birds 114, 723–747 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Dudley, N. (ed). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 2008).Deguignet, M. et al. Measuring the extent of overlaps in protected area designations. PLoS ONE 12, e0188681 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
JNCC. Common Standards Monitoring: Introduction to the Guidance Manual (JNCC Resource Hub, 2004).Hayhow, D. B. et al. State of Nature 2019 (RSPB, 2019).Schleicher, J. et al. Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 34, 538–549 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Waldron, A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (Campaign for Nature, 2020); https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/326470Franks, S. E., Roodbergen, M., Teunissen, W., Carrington Cotton, A. & Pearce‐Higgins, J. W. Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland‐breeding waders. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10555–10568 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pearce-Higgins, J. W. et al. Site-based adaptation reduces the negative effects of weather upon a southern range margin Welsh black grouse Tetrao tetrix population that is vulnerable to climate change. Clim. Change 153, 253–265 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jellesmark, S. et al. A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1575–1585 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, C. A. et al. Covariation in population trends and demography reveals targets for conservation action. Proc. Biol. Sci. 288, 20202955 (2021).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Donald, P. F. et al. International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science 317, 810–813 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martay, B. et al. Monitoring landscape-scale environmental changes with citizen scientists: Twenty years of land use change in Great Britain. J. Nat. Conserv. 44, 33–42 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan, M. J. P., Newson, S. E. & Pearce‐Higgins, J. W. Changing densities of generalist species underlie apparent homogenization of UK bird communities. Ibis 158, 645–655 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 196–205 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Devictor, V. et al. Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 121–124 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehikoinen, P., Santangeli, A., Jaatinen, K., Rajasärkkä, A. & Lehikoinen, A. Protected areas act as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change—evidence from large‐scale, long‐term abundance data. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 304–313 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaüzère, P., Jiguet, F. & Devictor, V. Can protected areas mitigate the impacts of climate change on bird’s species and communities? Diversity Distrib. 22, 625–637 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neate‐Clegg, M. H. C., Jones, S. E. I., Burdekin, O., Jocque, M. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. Elevational changes in the avian community of a Mesoamerican cloud forest park. Biotropica 50, 805–815 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. et al. Large extents of intensive land use limit community reorganization during climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2272–2283 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hiley, J. R., Bradbury, R. B., Holling, M. & Thomas, C. D. Protected areas act as establishment centres for species colonizing the UK. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20122310 (2013).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14063–14068 (2012).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grace, M. K. et al. Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1833–1849 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gibbons, D. W., Reid, J. B. & Chapman, R. A. The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain & Ireland 1988–1991 (T. & A. D. Poyser, 1993).Balmer, D. E. et al. Bird Atlas 2007–11: the Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland (BTO, 2013).Gillings, S. et al. Breeding and wintering bird distributions in Britain and Ireland from citizen science bird atlases. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 866–874 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, S. N., Noble, D. G., Newson, S. E. & Baillie, S. R. Modelling population changes using data from different surveys: the Common Birds Census and the Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Study 54, 61–72 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. A., Julliard, R. & Saracco, J. F. Constant effort: studying avian population processes using standardised ringing. Ring. Migr. 24, 199–204 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cave, V. M., Freeman, S. N., Brooks, S. P., King, R. & Balmer, D. E. in Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations, 949–963 (Springer, 2009).Rowland, C. S. et al. Land Cover Map 2015 (1km Percentage Aggregate Class, GB) (eds Thomson, D. L. et al) (Environmental Information Data Centre, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5285/7115bc48-3ab0-475d-84ae-fd3126c20984Rowland, C. S. et al. Land Cover Map 2015 (1km Percentage Aggregate Class, N. Ireland) (Environmental Information Data Centre, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5285/362feaea-0ccf-4a45-b11f-980c6b89a858ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003 (dataset). NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Space Systems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003Schiavina, M., Freire, S. & MacManus, K. GHS-SMOD R2019A – GHS Settlement Layers, Updated and Refined REGIO Model 2014 in Application to GHS-BUILT R2018A and GHS-POP R2019A, Multitemporal (1975-1990-2000-2015) (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2905/42E8BE89-54FF-464E-BE7B-BF9E64DA5218Robinson, R. A. BirdFacts: Profiles of Birds Occurring in Britain & Ireland (BTO, 2005).Gibbons, D. W. et al. Bird species of conservation concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: revising the Red Data List. RSPB Conserv. Rev. 10, 7–18 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Stone, B. H. et al. Population estimates of birds in Britain and in the United Kingdom. Br. Birds 90, 1–22 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Woodward, I. et al. Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Br. Birds 113, 69–104 (2020).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4, e8273 (2009).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., Strange, N., Smith, R. J. & Gordon, A. Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social‐ecological systems. Conserv. Biol. 35, 510–521 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jellesmark, S. et al. Assessing the global impact of targeted conservation actions on species abundance. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.14.476374 (2022).Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1–28 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: an Introduction with R 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package v.0.4.4 (2021); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMaJetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A. et al. Species traits explain variation in detectability of UK birds. Bird Study 61, 340–350 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, M. O. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54, 427–432 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Anal. 15, 199–236 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Julliard, R., Clavel, J., Devictor, V., Jiguet, F. & Couvet, D. Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1237–1244 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Couvet, D. & Jiguet, F. Birds are tracking climate warming, but not fast enough. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 2743–2748 (2008).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Global statistics on declining biodiversity can give the impression that every population of every species is in a downward spiral. In fact, many populations are stable or growing, while a small number of species faces truly existential challenges. These photos capture some specific crises. They are images of threats unfolding, of desperate attempts at species defence and of the beautiful living world that is at stake.
