Ecology

Deforestation trajectories and economic driversCambodia has undergone significant forest loss in recent decades—with 2.6 million hectares of forest cover loss occurring since 2001, equating to 29.5% of forest cover7 and 1.45 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions8. The deforestation rates have increased by 76% in the last decade (2011–2021) compared to the previous (2001–2010; Fig. 1b)7. We find forest loss has occurred within three distinct Phases demonstrated by changepoint analysis: (1) Phase 1: steady rise from 2000 to 2009 (average = 0.82%/year), (2) Phase 2: peak years from 2010 to 2013 (average = 2.3%/year), (3) Phase 3: moderate phase from 2014 to 2021 (average = 1.6%/year). Whilst the annual rate of deforestation has declined since the Phase 2, Cambodia currently has the highest country-level annual rate of forest loss globally7, illustrating the relentless deforestation spreading across the landscape. Critically, much of this forest loss and degradation is occurring in mature primary forests (Fig. 1b), which hold significant carbon and are home to rich biodiversity and keystone species17,18,19.
This deforestation in Cambodia has been attributed to the widespread development of Economic Land Concessions (ELCs), the expansion of numerous agricultural frontiers and relentless illegal logging20,21,22. These drivers have been abetted by the establishment of an extensive national road network (Fig. 1a)20—developed to promote economic growth and urban–rural connectivity23. The majority (88.4%) of these roads have been funded by foreign governments (the People’s Republic of China: 38.5%, Japan: 37.9%, and Republic of Korea: 12.0%)18—all of whom have established land concessions within Cambodia’s borders24 through the allocation of state land into private land for long-term industrial plantations22,25. The expansion of ELCs across Cambodia (average addition of 105,000 ha/year of ELC land since 1998) has been directly attributed to up to 40% of the country’s deforestation21, with further indirect impacts due to encroachment into rural community lands (indigenous areas, community forests, subsistence agricultural fields). This results in landlessness, poverty, and land conflicts, forcing communities to migrate in search of arable land, further contributing to the growing degradation and destruction of forests22,26,27,28,29.Strategic government interventionProtected areas expanded across Cambodia in 1993 following a royal decree26; the legal details of which were delineated in the 2008 Protected Areas Law, introducing protected categories, wildlife corridors and strict laws prohibiting development9. While over 80 protected areas currently exist covering 35% of Cambodian land10, they are still under substantial threat30. In further efforts to curb deforestation, the Royal Government of Cambodia ordered the suspension of new ELCs and revocation of a subset of existing ELCs in 2012 (Order 01BB)31. This resulted in a reduction of ELCs from a peak of ~ 2.1 million ha in 2012 to ~ 1.6 million ha from 2014 onward (Fig. 1b), with a significant positive correlation between the quantity of land classified as ELCs and the country-level deforestation rate (R = 0.87, p  More

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 
van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Wilson, E. O. The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conserv. Biol. 1, 344–346 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Isaacs, R., Tuell, J., Fiedler, A., Gardiner, M. & Landis, D. Maximizing arthropod-mediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: The role of native plants. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 196–203 (2009).
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 
Raven, P. H. & Wagner, D. L. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2002548117 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Neves, B. & Pires, I. M. The Mediterranean diet and the increasing demand of the olive oil sector: Shifts and environmental consequences. Region. 5, 101–112 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Silveira, A. et al. The sustainability of agricultural intensification in the early 21st century: Insights from the olive oil production in Alentejo (Southern Portugal). In Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges. The Diverse Worlds of Sustainability, 247–275 (2018).Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Salomone, R. & Ioppolo, G. Environmental impacts of olive oil production: A Life Cycle Assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J. Clean. Prod. 28, 88–100 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Rallo, L. et al. High-density olive plantations. Hortic. Rev. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 41, 303–383 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Santos, S. A. P., Pereira, J. A., Torres, L. M. & Nogueira, A. J. A. Evaluation of the effects, on canopy arthropods, of two agricultural management systems to control pests in olive groves from north-east of Portugal. Chemosphere 67, 131–139 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gkisakis, V., Volakakis, N., Kollaros, D., Bàrberi, P. & Kabourakis, E. M. Soil arthropod community in the olive agroecosystem: Determined by environment and farming practices in different management systems and agroecological zones. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 218, 178–189 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Beaufoy, G. EU Policies for Olive Farming. Unsustainable on all counts (WWF and Birdlife International, Brussels, 2001).
