Ecology

Blatchford, M. L., Mannaerts, C. M., Zeng, Y., Nouri, H. & Karimi, P. Status of accuracy in remotely sensed and in-situ agricultural water productivity estimates: A review. Remote Sensing of Environment 234, 111413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111413 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Geerts, S. & Raes, D. Deficit irrigation as an on-farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas. Agricultural Water Management 96, 1275–1284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.04.009 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hellegers, P., Soppe, R., Perry, C. & Bastiaanssen, W. Combining remote sensing and economic analysis to support decisions that affect water productivity. Irrigation Science 27, 243–251, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-008-0139-7 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. & Steduto, P. The water productivity score (WPS) at global and regional level: Methodology and first results from remote sensing measurements of wheat, rice and maize. The Science of the total environment 575, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.032 (2017).Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth Science Reviews 99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004 (2010).Hu, X., Shi, L., Lin, L. & Zha, Y. Nonlinear boundaries of land surface temperature–vegetation index space to estimate water deficit index and evaporation fraction. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107736 (2019).Bowen, I. S. The Ratio of Heat Losses by Conduction and by Evaporation from any Water Surface. Physical Review 27, 779–787, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.27.779 (1926).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Penman, H. L. Natural evaporation from open water, hare soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and physical sciences 193, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.0037 (1948).Monteith, J. L. Evaporation and environment. The stage and movement of water in living organisms. Symp.soc.exp.biol.the Company of Biologists (1965).Wang, K. & Dickinson, R. E. A review of global terrestrial evapotranspiration: Observation, modeling, climatology, and climatic variability. Reviews of Geophysics 50, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000373 (2012).Bastiaanssen, W. G. et al. A remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL) Part 1: Fomulation. Journal of hydrology 212, 213–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00253-4 (1998).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. et al. A remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL) Part 2. Validation. Journal of Hydrology 212, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00254-6 (1998).Su, Z. The Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) for estimation of turbulent heat fluxes. Hydrology and Earth System Science 6, 85–99, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-6-85-2002 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Norman, J. M., Kustas, W. P. & Humes, K. S. Source approach for estimating soil and vegetation energy fluxes in observations of directional radiometric surface temperature. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 77, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(95)02265-y (1995).Mu, Q., Heinsch, F. A., Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sensing of Environment 111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.04.015 (2007).Mu, Q., Zhao, M. & Running, S. W. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sensing of Environment 115, 1781–1800, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.019 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fisher, J. B., Tu, K. P. & Baldocchi, D. D. Global estimates of the land–atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Remote Sensing of Environment 112, 901–919, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.06.025 (2008).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, H. W., Hwang, K., Mu, Q., Lee, S. O. & Choi, M. Validation of MODIS 16 global terrestrial evapotranspiration products in various climates and land cover types in Asia. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-012-0006-1 (2012).Velpuri, N. M., Senay, G. B., Singh, R. K., Bohms, S. & Verdin, J. P. A comprehensive evaluation of two MODIS evapotranspiration products over the conterminous United States: Using point and gridded FLUXNET and water balance ET. Remote Sensing of Environment 139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.07.013 (2013).Jin, X. et al. Estimation of water productivity in winter wheat using the AquaCrop model with field hyperspectral data. Precision Agriculture 19, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9469-2 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Felix, R., Clement, A., Igor, S. & Oscar, R. Using Low Resolution Satellite Imagery for Yield Prediction and Yield Anomaly Detection. Remote Sensing 5, 1704–1733, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5041704 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, Y. et al. Assimilation of soil moisture and canopy cover data improves maize simulation using an under-calibrated crop model. Agricultural Water Management 252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106884 (2021).Jin, X., Kumar, L., Li, Z., Feng, H. & Wang, J. A review of data assimilation of remote sensing and crop models. European Journal of Agronomy 92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.11.002 (2018).Weiss, M., Jacob, F. & Duveiller, G. Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review. Remote Sensing of Environment 236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111402 (2019).Jin, X. et al. Winter wheat yield estimation based on multi-source medium resolution optical and radar imaging data and the AquaCrop model using the particle swarm optimization algorithm. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 126, 24–37 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tao, F., Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Díaz-Ambrona, C. G. H. & Schulman, A. H. Contribution of crop model structure, parameters and climate projections to uncertainty in climate change impact assessments. Global Change Biology 24, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14019 (2017).Jin, X. et al. A review of data assimilation of remote sensing and crop models. European Journal of Agronomy 92, 141–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.11.002 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anikó, K. et al. Statistical modelling of crop yield in Central Europe using climate data and remote sensing vegetation indices. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 260-261, 300–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.06.009 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y., Zhang, Z., Feng, L., Du, Q. & Runge, T. Combining Multi-Source Data and Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Winter Wheat Yield in the Conterminous United States. Remote Sensing 12, 1232, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081232 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Franz, T. E. et al. The role of topography, soil, and remotely sensed vegetation condition towards predicting crop yield. Field Crops Research 252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107788 (2020).Noland, R. L. et al. Estimating alfalfa yield and nutritive value using remote sensing and air temperature. Field Crops Research 222, 189–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.017 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, J., Zhang, Z., Luo, Y., Zhang, L. & Tao, F. Wheat yield predictions at a county and field scale with deep learning, machine learning, and google earth engine. European Journal of Agronomy, 126204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126204 (2021).Jacinta, H. & Kerrie, M. Statistical Machine Learning Methods and Remote Sensing for Sustainable Development Goals: A Review. Remote Sensing 10, 1365, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091365 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jin, X., Liu, S., Baret, F., Hemerlé, M. & Comar, A. Estimates of plant density of wheat crops at emergence from very low altitude UAV imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 198, 105–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.007 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Maimaitijiang, M. et al. Soybean yield prediction from UAV using multimodal data fusion and deep learning. Remote Sensing of Environment 237, 111599, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111599 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hossein, A., Mohsen, A., Davoud, A., Salehi, S. H. & Soheil, R. Machine Learning Regression Techniques for the Silage Maize Yield Prediction Using Time-Series Images of Landsat 8 OLI. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations Remote Sensing PP, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2823361 (2018).Johansen, K. et al. Predicting Biomass and Yield in a Tomato Phenotyping Experiment Using UAV Imagery and Random Forest. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3, 28, https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00028 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L., Ding, X., Shen, Y., Wang, Z. & Wang, X. Spatial Heterogeneity and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Water Use Efficiency in China. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 28, https://doi.org/10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201904008 (2019).Cheng, M. et al. Satellite time series data reveal interannual and seasonal spatiotemporal evapotranspiration patterns in China in response to effect factors. Agric. Water Manage. 255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107046 (2021).Zhou, L. Comprehensive agricultural regionalization in China. (Agricultural Press of China, 1985).Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Li, Z. & Tao, F. ChinaCropPhen1km: A high-resolution crop phenological dataset for three staple crops in China during 2000-2015 based on LAI products. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8313530.v6 (2019).Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Li, Z. & Tao, F. ChinaCropPhen1km: a high-resolution crop phenological dataset for three staple crops in China during 2000–2015 based on leaf area index (LAI) products. Earth System Science Data 12, 197–214, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-197-2020 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Song, D. Second China Soil Survey. (Chinese Science Press, 1979).Zhang, T., Yang, X., Wang, H., Li, Y. & Ye, Q. Climatic and technological ceilings for Chinese rice stagnation based on yield gaps and yield trend pattern analysis. Global Change Biology 20, 1289–1298, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12428 (2014).