The 15th United Nations Biodiversity Conference, COP15, opens in Montreal, Canada, on 7 December. At the meeting, delegates will attempt to agree on goals for stabilizing species’ declines by 2030 and reverse them by mid-century. The current draft framework agreement promises nothing less than a “transformation in society’s relationship with biodiversity”.
Help for the kelp. Tasmania’s forests of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) are dying as climate change shifts ocean currents, bringing warm water to the east coast of the temperate Australian island. The kelp forests host an entire ecosystem, including abalone and crayfish — both economically important species and part of local food culture. Now, researchers at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies in Hobart are breeding kelp plants that can tolerate warmer conditions, and replanting them along the coast — a trial for what they hope will become a landscape-scale restoration. More

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

Google Scholar 
Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. Erroneous predictions of auxotrophies by CarveMe. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01936-3 (2022).Machado, D., Andrejev, S., Tramontano, M. & Patil, K. R. Fast automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models for microbial species and communities. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7542–7553 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Deutschbauer, A. M. & Arkin, A. P. GapMind: automated annotation of amino acid biosynthesis. mSystems 5, e00291-20 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Ponomarova, O. et al. Yeast creates a niche for symbiotic lactic acid bacteria through nitrogen overflow. Cell Syst. 5, 345–357.e6 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Giri, S. et al. Metabolic dissimilarity determines the establishment of cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Curr. Biol. 31, 5547–5557.e6 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. J., Lenski, R. E. & Zinser, E. R. The black queen hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio 3, e00036-12 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, K. et al. Self-establishing communities enable cooperative metabolite exchange in a eukaryote. eLife 4, e09943 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
D’Souza, G. & Kost, C. Experimental evolution of metabolic dependency in bacteria. PLOS Genet. 12, e1006364 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ziesack, M. et al. Engineered interspecies amino acid cross-feeding increases population evenness in a synthetic bacterial consortium. mSystems 4, e00352-19 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryback, B., Bortfeld-Miller, M. & Vorholt, J. A. Metabolic adaptation to vitamin auxotrophy by leaf-associated bacteria. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-022-01303-x (2022). More

Ah-King, M. Flexible mate choice in Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, 2nd edn Vol. 4 (ed Jae Chun Choe) 421–431 (Academic Press, 2019).Harestad, A. S. & Bunnell, F. L. Home range and body weight—A reevaluation. Ecology 60, 389–402 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Neill, R. V., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G. & Gardner, R. H. Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 2, 63–69 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tricas, T. C. Determinants of feeding territory size in the corallivorous butterflyfish, Chaetodon multicinctus. Anim. Behav. 37, 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90067-5 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, I., Thomas, D., Blondel, J., Perret, P. & Lambrechts, M. M. The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican Blue Tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 147, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2004.00312.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watts, D. P. The influence of male mating tactics on habitat use in Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei). Primates 35, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381484 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lescroël, A. et al. Working less to gain more: when breeding quality relates to foraging efficiency. Ecology 91, 2044–2055. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0766.1 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tufto, J., Anderson, R. & Linnell, J. Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/5670 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morellet, N. et al. Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1326–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12105 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. P. et al. Scale-dependent summer resource selection by reintroduced elk in Wisconsin, USA. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069%3c0298:SSRSBR%3e2.0.CO;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olsson, P. M. O. et al. Movement and activity patterns of translocated elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) on an active coal mine in Kentucky. Wildl. Biol. Pract. 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2461/wbp.2007.3.1 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Porter, W. P., Sabo, J. L., Tracy, C. R., Reichman, O. J. & Ramankutty, N. Physiology on a landscape scale: plant–animal interactions. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/42.3.431 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berg, J. E. et al. Mothers’ movements: shifts in calving area selection by partially migratory elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 85, 1476–1489. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22099 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehman, C. P. et al. Elk resource selection at parturition sites, Black Hills, South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.1017 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, B. K., Kern, J. W., Wisdom, M. J., Findholt, S. L. & Kie, J. G. Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802738 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grace, J. & Easterbee, N. The natural shelter for red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a Scottish glen. J. Appl. Ecol. 16, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402726 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Demarchi, M. W. & Bunnell, F. L. Estimating forest canopy effects on summer thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Can. J. For. Res. 23, 2419–2426. https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-299 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L. & Gillingham, M. P. Estimates of critical thermal environments for mule deer. J. Range. Manag. 43, 73–81 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proffitt, K. M. et al. Changes in elk resource selection and distributions associated with a late-season elk hunt. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-593 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Webb, S. L., Dzialak, M. R., Harju, S. M., Hayden-Wing, L. D. & Winstead, J. B. Influence of land development on home range use dynamics of female elk. Wildl. Res. 38, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10101 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rumble, M. A., Benkobi, L. & Gamo, R. S. Elk responses to humans in a densely roaded area. Intermt. J. Sci. 11, 10–24 (2005).