Google Scholar 
EFNCP. The environmental impact of olive oil production in the EU: Practical options for improving the environmental impact. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism & Asociación para el Análisis y Reforma de la Política Agro-rural, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/agriculture/pdf/oliveoil.pdf (2000).Vanwalleghem, T. Quantifying the effect of historical soil management on soil erosion rates in Mediterranean olive orchards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 341–351 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Simões, M. P., Belo, A. F., Pinto-Cruz, C. & Pinheiro, A. C. Natural vegetation management to conserve biodiversity and soil water in olive orchards. Span. J. Agric. Res. 12, 633–643 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Milgroom, J., Soriano, M. A., Garrido, J. M., Gómez, J. A. & Fereres, E. The influence of a shift from conventional to organic olive farming on soil management and erosion risk in southern Spain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 1–10 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Lodolini, E. M. & Neri, D. Organic olive farming. African J. Agric. Res. 8, 6426–6434 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Rallo, L. Iberian olive growing in a time of change. Chron. Horticult. 49, 27–30 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Diez, C. M. et al. Cultivar and tree density as key factors in the long-term performance of super high-density olive orchards. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Allen, H. D., Randall, R. E., Amable, G. S. & Devereux, B. J. The impact of changing olive cultivation practices on the ground flora of olive groves in the Messara and Psiloritis regions, Crete, Greece. L. Degrad. Dev. 17, 249–327 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Herrera, J. M., Costa, P., Medinas, D., Marques, J. T. & Mira, A. Community composition and activity of insectivorous bats in Mediterranean olive farms. Anim. Conserv. 18, 557–566 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Costa, A. et al. Structural simplification compromises the potential of common insectivorous bats to provide biocontrol services against the major olive pest Prays oleae. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 287, 106708 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Morgado, R. et al. A Mediterranean silent spring? The effects of olive farming intensification on breeding bird communities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 288, 106694 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Ruano, F. et al. Use of arthropods for the evaluation of the olive-orchard management regimes. Agric. For. Entomol. 6, 111–120 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Jerez-Valle, C., García, P. A., Campos, M. & Pascual, F. A simple bioindication method to discriminate olive orchard management types using the soil arthropod fauna. Appl. Soil Ecol. 76, 42–51 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Carpio, A. J., Castro, J. & Tortosa, F. S. Arthropod biodiversity in olive groves under two soil management systems: Presence versus absence of herbaceous cover crop. Agric. For. Entomol. 21, 58–68 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Rey, P. J. et al. Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of ground herb cover in olive groves: Implications for regional biodiversity conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 277, 61–73 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mccomb, W. C. & Noble, R. E. Invertebrate use of natural tree cavities and vertebrate nest boxes. Am. Midl. Nat. 107, 163–172 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Bovyn, R. A., Lordon, M. C., Grecco, A. E., Leeper, A. C. & LaMontagne, J. M. Tree cavity availability in urban cemeteries and city parks. J. Urban Ecol. 5, 1–9 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Ribera, I., Dolédec, S., Downie, I. & Foster, G. Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82, 1112–1129 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Barbaro, L. & van Halder, I. Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography 32, 321–333 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol. Lett. 3, 449–456 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Gámez-Virués, S. et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 6, 8568 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Medinas, D. et al. Road effects on bat activity depend on surrounding habitat type. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 340–347 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
INE. Estatísticas Agrícolas – 2018. Lisboa. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=358629204&PUBLICACOESmodo=2 (2019).Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., Sánchez-Martínez, J. D. & Garrido-Almonacid, A. Strategic responses of the European olive-growing territories to the challenge of globalization. Eur. Plan. Stud. 28, 2261–2283 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Reis, P. O olival em Portugal. Dinâmicas, tecnologias e relação com o desenvolvimento rural. Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária. http://www.iniav.pt/fotos/editor2/caderno_olivalemportugal.pdf (2014).Yi, Z., Jinchao, F., Dayuan, X., Weiguo, S. & Axmacher, J. C. A comparison of terrestrial arthropod sampling methods. J. Resour. Ecol. 3, 174–182 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Leather, S. R. Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems (Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Paredes, D., Cayuela, L. & Campos, M. Synergistic effects of ground cover and adjacent vegetation on natural enemies of olive insect pests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 173, 72–80 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Porcel, M., Cotes, B., Castro, J. & Campos, M. The effect of resident vegetation cover on abundance and diversity of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) on olive trees. J. Pest Sci. 90, 195–206 (2017).