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z. & Tao, F. Improving regional winter wheat yield estimation through assimilation of phenology and leaf area index from remote sensing data. European Journal of Agronomy 101, 163–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.09.006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, M. et al. Combining multi-indicators with machine-learning algorithms for maize yield early prediction at the county-level in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109057 (2022).Amir, J. & Sinclair, T. A model of the temperature and solar-radiation effects on spring wheat growth and yield. Field Crops Research 28, 47–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(91)90073-5 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prince, S. D., Haskett, J., Steininger, M. & Wright, S. R. Net Primary Production of U.S. Midwest Croplands from Agricultural Harvest Yield Data. Ecological Applications 11, 1194–1205, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1194:NPPOUS]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilardelli, C. et al. Downscaling rice yield simulation at sub-field scale using remotely sensed LAI data. European journal of agronomy 103, 108–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.12.003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shakoor, R., Hassan, M. Y., Raheem, A. & Wu, Y.-K. Wake effect modeling: A review of wind farm layout optimization using Jensen׳ s model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58, 1048–1059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.229 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 (2001).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Li, L. et al. Crop yield forecasting and associated optimum lead time analysis based on multi-source environmental data across China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 308–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108558 (2021).Wang, L. A., Zhou, X., Zhu, X., Dong, Z. & Guo, W. Estimation of biomass in wheat using random forest regression algorithm and remote sensing data. The Crop Journal 4, 212–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2016.01.008 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, P. et al. Dynamic wheat yield forecasts are improved by a hybrid approach using a biophysical model and machine learning technique. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 285-286, 107922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107922 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lu, F., Sun, Y. & Hou, F. Using UAV Visible Images to Estimate the Soil Moisture of Steppe. Water 12, 2334, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092334 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. High spatial resolution monitoring land surface energy, water and CO2 fluxes from an Unmanned Aerial System. Remote Sensing of Environment 229, 14–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.040 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Comparison of satellite-based evapotranspiration models over terrestrial ecosystems in China. Remote Sensing of Environment 140, 279–293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.08.045 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Peralta, N., Assefa, Y., Du, J., Barden, C. & Ciampitti, I. Mid-Season High-Resolution Satellite Imagery for Forecasting Site-Specific Corn Yield. Remote Sensing 8, 848, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100848 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Russello, H. Convolutional neural networks for crop yield prediction using satellite images. IBM Center for Advanced Studies (2018).You, J., Li, X., Low, M., Lobell, D. & Ermon, S. in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Moran, P. A. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37, 17–23 (1950).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Imran, M., Stein, A. & Zurita-Milla, R. Using geographically weighted regression kriging for crop yield mapping in West Africa. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 29, 234–257, https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.959522 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harries, K. Extreme spatial variations in crime density in Baltimore County, MD. Geoforum 37, 404–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.004 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghulam, A. et al. Remote Sensing Based Spatial Statistics to Document Tropical Rainforest Transition Pathways. Remote Sensing 7, 6257–6279, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70506257 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Maimaitijiang, M., Ghulam, A., Sandoval, J. S. O. & Maimaitiyiming, M. Drivers of land cover and land use changes in St. Louis metropolitan area over the past 40 years characterized by remote sensing and census population data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation Geoinformation 35, 161–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.08.020 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, M. Long time series (2001-2015) high-resolution crop yield and water productivity dataset of China, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5121842 (2021).Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., Schalie, R. D. & Verhoest, N. GLEAM v3: Satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geoscientific Model Development 10, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017 (2017).Wang, W., Cui, W., Wang, X. & Chen, X. Evaluation of GLDAS-1 and GLDAS-2 forcing data and Noah model simulations over China at the monthly scale. Journal of Hydrometeorology 17, 2815–2833, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0191.1 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. et al. Development of a 10-year (2001–2010) 0.1° data set of land-surface energy balance for mainland China. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14, 14471–14518, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13097-2014 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ramoelo, A. et al. Validation of Global Evapotranspiration Product (MOD16) using Flux Tower Data in the African Savanna, South Africa. Remote Sensing 6, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6087406 (2014).Yang, X., Yong, B., Ren, L., Zhang, Y. & Long, D. Multi-scale validation of GLEAM evapotranspiration products over China via ChinaFLUX ET measurements. International Journal of Remote Sensing https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1346400 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, G., Jia, L. & Menenti, M. Comparison of MOD16 and LSA-SAF MSG evapotranspiration products over Europe for 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment 156, 510–526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.10.017 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Khan, M. S., Liaqat, U. W., Baik, J. & Choi, M. Stand-alone uncertainty characterization of GLEAM, GLDAS and MOD16 evapotranspiration products using an extended triple collocation approach. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 252, 256–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.01.022 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glenn, E. P. et al. Scaling sap flux measurements of grazed and ungrazed shrub communities with fine and coarse-resolution remote sensing. Ecohydrology 1, 316–329, https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.19 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamon, J. A. Reviews and Syntheses: optical sampling of the flux tower footprint. Biogeosciences 12, 4509–4523, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4509-2015 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cai, Y. et al. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in Australia using machine learning approaches. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 274, 144–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.03.010 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. et al. Prediction of Maize Yield at the City Level in China Using Multi-Source Data. Remote Sensing 13, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010146 (2021).Guo, Y. et al. Integrated phenology and climate in rice yields prediction using machine learning methods. Ecological Indicators 120, 106935, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106935 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, W. et al. Estimating crop yield using a satellite-based light use efficiency model. Ecological Indicators 60, 702–709, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.013 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anandhi, A. Growing degree days – Ecosystem indicator for changing diurnal temperatures and their impact on corn growth stages in Kansas. Ecological Indicators 61, 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.023 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wart, J. V. Estimating Crop Yield Potential At National Scales. Field Crops Research 143, 34–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.11.018 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kang, Y. S. et al. Yield prediction and validation of onion (Allium cepa L.) using key variables in narrowband hyperspectral imagery and effective accumulated temperature. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105667 (2020).Long, D., Singh, V. P. & Li, Z.-L. How sensitive is SEBAL to changes in input variables, domain size and satellite sensor? Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 116, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016542 (2011).Liu, Z., Wang, L. & Wang, S. Comparison of Different GPP Models in China Using MODIS Image and ChinaFLUX Data. Remote Sensing 6, 10215–10231, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61010215 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Edreira, J., Guilpart, N., Sadras, V., Cassman, K. G. & Grassini, P. Water productivity of rainfed maize and wheat: A local to global perspective. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 259, 364–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.05.019 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. Water Use Characteristics of Maize-Green Manure Intercropping Under Different Nitrogen Application Levels in the Oasis Irrigation Area Scientia Agricultura Sinica 54, 2608–2618 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Ibrom, A., Bauer-Gottwein, P. & Garcia, M. Incorporating diffuse radiation into a light use efficiency and evapotranspiration model: An 11-year study in a high latitude deciduous forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.023 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, M. High-resolution crop yield and water productivity dataset generated using random forest and remote sensing. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6444614 (2022). More