Google Scholar 
McCorquodale, S. M. Sex-specific movements and habitat use by elk in the Cascade Range of Washington. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1607.1 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saïd, S. & Servanty, S. The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 1003–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7518-8 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seddon, P. J., Armstrong, D. P. & Maloney, R. F. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv. Biol. 21, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hale, S. L. & Koprowski, J. L. Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review. Restor. Ecol. 26, 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12684 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheyne, S. M. Wildlife reintroduction: considerations of habitat quality at the release site. BMC Ecol. 6, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-6-5 (2006).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hegel, T. M., Gates, C. C. & Eslinger, D. The geography of conflict between elk and agricultural values in the Cypress Hills, Canada. J. Eniron. Manag. 90, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walter, W. D. et al. Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review. Wildl. Res. 37, 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10021 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, T. S. Extralimital movements of reintroduced bison (Bison bison): implications for potential range expansion and human–wildlife conflict. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1094-5 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchholtz, E. K., Stronza, A., Songhurst, A., McCulloch, G. & Fitzgerald, L. A. Using landscape connectivity to predict human-wildlife conflict. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108677 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, J. A., Moilanen, A., Wintle, B. A. & Thomas, C. D. Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01919.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murie, O. The Elk of North America (Stackpole Co., 1951).
Google Scholar 
VDWR. Virginia elk management plan 2019–2028 (ed Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources) (Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, 2019).Lituma, C. M. et al. Terrestrial wildlife in the post-mined Appalachian landscape: status and opportunities in Appalachia’s Coal-Mined Landscapes (eds Carl E. Zipper & Jeff Skousen) 135–166 (Springer, 2021).Lupardus, J. L., Muller, L. I. & Kindall, J. L. Seasonal forage availability and diet for reintroduced elk in the Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee. Southeast. Nat. 10, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.010.0105 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, J. et al. Food habits of reintroduced elk in southeastern Kentucky. Southeast. Nat. 5, 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2006)5[535:Fhorei]2.0.Co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. N., Keller, B. J., Chitwood, M. C., Hansen, L. P. & Millspaugh, J. J. Diet composition and selection of recently reintroduced elk in Missouri. Am. Midl. Nat. 180, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-180.1.143 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, J. A., Zipper, C. E., Burger, J. A., Skousen, J. G. & Jacobs, D. F. Influence of herbaceous ground cover on forest restoration of eastern US coal surface mines. New. For. 43, 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-012-9342-8 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popp, J. N., Toman, T., Mallory, F. F. & Hamr, J. A century of elk restoration in eastern North America. Restor. Ecol. 22, 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12150 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, J. G., Irwin, L. L., Bryant, L. D., Riggs, R. A. & Thomas, J. W. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in the summer and winter. Wildl. Monogr. 141, 3–61 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L. & Robbins, C. T. Thermoregulation in mule deer and elk. Can. J. Zool. 62, 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-202 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, J. S. et al. Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1691–1707. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolff, J. O. & Van Horn, T. Vigilance and foraging patterns of American elk during the rut in habitats with and without predators. Can. J. Zool. 81, 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1139/z03-011 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. L. & Peek, J. M. Diet composition, forage selection, and potential for forage competition among elk, deer, and livestock on aspen–sagebrush summer range. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 58, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.2111/03-13.1 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, W. M., Johnson, A. S. & Hale, P. E. Nutritional quality of deer browse in southern Appalachian clearcuts and mature forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 67, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90013-2 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sikes, R. S., Gannon, W. L. & The American Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 92, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-mamm-f-355.1 (2011).Percie du Sert, N. et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Powell, J. W. Physiographic Regions of the United States. (American Book Company, 1895).Braun, E. L. Forests of the Cumberland Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 12, 413–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943039 (1942).