Google Scholar 

Álvarez, H. A. et al. Semi-natural habitat complexity affects abundance and movement of natural enemies in organic olive orchards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 285, 106618 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Paredes, D., Cayuela, L., Gurr, G. M. & Campos, M. Is ground cover vegetation an effective biological control enhancement strategy against olive pests?. PLoS ONE 10, e0117265 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gkisakis, V. D. et al. Olive canopy arthropods under organic, integrated, and conventional management. The effect of farming practices, climate and landscape. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 843–858 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Sanz-Cortés, F. et al. Phenological growth stages of olive trees (Olea europaea). Ann. Appl. Biol. 140, 151–157 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, E., González, B. & Campos, M. Natural enemies associated with cereal cover crops in olive groves. Bullet. Insectol. 65, 43–49 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Morente, M., Campos, M. & Ruano, F. Evaluation of two different methods to measure the effects of the management regime on the olive-canopy arthropod community. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 259, 111–118 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Cardenas, M., Pascual, F., Campos, M. & Pekar, S. The spider assemblage of olive groves under three management systems. Environ. Entomol. 44, 509–518 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hegazi, E. M. et al. Seasonality in the occurrence of two lepidopterous olive pests in Egypt. Insect Sci. 18, 565–574 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Markó, V., Keresztes, B., Fountain, M. T. & Cross, J. V. Prey availability, pesticides and the abundance of orchard spider communities. Biol. Control 48, 115–124 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Picchi, M. S., Marchi, S., Albertini, A. & Petacchi, R. Organic management of olive orchards increases the predation rate of overwintering pupae of Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Biol. Control 108, 9–15 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Caruso, T. & Migliorini, M. Micro-arthropod communities under human disturbance: Is taxonomic aggregation a valuable tool for detecting multivariate change? Evidence from Mediterranean soil oribatid coenoses. Acta Oecol. 30, 46–53 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schipper, A. M., Lotterman, K., Geertsma, M., Leuven, R. S. E. W. & Hendriks, A. J. Using datasets of different taxonomic detail to assess the influence of floodplain characteristics on terrestrial arthropod assemblages. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2087–2110 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Timms, L. L., Bowden, J. J., Summerville, K. S. & Buddle, C. M. Does species-level resolution matter? Taxonomic sufficiency in terrestrial arthropod biodiversity studies. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 453–462 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Unwin, D. M. A Key to the Families of British Beetles (Field Studies Council, 1984).Goulet, H. & Huber, J. Hymenoptera of the World: An identification Guide to Families. (Agriculture Canada publication, 1993).Johnson, N. F. & Triplehorn, C. A. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects 7th edn. (Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Fletcher, M. J., and updates. Identification keys and checklists for the leafhoppers, planthoppers and their relatives occurring in Australia and neighbouring areas (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha). https://idtools.dpi.nsw.gov.au/keys/auch/index.html (2009).Mata, L. & Goula, M. Clave de familias de Heterópteros de la Península Ibérica (Insecta, Hemiptera, Heteroptera). Versión 1. Publicaciones del Centre de Recursos de Biodiversitat Animal, Universitat de Barcelona. http://www.ub.edu/crba/publicacions/Clau%20heteropters/Volum4_Clave_de_Familias_de_Heteropteros_de_la_P.Iberica.pdf (2011).Oosterbroek, P. The European families of the Diptera. Identification, diagnosis, biology. (Royal Dutch Society for Natural History (KNNV) Publishing, Utrecht, 2015).World Spider Catalog. Version 19. Natural History Museum Bern. http://wsc.nmbe.ch (2018).Campos, M. Lacewing in Andalusian olive orchards. In Lacewing in the Crop Environment (eds McEwen, P. et al.) 492–497 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, E. O. & Hölldobler, B. The rise of the ants: A phylogenetic and ecological explanation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102, 7411–7414 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Núñez, C. et al. Ant community potential for pest control in olive groves: Management and landscape effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 305, 107185 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H. & Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: A review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B. 273, 1715–1727 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Holland, J. M. et al. Semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation in Europe. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 31 (2017).