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uchida, K. & Ushimaru, A. Biodiversity declines due to abandonment and intensification of agricultural lands: Patterns and mechanisms. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 637–658 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Habel, J. C. et al. Butterfly community shifts over two centuries: Shifts in butterfly communities. Conserv. Biol. 30, 754–762 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS One 12, e0185809 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wenzel, M., Schmitt, T., Weitzel, M. & Seitz, A. The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: A conservation problem. Biol. Cons. 128, 542–552 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Biesmeijer, J. C. et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H. & Jongejans, E. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511, 341–343 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Møller, A. P. Parallel declines in abundance of insects and insectivorous birds in Denmark over 22 years. Ecol. Evol. 9, 6581–6587 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Habel, J. C., Samways, M. J. & Schmitt, T. Mitigating the precipitous decline of terrestrial European insects: Requirements for a new strategy. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 1343–1360 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Uhl, B., Wölfling, M. & Fiedler, K. Understanding small-scale insect diversity patterns inside two nature reserves: The role of local and landscape factors. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 2399–2418 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Stevens, C. J., Dise, N. B., Mountford, J. O. & Gowing, D. J. Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303, 1876–1879 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, J. A. Butterfly communities under threat. Science 353, 216–218 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sanders, J. & Hess, J. Benefits of organic farming to environment and society. Thünen Report 65, 362 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Brühl, C. A. & Zaller, J. G. Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 177 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Brühl, C. A. et al. Direct pesticide exposure of insects in nature conservation areas in Germany. Sci. Rep. 11, 24144 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L., Grames, E. M., Forister, M. L., Berenbaum, M. R. & Stopak, D. Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023989118 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Den Boer, P. J. & van Dijk, T. S. Carabid Beetles in A Changing Environment (Agricultural Univ, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Cristescu, M. E. From barcoding single individuals to metabarcoding biological communities: Towards an integrative approach to the study of global biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 566–571 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hausmann, A. et al. Toward a standardized quantitative and qualitative insect monitoring scheme. Ecol. Evol. 10, 4009–4020 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) system. PLoS One 8, e66213 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hausmann, A. et al. Genetic patterns in european geometrid moths revealed by the Barcode Index Number (BIN) system. PLoS One 8, e84518 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Padial, J. M., Miralles, A., De la Riva, I. & Vences, M. The integrative future of taxonomy. Front. Zool. 7, 1–14 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schlick-Steiner, B. C. et al. Integrative taxonomy: A multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 55, 421–438 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schlick‐Steiner, B. C., Arthofer, W., & Steiner, F. M. Take up the challenge! Opportunities for evolution research from resolving conflict in integrative taxonomy (2014).Fujita, M. K., Leaché, A. D., Burbrink, F. T., McGuire, J. A. & Moritz, C. Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 480–488 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morinière, J. et al. A DNA barcode library for 5,200 German flies and midges (Insecta: Diptera) and its implications for metabarcoding-based biomonitoring. Mol. Ecol. Res. 19, 900–928 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kortmann, M. et al. Arthropod dark taxa provide new insights into diversity responses to bark beetle infestations. Ecol. Appl. 32, e2516 (2022).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Porter, T. M. & Hajibabaei, M. Automated high throughput animal CO1 metabarcode classification. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Boggs, C. L. & Inouye, D. W. A single climate driver has direct and indirect effects on insect population dynamics: Climate drivers of population dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 15, 502–508 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, K. F., Fox, R. & Woiwod, I. P. Monitoring biodiversity: Measuring long-term changes in insect abundance. In Insect Conservation Biology (eds Stewart, A. J. A. et al.) 203–225 (CABI, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845932541.0203.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Flohre, A. et al. Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecol. Appl. Publ. Ecol. Soc. Am. 21, 1772–1781 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Emmerson, M. et al. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Advances in Ecological Research, vol ***55 43–97 (Elsevier, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Segerer, A. H. & Rosenkranz, E. Das grosse Insektensterben: Was es Bedeutet und was Wir Jetzt tun Müssen (Oekom Verlag, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Batáry, et al. The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity-profit trade-offs in German agriculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1279–1284 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: A challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Birkhofer, K., Smith, H. G., Weisser, W. W., Wolters, V. & Gossner, M. M. Land-use effects on the functional distinctness of arthropod communities. Ecography 38, 889–900 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Habel, J. C., Seibold, S., Ulrich, W. & Schmitt, T. Seasonality overrides differences in butterfly species composition between natural and anthropogenic forest habitats. Anim. Conserv. 21, 405–413 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Schmitt, T., Ulrich, W., Delic, A., Teucher, M. & Habel, J. C. Seasonality and landscape characteristics impact species community structure and temporal dynamics of East African butterflies. Sci. Rep. 11, 15103 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ssymank, A. et al. Praktische Hinweise und Empfehlungen zur Anwendung von Malaisefallen für Insekten in der Biodiversitätserfassung und im Monitoring. Entomol. Verein Krefeld 1, 1–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Elbrecht, V., Peinert, B. & Leese, F. Sorting things out: Assessing effects of unequal specimen biomass on DNA metabarcoding. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6918–6926 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Elbrecht, V. & Steinke, D. Scaling up DNA metabarcoding for freshwater macrozoobenthos monitoring. Freshw. Biol. 64, 380–387 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boetzl, F. A. et al. A multitaxa assessment of the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, 25 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Uhler, J. et al. Relationship of insect biomass and richness with land use along a climate gradient. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Leray, M. et al. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: Application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front. Zool. 10, 34 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Morinière, J. et al. Species identification in malaise trap samples by DNA barcoding based on NGS Technologies and a scoring matrix. PLoS One 11, e0155497 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ondov, B. D., Bergman, N. H. & Phillippy, A. M. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a Web browser. BMC Bioinform. 12, 385 (2011).
Google Scholar  More

Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G. & Ruxton, G. D. Mixed-Species Groups of Animals: Behavior, Community Structure, and Conservation (Academic Press, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. D. Living in Groups (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Stensland, E., Angerbjorn, A. & Berggren, P. Mixed species groups in mammals. Mamm. Rev. 33, 205–223 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, T. M. et al. Landscape-scale analyses suggest both nutrient and antipredator advantages to Serengeti herbivore hotspots. Ecology 91, 1519–1529 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sinclair, A. R. E. Does interspecific competition or predation shape the African ungulate community? J. Anim. Ecol. 54, 899–918 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Kiffner, C., Kioko, J., Leweri, C. & Krause, S. Seasonal patterns of mixed species groups in large East African mammals. PLoS ONE 9, e113446 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Meise, K., Franks, D. W. & Bro-Jørgensen, J. Using social network analysis of mixed species groups in African savannah herbivores to assess how community structure responds to environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20190009 (2019).
Google Scholar 
de Boer, W. F. & Prins, H. H. T. Large herbivores that thrive mightily but eat and drink as friends. Oecologia 82, 264–274 (1990).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Beaudrot, L., Palmer, M. S., Anderson, T. M. & Packer, C. Mixed-species groups of Serengeti grazers: A test of the stress gradient hypothesis. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3163 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
He, Q., Bertness, M. D. & Altieri, A. H. Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecol. Lett. 16, 695–706 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bertness, M. D. & Callaway, R. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 191–193 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fugère, V. et al. Testing the stress-gradient hypothesis with aquatic detritivorous invertebrates: Insights for biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 1259–1267 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bakker, E. S., Dobrescu, I., Straile, D. & Holmgren, M. Testing the stress gradient hypothesis in herbivore communities: Facilitation peaks at intermediate nutrient levels. Ecology 94, 1776–1784 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hopcraft, J. G. C., Olff, H. & Sinclair, A. R. E. Herbivores, resources and risks: Alternating regulation along primary environmental gradients in savannas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 119–128 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sih, A. Optimal behavior: Can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210, 1041–1043 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Zollner, P. A. & Lima, S. L. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 131–135 (1996).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. S., Laundré, J. W. & Gurung, M. The ecology of fear: Optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80, 385–399 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Gaynor, K. M., Brown, J. S., Middleton, A. D., Power, M. E. & Brashares, J. S. Landscapes of fear: Spatial patterns of risk perception and response. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 355–368 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Creel, S., Schuette, P. & Christianson, D. Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community. Behav. Ecol. 25, 773–784 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R. D., Nieh, J. C. & Ruxton, G. D. Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 354–361 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Freeberg, T. M., Eppert, S. K., Sieving, K. E. & Lucas, J. R. Diversity in mixed species groups improves success in a novel feeder test in a wild songbird community. Sci. Rep. 7, 43014 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, T. M. et al. The spatial distribution of african savannah herbivores: Species associations and habitat occupancy in a landscape context. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150314 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Arsenault, R. & Owen-Smith, N. Resource partitioning by grass height among grazing ungulates does not follow body size relation. Oikos 117, 1711–1717 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Esmaeili, 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 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hopcraft, J. G. C., Anderson, T. M., Pérez-Vila, S., Mayemba, E. & Olff, H. Body size and the division of niche space: Food and predation differentially shape the distribution of Serengeti grazers. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 201–213 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McArthur, C., Banks, P. B., Boonstra, R. & Forbey, J. S. The dilemma of foraging herbivores: Dealing with food and fear. Oecologia 176, 677–689 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gagnon, M. & Chew, A. E. Dietary preferences in extant African Bovidae. J. Mammal. 81, 490–511 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Kartzinel, T. R. et al. DNA metabarcoding illuminates dietary niche partitioning by African large herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 8019–8024 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Veldhuis, M. P. et al. Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Science 363, 1424–1428 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kavwele, C. M. et al. Non-local effects of human activity on the spatial distribution of migratory wildlife in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 3, e12159 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bijlsma, R. & Loeschcke, V. Environmental stress, adaptation and evolution: An overview. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 744–749 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmitt, M. H., Stears, K. & Shrader, A. M. Zebra reduce predation risk in mixed-species herds by eavesdropping on cues from giraffe. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1073–1077 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Preisser, E. L., Orrock, J. L. & Schmitz, O. J. Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsmuptive effects in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 88, 2744–2751 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kiffner, C. et al. Long-term persistence of wildlife populations in a pastoral area. Ecol. Evol. 10, 10000–10016 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hopcraft, J. G. C. et al. Competition, predation, and migration: Individual choice patterns of Serengeti migrants captured by hierarchical models. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 355–372 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Fryxell, J. M. Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. Am. Nat. 138, 478–498 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Fitzgibbon, C. D. Mixed-species grouping in Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelles: The antipredator benefits. Anim. Behav. 39, 1116–1126 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. S. & Kotler, B. P. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 999–1014 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Stears, K. & Shrader, A. M. Increases in food availability can tempt oribi antelope into taking greater risks at both large and small spatial scales. Anim. Behav. 108, 155–164 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Creel, S. Toward a predictive theory of risk effects: Hypotheses for prey attributes and compensatory mortality. Ecology 92, 2190–2195 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Périquet, S. et al. Effects of lions on behaviour and endocrine stress in plains zebras. Ethology 123, 667 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Stears, K., Schmitt, M. H., Wilmers, C. C. & Shrader, A. M. Mixed-species herding levels the landscape of fear. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192555 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schmitt, M. H., Stears, K., Wilmers, C. C. & Shrader, A. M. Determining the relative importance of dilution and detection for zebra foraging in mixed-species herds. Anim. Behav. 96, 151–158 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Meise, K., Franks, D. W. & Bro-Jørgensen, J. Alarm communication networks as a driver of community structure in African savannah herbivores. Ecol. Lett. 23, 293–304 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Codron, D., Hofmann, R. R. & Clauss, M. Morphological and physiological adaptations for browsing and grazing. In The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing II (eds Gordon, I. J. & Prins, H. H. T.) 81–125 (Springer, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Odadi, W. O., Karachi, M. K., Abdulrazak, S. A. & Young, T. P. African wild ungulates compete with or facilitate cattle depending on season. Science 333, 1753–1755 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maestre, F. T., Callaway, R. M., Valladares, F. & Lortie, C. J. Refining the stress-gradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J. Ecol. 97, 199–205 (2009).
Google Scholar 
de Jonge, M. M. J. et al. Conditional love? Co-occurrence patterns of drought-sensitive species in European grasslands are consistent with the stress-gradient hypothesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 1609–1620 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Franks, D. W., Weiss, M. N., Silk, M. J., Perryman, R. J. Y. & Croft, D. P. Calculating effect sizes in animal social network analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 33–41 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meise, K., Franks, D. W. & Bro-Jørgensen, J. Multiple adaptive and non-adaptive processes determine responsiveness to heterospecific alarm calls in African savannah herbivores. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20172676 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Blumstein, D. T., Bitton, A. & DaVeiga, J. How does the presence of predators influence the persistence of antipredator behavior? J. Theor. Biol. 239, 460–468 (2006).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Riggio, J. et al. Lion populations may be declining in Africa but not as Bauer et al. suggest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 201521506 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bauer, H. et al. Lion (Panthera leo) populations are declining rapidly across Africa, except in intensively managed areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 14894–14899 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pettorelli, N., Bro-Jørgensen, J., Durant, S. M., Blackburn, T. & Carbone, C. Energy availability and density estimates in African ungulates. Am. Nat. 173, 698–704 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haile, G. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on drought patterns over East Africa. Earth’s Future 8, 1–23 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Devine, A. P., McDonald, R. A., Quaife, T. & Maclean, I. M. D. Determinants of woody encroachment and cover in African savannas. Oecologia 183, 939–951 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kiffner, C. et al. Long-term population dynamics in a multi-species assemblage of large herbivores in East Africa. Ecosphere 8, e02027 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Prins, H. H. T. & Loth, P. E. Rainfall patterns as background to plant phenology in northern Tanzania. J. Biogeogr. 15, 451–463 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Beattie, K., Olson, E. R., Kissui, B., Kirschbaum, A. & Kiffner, C. Predicting livestock depredation risk by African lions (Panthera leo) in a multi-use area of northern Tanzania. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 66, 11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kasozi, H. & Montgomery, R. A. Variability in the estimation of ungulate group sizes complicates ecological inference. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6881–6889 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
USGS. MOD13Q1 v006 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250 m SIN Grid. 10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006 (2020).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed January 02, 2022 (2021).Dice, L. R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 297–302 (1945).
Google Scholar 
Croft, D. P., James, R. & Krause, J. Exploring Animal Social Networks (Princeton University Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Besag, J. & Clifford, P. Generalized Monte Carlo significance tests. Biometrika 76, 633–642 (1989).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Hayward, M. W. & Kerley, G. I. H. Prey preferences of the lion (Panthera leo). J. Zool. 267, 309–322 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Codron, D. et al. Diets of savanna ungulates from stable carbon isotope composition of faeces. J. Zool. 273, 21–29 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Kartzinel, T. R. & Pringle, R. M. Multiple dimensions of dietary diversity in large mammalian herbivores. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 1482–1496 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Prins, H. H. T. & Douglas-Hamilton, I. Stability in a multi-species assemblage of large herbivores in East Africa. Oecologia 83, 392–400 (1990).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tournier, E. et al. Differences in diet between six neighbouring groups of vervet monkeys. Ethology 120, 471–482 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Humphries, B. D., Ramesh, T. & Downs, C. T. Diet of black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas) on farmlands in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, South Africa. Mammalia 80, 405–412 (2016).
Google Scholar  More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Marin, F. R. et al. Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00968-8 (2022). More