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, J. B. The Vascular Flora of Breaks Interstate Park, Pike County, Kentucky, and Dickenson County, Virginia Master of Science thesis, Eastern Kentucky University (2012).Pericak, A. A. et al. Mapping the yearly extent of surface coal mining in Central Appalachia using Landsat and Google Earth Engine. PLoS ONE 13, e0197758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197758 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Boettner, F. et al. An assessment of the natural assets in the Appalachian Region: forest resources (ed Appalachian Regional Commission Report) 97 (Washington, DC, 2014).NOAA. Summary of monthly normals Grundy, VA 1991 – 2020 data (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2022).U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP). GAP/LANDFIRE national terrestrial ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey data release (2016).Clark, M. The Nature Conservancy Eastern Division & North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Terrestrial habitat, Northeast data (2017).ESRI. ArcGIS desktop version 10.8.1 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2020).Ford, W. M. et al. Influence of elevation and forest type on community assemblage and species distribution of shrews in the central and southern Appalachians in Advances in the Biology of the Shrews II Vol. 1(eds. J.F. Merritt, S. Churchfield, R. Hutterer and B.A. Sheftel) 303–315(Special Publication of the International Society of Shrew Biologists, 2006).Kniowski, A. B. & Ford, W. M. Predicting intensity of white-tailed deer herbivory in the Central Appalachian Mountains. J. For. Res. 29, 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-017-0476-6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleming, C. H. & Calabrese, J. M. ctmm: continuous-time movement modeling. R package version 0.6.0 (2021).R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Fleming, C. H. et al. Estimating where and how animals travel: an optimal framework for path reconstruction from autocorrelated tracking data. Ecology 97, 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1607.1 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.4-5 (2020).Becker, R. A., Chambers, J. M. & Wilks, A. R. The New S Language (Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, 1988).Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. B. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 1998).Turner, M. G., Wu, Y., Romme, W. H. & Wallace, L. L. A landscape simulation model of winter foraging by large ungulates. Ecol. Modell. 69, 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(93)90026-O (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taper, M. L. & Gogan, P. J. P. The northern Yellowstone elk: density dependence and climatic conditions. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 106–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802877 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, R. A. & Bear, G. D. Seasonal cycles and daily activity patterns of Rocky Mountain elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 54, 272–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809041 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craighead, J. J., Craighead, F. C. J., Ruff, R. L. & O’Gara, B. W. Home ranges and activity patterns of nonmigratory elk of the Madison Drainage herd as determined by biotelemetry. Wildl. Monogr. 33, 3–50 (1973).
Google Scholar 
Gittleman, J. L. & Thompson, S. D. Energy allocation in mammalian reproduction. Am. Zool. 28, 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/28.3.863 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beier, P. & McCullough, D. R. Factors influencing white-tailed deer activity patterns and habitat use. Wildl. Monogr. 109, 3–51 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Ciuti, S., Davini, S., Luccarini, S. & Apollonio, M. Variation in home range size of female fallow deer inhabiting a sub-Mediterranean habitat. Rev. Ecol. 58, 381–395 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Vore, J. M. & Schmidt, E. M. Movements of female elk during calving season in northwest Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29, 720–725 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Wickstrom, M. L., Robbins, C. T., Hanley, T. A., Spalinger, D. E. & Parish, S. M. Food intake and foraging energetics of elk and mule deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 48, 1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801789 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Soest, P. J. Allometry and ecology of feeding behavior and digestive capacity in herbivores: a review. Zoo. Biol. 15, 455–479 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1996)15:53.0.CO;2-AEsmaeili, S. et al. Body size and digestive system shape resource selection by ungulates: a cross-taxa test of the forage maturation hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2178–2191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13848 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Demment, M. W. & Van Soest, P. J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 125, 641–672 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. P. et al. Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0062-8 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maigret, T. A., Cox, J. J. & Yang, J. Persistent geophysical effects of mining threaten ridgetop biota of Appalachian forests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1992 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beier, P. Sex differences in quality of white-tailed deer diets. J. Mammal. 68, 323–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/1381471 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L., Barboza, P. S. & Gillingham, M. P. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct. Ecol. 23, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01528.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wichrowski, M. W., Maehr, D. S., Larkin, J. L., Cox, J. J. & Olsson, M. P. O. Activity and movements of reintroduced elk in southeastern Kentucky. Southeast. Nat. 4, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2005)004[0365:Aamore]2.0.Co;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Relyea, R. A., Lawrence, R. K. & Demarais, S. Home range of desert mule deer: testing the body-size and habitat-productivity hypotheses. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802984 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar  More