Google Scholar 

Paredes, D. et al. Landscape simplification increases Bactrocera oleae abundance in olive groves: Adult population dynamics in different land uses. J. Pest Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-022-01489-1 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thies, C., Roschewitz, I. & Tscharntke, T. The landscape context of cereal aphid–parasitoid interactions. Proc. R. Soc. B. 285, 203–210 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Pinto-Correia, T., Ribeiro, N. & Sá-Sousa, P. Introducing the montado, the cork and holm oak agroforestry system of Southern Portugal. Agrofor. Syst. 82, 99–104 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Morgado, R. et al. Drivers of irrigated olive grove expansion in Mediterranean landscapes and associated biodiversity impacts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 225, 104429 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Direção-Geral do Território. Carta de Uso e Ocupação do Solo de Portugal Continental para 2015 (COS2015). http://www.dgterritorio.pt/dados_abertos/cos/ (2015).Roswell, M., Dushoff, J. & Winfree, R. A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos 130, 321–338 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H. & Chao, A. iNEXT: An R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1451–1456 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Penado, A. et al. From pastures to forests: Changes in Mediterranean wild bee communities after rural land abandonment. Insect Conserv. Divers. 15, 325–336 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Ovaskainen, O. & Abrego, N. Joint Species Distribution Modelling. With Applications in R. (Cambridge University Press, 2020).Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Macgregor-Fors, I. & Payton, M. E. Contrasting diversity values: Statistical inferences based on overlapping confidence intervals. PLoS ONE 8, e56794 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tikhonov, G. et al. Joint species distribution modelling with the r-package Hmsc. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 442–447 (2019).
Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Wickramasinghe, L. P., Harris, S. H., Jones, G. & Jennings, N. V. Abundance and species richness of nocturnal insects on organic and conventional farms: Effects of agricultural intensification on bat foraging. Conserv. Biol. 8, 1283–1292 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Galloway, A. D., Seymour, C. L., Gaigher, R. & Pryke, J. S. Organic farming promotes arthropod predators, but this depends on neighbouring patches of natural vegetation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 310, 107295 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hevia, V., Ortega, J., Azcárate, F. M., López, C. A. & González, J. A. Exploring the effect of soil management intensity on taxonomic and functional diversity of ants in Mediterranean olive groves. Agric. For. Entomol. 21, 109–118 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Vitanović, E. et al. Arthropod communities within the olive canopy as bioindicators of different management systems. Span. J. Agric. Res. 16, e0301 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Vasconcelos, S. et al. Long-term consequences of agricultural policy decisions: How are forests planted under EEC regulation 2080/92 affecting biodiversity 20 years later?. Biol. Conserv. 236, 393–403 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T. et al. When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control—five hypotheses. Biol. Conserv. 204, 449–458 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Ortega, M., Pascual, S. & Rescia, A. J. Spatial structure of olive groves and scrublands affects Bactrocera oleae abundance: A multi-scale analysis. Basic Appl. Ecol. 17, 696–705 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Martínez-Núñez, C. et al. Direct and indirect effects of agricultural practices, landscape complexity and climate on insectivorous birds, pest abundance and damage in olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 304, 107145 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Paredes, D., Karp, D. S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Benítez, E. & Campos, M. Natural habitat increases natural pest control in olive groves: Economic implications. J. Pest Sci. 92, 1111–1121 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Attwood, S. J., Maron, M., House, P. N. & Zammit, C. Do arthropod assemblages display globally consistent responses to intensified agricultural land use and management?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 585–599 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Miranda, M. A., Miquel, M., Terrassa, J., Melis, N. & Monerris, M. Parasitism of Bactrocera oleae (Diptera; Tephritidae) by Psyttalia concolor (Hymenoptera; Braconidae) in the Balearic Islands (Spain). J. Appl. Entomol. 132, 798–805 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Álvarez, H. A., Morente, M., Campos, M. & Ruano, F. L. madurez de las cubiertas vegetales aumenta la presencia de enemigos naturales y la resiliencia de la red trófica de la copa del olivo. Ecosistemas 28, 92–106 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Rusch, A., Valantin-Morison, M., Sarthou, J. P. & Roger-Estrade, J. Biological control of insect pests in agroecosystems. Effects of crop management, farming systems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale: A review. Adv. Agron. 109, 219–259 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Greenop, A., Cook, S. M., Wilby, A., Pywell, R. F. & Woodcock, B. A. Invertebrate community structure predicts natural pest control resilience to insecticide exposure. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2441–2453 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Porcel, M., Ruano, F., Cotes, B., Peña, A. & Campos, M. Agricultural management systems affect the green lacewing community (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in olive orchards in southern Spain. Environ. Entomol. 42, 97–106 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stamou, G. P. Arthropods of Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems (Springer, 2012).Santos, J. L. et al. A farming systems approach to linking agricultural policies with biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 168–175 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Ribeiro, P. F. et al. An applied farming systems approach to infer conservation-relevant agricultural practices for agri-environment policy design. Land Use Policy 58, 165–172 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Herrera, J. M. et al. A food web approach reveals the vulnerability of biocontrol services by birds and bats to landscape modification at regional scale. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–10 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Solomou, A. D. & Sfougaris, A. I. Bird community characteristics as indicators of sustainable management in olive grove ecosystems of Central Greece. J. Nat. Hist. 49, 301–325 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Piñeiro, V. et al. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat Sustain. 3, 809–820 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