Longline fishing boats such as these at Honolulu’s harbour in Hawaii must respect a large no-fishing zone off the western side of the archipelago.Credit: Sarah Medoff

Large no-fishing areas can drive the recovery of commercially valuable fish species, a study suggests. Ten years’ worth of fisheries data have shown that catch rates of two important types of tuna increased drastically in the vicinity of a marine protected area surrounding the northwestern Hawaiian islands.“It’s a win–win for fish and fishermen,” says Jennifer Raynor, an economist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and a co-author of the study, which was published on 20 October in Science1.The results highlight the value of large-scale marine protected areas — a type of environmental management that has emerged in the past two decades, mostly in the Pacific Ocean, says Kekuewa Kikiloi, who studies Hawaiian culture at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. Countries around the world have committed to protecting 30% of their land and oceans by 2030.Previous research showed that marine protected areas can help to restore populations of creatures that don’t move around much or at all, such as corals2 and lobsters3. Raynor and her colleagues wanted to test whether the areas could also drive the recovery of migratory species and provide spillover benefits for fisheries. The researchers looked at one of the largest such areas in the world, the 1.5-million-square-kilometre Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which was created in 2006 and expanded in 2016 to protect biological and cultural resources.The team focused on the Hawaiian ‘deep-set’ longline fishery, which mainly targets yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus).The researchers analysed catch data collected on fishing vessels between 2010 and late 2019. Then, they compared catch rates at various distances up to 600 nautical miles (1,111 kilometres) from the protected area, before and after its expansion in 2016. (The protected area itself currently extends for 200 nautical miles from the northwestern part of the Hawaiian archipelago.) They found that after the expansion, catch rates — defined as the number of fish caught for every 1,000 hooks deployed — went up, and that the increases were greater the closer the boats were to the no-fishing zone. At distances of up to 100 nautical miles, the catch rate for yellowfin tuna increased by 54%, and that for bigeye tuna by 12%. Some other types of catch rate also increased, but not by equally significant margins.The size of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument — more than three times the surface area of California — probably played a part in the positive effects, as did its shape. It spans about 2,000 kilometres from west to east, protecting large swathes of ocean waters at tropical latitudes. This means that tropical fish such as yellowfin and bigeye tuna — which tend to move along an east–west axis to stay in their preferred temperature range — can travel a long way and still stay in the no-fishing zone.What’s more, says Raynor, Papahānaumokuākea is a spawning ground for yellowfin tuna. Because the animals don’t travel far from their birthplace, the no-take zone provides refuge from fishing, helping tuna to aggregate and reproduce.“It is exciting to see that there are benefits to the fishing industry from this marine protected area,” says David Kroodsma, director of research and innovation at Global Fishing Watch in Oakland, California, a US non-governmental organization that monitors fishing activity worldwide. However, he adds, it’s unclear whether the results can be generalized to other areas of the world.Regardless, the findings could help others to design marine protected areas so that benefits trickle down to fisheries, says Steve Gaines, a marine ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The study, he says, “provides a platform to definitively evaluate what is working and what isn’t”.Co-managed by Indigenous populations, the state of Hawaii and the US government, Papahānaumokuākea is an example of a collaborative management strategy that bridges Indigenous knowledge and modern science, Kikiloi says. The approach, he adds, “can work successfully in other places too, if given a chance”. More

Field samplingLake Masoko fish were chased into fixed gill nets and SCUBA by a team of professional divers at different target depths determined by diver depth gauge (12× male benthic, 12× male littoral). Riverine fish (11× Mbaka River and 1× Itupi river) were collected by local fishermen. On collection, all fish were euthanized using clove oil. Collection of wild fish was done in accordance with local regulations and permits in 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019. On collection, fish were immediately photographed with color and metric scales, and tissues were dissected and stored in RNAlater (Sigma-Aldrich); some samples were first stored in ethanol. Only male specimens (showing bright nuptial coloration) were used in this study for the practical reason of avoiding any misassignment of individuals to the wrong population (only male individuals show clear differences in phenotypes and could therefore be reliably assigned to a population). Furthermore, we assumed that any epigenetic divergence relevant to speciation should be contributing to between-population differences in traits possessed by both sexes (habitat occupancy, diet). To investigate the role of epigenetics in phenotypic diversification and adaptation to different diets, homogenized liver tissue – a largely homogenous and key organ involved in dietary metabolism, hormone production and hematopoiesis – was used for all RNA-seq and WGBS experiments.Common-garden experimentCommon-garden fish were bred from wild-caught fish specimens, collected and imported at the same time by a team of professional aquarium fish collectors according to approved veterinary regulations of the University of Bangor, UK. Wild-caught fish were acclimatized to laboratory tanks and reared to produce first-generation (G1) common-garden fish, which were reared under the same controlled laboratory conditions in separate tanks (light–dark cycles, diet: algae flakes daily, 2–3 times weekly frozen diet) for approximately 6 months (post hatching). G1 adult males showing bright nuptial colors were culled at the same biological stages (6 months post hatching) using MS222 in accordance with the veterinary regulations of the University of Bangor, UK. Immediately on culling, fish were photographed and tissues collected and snap-frozen in tubes.Stable isotopesTo assess dietary/nutritional profiles in the three ecomorph populations, carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) isotope analysis of muscle samples (for the same individuals as RRBS; 12, 12 and 9 samples for benthic, littoral and riverine populations, respectively) was undertaken by elemental analyzer isotope ratio mass spectrometry by Iso-Analytical Limited. It is important to note that stable isotope analysis does not depend on the use of the same tissue as the ones used for the RRBS/WGBS samples45. Normality tests (Shapiro–Wilk, using the R package rstatix v.0.7.0), robust for small sample sizes, were performed to assess sample deviation from a Gaussian distribution. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was then performed (R package carData v.3.0-5) to test for homogeneity of variance across groups. Finally, Welch’s ANOVA was performed followed by Games–Howell all-pairs comparison tests with adjusted P value using Tukey’s method (rstatix v.0.7.0). Mean differences in isotope measurements and 95% CI mean differences were calculated using Dabestr v.0.3.0 with 5,000 bootstrapped resampling.Throughout this manuscript, all box plots are defined as follows: centre line, median; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5× interquartile range; points, outliers.RNA-seqNext-generation sequencing library preparationTotal RNA from liver tissues stored in RNAlater was extracted using a phenol/chloroform approach (TRIzol reagent; Sigma-Aldrich). Of note, when tissues for bisulphite sequencing samples were not available, additional wild-caught samples were used (Supplementary Table 3). The quality and quantity of RNA extraction were assessed using TapeStation (Agilent Technologies), Qubit and NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) libraries were prepared using poly(A) tail-isolated RNA fraction and sequenced on a NovaSeq system (S4; paired-end 100/150 bp; Supplementary Table 3), yielding on average 32.9 ± 3.9 Mio reads.Read alignment and differential gene expression analysisAdaptor sequence in reads, low-quality bases (Phred score  More

Wolf, S. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01904-x (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kattge, J. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sabatini, F. M. et al. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 1740–1764 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Łopucki, R., Kiersztyn, A., Pitucha, G. & Kitowski, I. Ecol. Modell. 468, 109964 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, C. R. et al. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1572–1578 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xirocostas, Z. A., Debono, S. A., Slavich, E. & Moles, A. T. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 596–602 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Bioscience 71, 55–63 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

Data collectionIn phase 1 (2017), we first circulated a comprehensive multi-language questionnaire and associated guidelines on protected area personnel numbers to major national protected area agencies, focusing on the 50 countries listed in the WDPA as having the most protected areas. The questionnaire requested information on personnel numbers, type of employers and management levels (from executive to skilled practical workers). Protected area personnel were defined as those spending at least 50% of their work time on protected area-related tasks. The questionnaire also requested information about job titles used for personnel equivalent to rangers. This phase produced usable data for 28 countries/territories.In phase 2 (2018 onwards), we conducted online searches for published data on protected area personnel numbers in the countries/territories not included in the questionnaire survey or where questionnaire responses were incomplete or unclear. The resulting information came from official organizational reports (10 countries/territories), published external studies, project documents and journal papers (35 countries/territories) and websites of protected area organizations or individual sites (9 countries/territories).In phase 3 (2018–2021), we directly requested personal contacts to locate or supply information from official sources both for the remaining countries/territories and to improve or verify data from phases 1 and 2. The minimum data requested were the overall number of protected area personnel, the number of those personnel that could be categorized as rangers, the terrestrial area of protected areas managed by the listed personnel and the source of the information. This phase contributed usable data for 68 countries and territories. Data for a further 17 countries/territories were assembled from multiple sources.The final dataset covered 176 countries/territories: 167 surveyed countries/territories and a further 9 countries/territories that have no WDPA-listed protected areas (Supplementary Table 1), with contributions from more than 150 individuals.Initial data processingTo assess and, where necessary, improve the reliability of data obtained in a wide range of formats and levels of detail and from multiple sources, we scored the data for each country/territory from 0 to 5 for each of four criteria—detail, accuracy, source and age of the data—with a maximum score of 20 (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1). For all low-scoring records (a score of less than 15), we sought more-reliable sources in later phases of the study, rejecting any final scores of less than 10.On reviewing the data, we excluded from the analysis protected areas identified in the WDPA as predominantly or entirely marine, Antarctica and countries/territories categorized in the WDPA as polar (Greenland, French Southern Territories, Bouvet Island, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). These large, remote and/or largely uninhabited areas are likely to have quite different management models and scales of staffing from terrestrial protected areas (although marine protected areas are also widely understaffed11). For example, in 2012 the 972,000 km2 of Northeast Greenland Protected Area (categorized by the WDPA as polar) was only periodically visited by six two-person teams of naval personnel47, and the 2008 management plan of the 1.51 million km2 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (Hawai’i, USA) specifies just nine personnel, working in conjunction with several other agencies48. Data for one country were supplied by officials on the agreement that the country was not specifically identified in publications (the country is given the three-letter code ZZZ in relevant tables and figures).Because the format, completeness and level of detail of the data varied widely, from comprehensive personnel lists to single figures, we restricted our raw dataset to six variables that could be consistently extracted from data obtained for each country/territory:

1.

Total number of non-ranger personnel (if known)

2.

Total number of rangers (if known)

3.

Total number of protected area personnel (either the sum of 1 and 2 or provided as an undifferentiated total)

4.

Terrestrial area of protected areas covered by surveyed personnel (km2)

5.

Total terrestrial area of protected areas of the country/territory (km2)

6.

Year of the data

We used the WDPA, official publications and websites to determine (or verify) the area of terrestrial protected areas covered by the personnel listed for each country/territory, using WDPA data if there were discrepancies. Total national terrestrial protected area coverage was taken from the WDPA, with the exception of Turkey, where the area officially reported to the WDPA is significantly less than the nationally published area.The raw data from the survey are shown in Supplementary Table 1.Candidate predictorsTo predict the number of rangers and non-rangers in countries and territories for which we had no data (Statistical analysis), we collected information on the following set of variables, hereafter referred to as candidate predictors:Location dataThe WGS84 latitude and longitude of the centroid of the largest land mass associated with each country/ territory (to obtain the polygons defining the land masses, we used the R package rnaturalearth version 0.1.0; https://github.com/ropensci/rnaturalearth)2020 data from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator)

Area of the country/territory

Population density: the mid-year population divided by land area

Gross domestic product (GDP) in US dollars

GDP per capita in US dollars (GDP divided by mid-year population)

Growth rate of GDP

The proportion of rural inhabitants

The proportion of unemployed inhabitants

The forested proportion of the country/territory

2020 data for each country/territory from the WDPA (https://www.protectedplanet.net/)

The total terrestrial area of WDPA-listed protected areas

The proportion of the terrestrial area of all IUCN-categorized protected areas (Categories I–VI) that falls within protected areas in Category I or II

The proportion of the terrestrial area of all IUCN-categorized protected areas (Categories I–VI) that falls within protected areas in Categories I–IV

2020 data from the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy Environmental Performance Index (https://epi.yale.edu/)

Environmental Performance Index (EPI): a composite index using 32 performance indicators across 11 categories

Ecosystem Vitality Index (EVI): an indicator of how well countries preserve, protect and enhance ecosystems and the services they provide

Species Protection Index (SPI): an indicator of the species-level ecological representativeness of each country’s/territory’s protected area network

Not all this information was available for all countries/territories. Most of the missing data were for small territories that account for only a very small proportion of the total area of protected areas worldwide (Supplementary Table 2c).Statistical analysisOur primary objective was to estimate the total number of all personnel engaged in managing all the world’s WDPA-listed terrestrial protected areas and the number categorized as rangers. Our raw data collection yielded full, partial or no information on total personnel and ranger numbers for each country/territory (Supplementary Table 1 shows the completeness of all the data collected). Our first task, therefore, was (1) to impute the information for unsurveyed protected areas on the basis of information from surveyed protected areas within the same countries/territories and (2) to predict those numbers for countries/territories where no information was available on overall personnel numbers and/or ranger numbers on the basis of relationships we could establish between available information and candidate predictors in other countries/territories (Supplementary Table 7). A brief description of these two approaches follows, and full details on the analysis are provided in Supplementary Information.Data imputationFor countries/territories where we had obtained information about numbers of personnel and/or rangers for only some protected areas, our strategy was to populate the unsurveyed protected areas in proportion to the densities of personnel or rangers from the surveyed protected areas of the same countries/territories. For example, for Spain we obtained evidence that there are 619 rangers responsible for protected areas covering 44,328 km2, out of a national total protected area system covering 142,573 km2. To impute the number of rangers for the remaining 98,245 km2, we used the density of rangers in the surveyed area (one ranger per 44,328/619 = 71.6 km2) and applied that to the unsurveyed area, giving a total of 1,991 rangers (619 + (98,245/71.6)). This imputation assumes that unsurveyed areas are staffed at the same density as surveyed areas, whereas in reality the relative densities are likely to vary in unknown ways within different countries/territories. To study the sensitivity of our results to the assumed proportion, we repeated our analysis using the following proportions of the observed densities: 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00. This provided a range of personnel numbers from a minimum (based on a proportion of 0) to a presumed maximum (based on a proportion of 1.00). From the data obtained, it was not possible to calculate the actual proportions, but based on the experience of the practitioners in the author team, the unsurveyed areas are highly unlikely to be staffed at higher densities than surveyed areas and, on average, are very likely to be staffed at lower densities. After all, most survey respondents were national or subnational agencies responsible for protected areas subject to stronger formal requirements for protection and management and therefore likely to have larger workforces. Unsurveyed protected areas are more likely to be managed by local entities, with fewer resources, less-stringent management obligations and therefore fewer personnel. The range of proportions we considered to populate unsurveyed areas should therefore yield predictions encompassing the actual (unknown) numbers of rangers and non-rangers with a conservative margin of error. In the main text, we have reported the results of imputation assuming a proportion of 1, which is probably the most optimistic assessment of the current workforce in protected areas within the proportions of the observed densities considered. Results using lower proportions are shown in Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Tables 4 and 5.Data predictionOur imputation approach was not possible for countries/territories where (1) zero ranger or personnel data had been obtained and (2) specific data had not been obtained that allowed imputation either for rangers or for total personnel (where only total personnel numbers or only ranger numbers had been obtained). To predict the missing information, we used two different statistical approaches: linear mixed models (LMMs)49 and a general implementation of random forests, which we term RF/ETs because it encompasses both random forests sensu stricto (RFs)50 and a variant called extremely randomized trees (ETs)51. LMMs and RFs have been extensively discussed and reviewed in the literature49,52,53. We adopted these approaches because both have proved successful in producing accurate predictions for a wide range of applications and because both are well suited to our data since they both produce predictions from a set of predictors and allow for the consideration of spatial effects54,55. Furthermore, comparing predictions generated through very different methods informs us about the robustness of our results with respect to key statistical assumptions. LMMs come from the ‘data modelling culture’56 and belong to parametric statistics; RF/ETs come from the ‘algorithmic modelling culture’ and belong to non-parametric statistics.We followed the same workflow for both statistical approaches, comprising eight steps: (1) general data preparation; (2) preparation of initial training datasets; (3) selection of predictor variables and of the method used for handling spatial autocorrelation; (4) preparation of final training datasets; (5) fine tuning; (6) final training; (7) preparation of datasets for predictions and simulations; and (8) predictions and simulations (see Supplementary Information for details).Both approaches yielded very similar results with our data. We chose to present the LMM results in the main text, but we provide and compare the results obtained by both approaches in Supplementary Information.SoftwareWe performed all the data analyses using the free open-source statistical software R version 4.157. We used the R package spaMM version 3.9.13 to implement LMMs58 and the R package ranger version 0.13.1 to implement RF/ETs59. To reformat and plot the data, we used the Tidyverse suite of packages60. Details are provided in an R package we specifically developed so that findings presented in this paper can readily be reproduced (see Code availability). Using a workstation with an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990 × 64-core processor and 256 GB of RAM, our complete workflow ran in ~3,000 CPU hours.Estimation of required numbers and densities of personnelTo estimate the numbers of personnel and rangers required for effective management of existing protected areas, we referred to ref. 25. This estimates that the minimum budget needed to adequately manage the existing protected area system is US$67.6 billion per year and that current annual expenditure is US$24.3 billion. From these figures, we can calculate that resources invested in the current global system of protected areas are approximately 36% of what is required. We consulted data from https://ourworldindata.org to determine that the proportion of global public expenditure on employee compensation has remained between 21.01% and 23.33% in the years from 2006 to 2019. We obtained these figures from the ‘Government Spending’ section of the site, consulting the chart ‘Share of employee compensation in public spending, 2002 to 2019’ and selecting data for ‘World’. On the basis of this broadly constant proportion and the assumption that total employee compensation is an indicator of total employee numbers, we inferred that current numbers of protected area employees are also around 36% of what is required. We therefore multiplied our estimations of personnel and ranger numbers by 1/0.36 and recalculated the densities on this basis (current requirement = 1/0.36 × current estimate).To estimate staffing requirements for 30% global coverage of protected areas—the global target intended to be reached by 2030—we used the mean personnel and ranger densities calculated as being required at present to ‘populate’ a global area of terrestrial protected areas if increased from the percentage at the time of our study (15.7%) to 30% (current requirement × (0.300/0.157)).Economic calculationsWe based our calculations on published data from 202025, which estimate that expanding the protected areas to 30% would generate higher overall output (revenues) than non-expansion (an extra US$64–454 billion per year by 2050). This figure is only an indicative, partial estimate, generated for the purposes of comparison and to illustrate the substantial return on investment that protected area staff investments imply. Using these figures and our estimates of personnel requirements to ensure effective management of 30% coverage, we calculated the range of sums that each additional protected area staff member has the potential to generate (Supplementary Table 8). For clarity, we rounded these figures to the nearest hundred US dollars in the main text.Our estimates of the gross value added per worker in forestry and agriculture (sectors responsible for similar proportions of the world as protected areas) are included to provide a point of comparison for the figures showing the economic benefit generated per protected area personnel member (see the preceding). The data for the gross annual value of world agricultural production (US$3,550,231,736,000) and the number of workers employed in agriculture (343,527,711) come from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations30, providing an average gross value of annual agricultural production per worker of US$10,335. We adjusted these 2018 data to 2020 price levels using a deflator based on the US consumer price index (CPI) from the World Economic Outlook database61 (Supplementary Table 9). This ensures that all the economic value data we present are directly comparable for protected area, agricultural and forestry workers. We calculated the gross value of forest production per worker on the basis of direct contribution of forestry of more than US$539 billion to world GDP in 201162 and total forest-sector employment of 11.881 million full-time-equivalent jobs in 201032. These were the most up-to-date global estimates we could locate from credible sources that presented comparable estimates of forest-sector employment and contribution to GDP. This gives an average gross value of forest production per worker of US$45,367 per year. We used the same method as for agriculture to bring these figures to 2020 price levels (Supplementary Table 9). These figures are rounded to the nearest hundred US dollars in the main text. More