Sievers, M. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 807–817 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbier, E. B. et al. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, P. S. E. et al. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 248, 107159 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spalding, M. & Parrett, C. L. Mar. Policy 110, 103540 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 248, 106942 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 603651 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friess, D. A. & McKee, K. L. in Dynamic Sedimentary Environments of Mangrove Coasts (eds Sidik, F. & Friess, D.A.) Ch. 7 (Elsevier, 2021).Lee, S. Y. et al. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 726–743 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N. & Fatoyinbo, T. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 5844–5855 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cannicci, S. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016913118 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouillon, S., Koedam, N., Raman, A. & Dehairs, F. Oecologia 130, 441–448 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adame, M. F. et al. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2856–2866 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pittman, S. et al. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 663, 1–29 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagelkerken, I., Sheaves, M. T., Baker, R. & Connolly, R. M. Fish Fish. 16, 362–371 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huxham, M., Whitlock, D., Githaiga, M. & Dencer-Brown, A. Curr. For. Rep. 4, 101–110 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bryan-Brown, D. N. et al. Sci. Rep. 10, 7117 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Curnick, D. J. et al. Science 363, 239–239 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. & Cannicci, S. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 799543 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1906–1917 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, B. P., Marshall, K. E., Harley, C. D. G. & Russell, B. D. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 20–29 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. M. et al. Nat. Commun. 12, 3875 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yando, E. S. et al. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109355 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krauss, K. W. & Osland, M. J. Ann. Bot. 125, 213–234 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Asbridge, E. F. et al. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 228, 106353 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sippo, J. Z., Lovelock, C. E., Santos, I. R., Sanders, C. J. & Maher, D. T. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 215, 241–249 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Erftemeijer, P. L. A. & Hamerlynck, O. J. Coast. Res. 42, 228–235 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Abhik, S. et al. Sci. Rep. 11, 20411 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Osland, M. J., Day, R. H. & Michot, T. C. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1366–1382 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. Curr. Biol. 15, 579–586 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turschwell, M. P. et al. Biol. Conserv. 247, 108637 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saintilan, N. et al. Science 368, 1118–1121 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xie, D. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 114033 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ewel, K. C., Twilley, R. R. & Ong, J. E. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 7, 83–94 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. in Vers une Nouvelle Synthèse Ecologique: de L’écologie Scientifique au Développement Durable. (ed. Meerts, P.) 182–193 (Centre Paul Duvigneaud de Documentation Ecologique, 2013).Gallup, L., Sonnenfeld, D. A. & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. Ocean Coast. Manage. 185, 105001 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rist, S. & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8, 467–493 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foell, J., Harrison, E. & Stirrat, R. L. Participatory Approaches to Natural Resource Management: The Case of Coastal Zone Management in the Puttalam District, Sri Lanka. Project R6977 (School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, 2000).Beymer-Farris, B. A. & Bassett, T. J. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 332–341 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovelock, C. E. & Brown, B. M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1135 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2, 24 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araujo, M. B., Sykes, M. T. & Prentice, I. C. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 8245–8250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409902102 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fagundez, J. Heathlands confronting global change: Drivers of biodiversity loss from past to future scenarios. Ann. Bot. 111, 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs257 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nicotra, A. B. et al. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci. 15, 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.09.008 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dubin, M. J. et al. DNA methylation in Arabidopsis has a genetic basis and shows evidence of local adaptation. Elife 4, 25. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05255 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M. & Bazaga, P. Comparative spatial genetics and epigenetics of plant populations: Heuristic value and a proof of concept. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1653–1664. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13576 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Richards, C. L. et al. Ecological plant epigenetics: Evidence from model and non-model species, and the way forward. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1576–1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12858 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Münzbergová, Z., Latzel, V., Šurinová, M. & Hadincová, V. DNA methylation as a possible mechanism affecting ability of natural populations to adapt to changing climate. Oikos 128, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05591 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiebaut, F., Hemerly, A. S. & Ferreira, P. C. G. A role for epigenetic regulation in the adaptation and stress responses of non-model plants. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00246 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verhoeven, K. J. F., Vonholdt, B. M. & Sork, V. L. Epigenetics in ecology and evolution: What we know and what we need to know. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13617 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lisch, D. How important are transposons for plant evolution?. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3374 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Paszkowski, J. Controlled activation of retrotransposition for plant breeding. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 32, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.01.003 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Becker, C. et al. Spontaneous epigenetic variation in the Arabidopsis thaliana methylome. Nature 480, 245-U127. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10555 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmitz, R. J. et al. Transgenerational epigenetic instability is a source of novel methylation variants. Science 334, 369–373. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212959 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bossdorf, O., Richards, C. L. & Pigliucci, M. Epigenetics for ecologists. Ecol. Lett. 11, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01130.x (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Walsh, M. R. et al. Local adaptation in transgenerational responses to predators. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2271 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foust, C. M. et al. Genetic and epigenetic differences associated with environmental gradients in replicate populations of two salt marsh perennials. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13522 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gugger, P. F., Fitz-Gibbon, S., Pellegrini, M. & Sork, V. L. Species-wide patterns of DNA methylation variation in Quercus lobata and their association with climate gradients. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1665–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13563 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M. & Bazaga, P. Untangling individual variation in natural populations: Ecological, genetic and epigenetic correlates of long-term inequality in herbivory. Mol. Ecol. 20, 1675–1688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05026.x (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Medrano, M., Herrera, C. M. & Bazaga, P. Epigenetic variation predicts regional and local intraspecific functional diversity in a perennial herb. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4926–4938. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12911 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M. & Bazaga, P. Comparative epigenetic and genetic spatial structure of the perennial herb Helleborus foetidus: Isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and functional trait divergence. Am. J. Bot. 104, 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700162 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sheldon, E. L., Schrey, A., Andrew, S. C., Ragsdale, A. & Griffith, S. C. Epigenetic and genetic variation among three separate introductions of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) into Australia. R. Soc. Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172185 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gaspar, B., Bossdorf, O. & Durka, W. Structure, stability and ecological significance of natural epigenetic variation: A large-scale survey in Plantago lanceolata. New Phytol. 221, 1585–1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15487 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Medrano, M., Alonso, C., Bazaga, P., Lopez, E. & Herrera, C. M. Comparative genetic and epigenetic diversity in pairs of sympatric, closely related plants with contrasting distribution ranges in south-eastern Iberian mount. Aob Plants https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plaa013 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M. Z., Li, H. L., Li, J. M. & Yu, F. H. Correlations between genetic, epigenetic and phenotypic variation of an introduced clonal herb. Heredity 124, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-019-0261-8 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Miryeganeh, M. & Saze, H. Epigenetic inheritance and plant evolution. Popul. Ecol. 62, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/1438-390x.12018 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becklin, K. M. et al. Examining plant physiological responses to climate change through an evolutionary lens. Plant Physiol. 172, 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00793 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Szymanska, R., Slesak, I., Orzechowska, A. & Kruk, J. Physiological and biochemical responses to high light and temperature stress in plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 139, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.05.002 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Agrawal, A. A., Erwin, A. C. & Cook, S. C. Natural selection on and predicted responses of ecophysiological traits of swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). J. Ecol. 96, 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01365.x (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Azhar, A., Sathornkich, J., Rattanawong, R. & Kasemsap, P. Responses of chlorophyll fluorescence, stomatal conductance, and net photosynthesis rates of four rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) genotypes to drought. Adv. Rubber 844, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.844.11 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bussotti, F., Pancrazi, M., Matteucci, G. & Gerosa, G. Leaf morphology and chemistry in Fagus sylvatica (beech) trees as affected by site factors and ozone: Results from CONECOFOR permanent monitoring plots in Italy. Tree Physiol. 25, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.2.211 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, J. E., Adams, C. A. & Holsinger, K. E. Intraspecific variation in stomatal traits, leaf traits and physiology reflects adaptation along aridity gradients in a South African shrub. Ann. Bot. 117, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv146 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Frenne, P. et al. Temperature effects on forest herbs assessed by warming and transplant experiments along a latitudinal gradient. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3240–3253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02449.x (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reinhardt, K., Castanha, C., Germino, M. J. & Kueppers, L. M. Ecophysiological variation in two provenances of Pinus flexilis seedlings across an elevation gradient from forest to alpine. Tree Physiol. 31, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr055 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yamori, W., Hikosaka, K. & Way, D. A. Temperature response of photosynthesis in C-3, C-4, and CAM plants: Temperature acclimation and temperature adaptation. Photosynth. Res. 119, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-013-9874-6 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stojanova, B. et al. Adaptive differentiation of Festuca rubra along a climate gradient revealed by molecular markers and quantitative traits. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194670 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Han, S. K. & Wagner, D. Role of chromatin in water stress responses in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 2785–2799. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert403 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Han, S. K. & Torii, K. U. Lineage-specific stem cells, signals and asymmetries during stomatal development. Development 143, 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.127712 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Torii, K. U. Stomatal differentiation: The beginning and the end. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 28, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2015.08.005 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tricker, P. J., Gibbings, J. G., Lopez, C. M. R., Hadley, P. & Wilkinson, M. J. Low relative humidity triggers RNA-directed de novo DNA methylation and suppression of genes controlling stomatal development. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 3799–3813. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers076 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vrablova, M., Hronkova, M., Vrabl, D., Kubasek, J. & Santrucek, J. Light intensity-regulated stomatal development in three generations of Lepidium sativum. Environ. Exp. Bot. 156, 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.09.012 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tricker, P. J., Lopez, C. M. R., Gibbings, G., Hadley, P. & Wilkinson, M. J. Transgenerational, dynamic methylation of stomata genes in response to low relative humidity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14, 6674–6689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14046674 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Puy, J. et al. Improved demethylation in ecological epigenetic experiments: Testing a simple and harmless foliar demethylation application. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 744–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12903 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosová, V., Hájek, T., Hadincová, V. & Münzbergová, Z. The importance of ecophysiological traits in response of Festuca rubra to changing climate. Physiol. Plant. 174, e13608. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13608 (2022).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maricle, B. R. & Adler, P. B. Effects of precipitation on photosynthesis and water potential in Andropogon gerardii and Schizachyrium scoparium in a southern mixed grass prairie. Environ. Exp. Bot. 72, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.03.011 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Münzbergová, Z. et al. Plant origin, but not phylogeny, drive species ecophysiological response to projected climate. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00400 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beerling, D. J. & Chaloner, W. G. The impact of atmospheric CO2 and temperature change on stomatal density—observations from Quercus robur lammas leaves. Ann. Bot. 71, 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1993.1029 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, Y. L. et al. Heat stress induces an aggregation of the light-harvesting complex of photosystem II in spinach plants. Plant Physiol. 143, 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.090712 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jahns, P. & Holzwarth, A. R. The role of the xanthophyll cycle and of lutein in photoprotection of photosystem II. BBA-Bioenerget. 1817, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2011.04.012 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, N. R. & Rosenqvist, E. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: An examination of future possibilities. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 1607–1621. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh196 (2004).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baker, H. G. In The Genetics of Colonizing Species (eds Baker, H. G. & Stebbins, G. L.) 147–168 (Academic Press, 1965).
Google Scholar 
Bartlett, M. K. et al. Global analysis of plasticity in turgor loss point, a key drought tolerance trait. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1580–1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12374 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Raven, J. A. Selection pressures on stomatal evolution. New Phytol. 153, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00334.x (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, F. F. et al. Effects of CO2 enrichment on growth and development of Impatiens hawkeri. Sci. World J. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/601263 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. P. R. et al. Stress-induced memory alters growth of clonal off spring of white clover (Trifolium repens). Am. J. Bot. 103, 1567–1574. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500526 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jones, P. A., Taylor, S. M. & Wilson, V. L. Inhibition of DNA methylation by 5-azacytidine. Recent Results Cancer Res. 84, 202–211 (1983).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meineri, E., Skarpaas, O., Spindelbock, J., Bargmann, T. & Vandvik, V. Direct and size-dependent effects of climate on flowering performance in alpine and lowland herbaceous species. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12062 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Šurinová, M., Hadincová, V., Vandvik, V. & Münzbergová, Z. Temperature and precipitation, but not geographic distance, explain genetic relatedness among populations in the perennial grass Festuca rubra. J. Plant Ecol. 12, 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtz010 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Münzbergová, Z., Hadincová, V., Skálová, H. & Vandvik, V. Genetic differentiation and plasticity interact along temperature and precipitation gradients to determine plant performance under climate change. J. Ecol. 105, 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12762 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klanderud, K., Vandvik, V. & Goldberg, D. The importance of biotic vs abiotic drivers of local plant community composition along regional bioclimatic gradients. PLoS One 10, e0130205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130205 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Meineri, E., Skarpaas, O. & Vandvik, V. Modeling alpine plant distributions at the landscape scale: Do biotic interactions matter?. Ecol. Model. 231, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.01.021 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meineri, E., Spindelbock, J. & Vandvik, V. Seedling emergence responds to both seed source and recruitment site climates: A climate change experiment combining transplant and gradient approaches. Plant Ecol. 214, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-013-0193-y (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vandvik, V., Klanderud, K., Meineri, E., Maren, I. E. & Topper, J. Seed banks are biodiversity reservoirs: Species-area relationships above versus below ground. Oikos 125, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02022 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stojanova, B. et al. Evolutionary potential of a widespread clonal grass under changing climate. J. Evol. Biol. 32, 1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13507 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Osorio-Montalvo, P., Saenz-Carbonell, L. & De-la-Pena, C. 5-azacytidine: A promoter of epigenetic changes in the quest to improve plant somatic embryogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19103182 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, S. H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Münzbergová, Z. & Hadincová, V. Transgenerational plasticity as an important mechanism affecting response of clonal species to changing climate. Ecol. Evol. 7, 5236–5247. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3105 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, L. Logic of experiments in ecology: Is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue?. Oikos 94, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.11311.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, S. N., Gherlenda, A. N., Frew, A. & Ryalls, J. M. W. The importance of testing multiple environmental factors in legume-insect research: Replication, reviewers, and rebuttal. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00489 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, S. H. On misinterpretations of pseudoreplication and related matters: A reply to Oksanen. Oikos 104, 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12752.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheepens, J. F. & Stocklin, J. Flowering phenology and reproductive fitness along a mountain slope: Maladaptive responses to transplantation to a warmer climate in Campanula thyrsoides. Oecologia 171, 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2582-7 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gugger, S., Kesselring, H., Stoecklin, J. & Hamann, E. Lower plasticity exhibited by high- versus mid-elevation species in their phenological responses to manipulated temperature and drought. Ann. Bot. 116, 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv155 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bezemer, T. M., Thompson, L. J. & Jones, T. H. Poa annua shows inter-generational differences in response to elevated CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 687–691. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00184.x (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cavieres, L. A. & Arroyo, M. T. K. Seed germination response to cold stratification period and thermal regime in Phacelia secunda (Hydrophyllaceae)—altitudinal variation in the mediterranean Andes of central Chile. Plant Ecol. 149, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009802806674 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souther, S., Lechowicz, M. J. & McGraw, J. B. Experimental test for adaptive differentiation of ginseng populations reveals complex response to temperature. Ann. Bot. 110, 829–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs155 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Matias, L. & Jump, A. S. Impacts of predicted climate change on recruitment at the geographical limits of Scots pine. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert376 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H. X. et al. Germination shifts of C-3 and C-4 species under simulated global warming scenario. PLoS One 9, e105139. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105139 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, K. & Johnson, G. N. Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J. Exp. Bot. 51, 659–668 (2000).Ashraf, M. & Harris, P. J. C. Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview. Photosynthetica 51, 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-013-0021-6 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Majekova, M., Martinkova, J. & Hajek, T. Grassland plants show no relationship between leaf drought tolerance and soil moisture affinity, but rapidly adjust to changes in soil moisture. Funct. Ecol. 33, 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Volis, S., Ormanbekova, D., Yermekbayev, K., Song, M. S. & Shulgina, I. Multi-approaches analysis reveals local adaptation in the emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccoides) at macro—but not micro-geographical scale. PLoS One 10, 19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121153 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Younginger, B. S., Sirova, D., Cruzan, M. B. & Ballhorn, D. J. Is biomass a reliable estimate of plant fitness?. Appl. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3732/apps.1600094 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Development Core Team. Version 4.0.3 A language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011).
Google Scholar 
Bossdorf, O., Arcuri, D., Richards, C. L. & Pigliucci, M. Experimental alteration of DNA methylation affects the phenotypic plasticity of ecologically relevant traits in Arabidopsis thaliana. Evol. Ecol. 24, 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9372-7 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E. & Wagner, H. (2020). vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7.Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210–1226. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408842 (1983).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rolhauser, A. G., Nordenstahl, M., Aguiar, M. R. & Pucheta, E. Community-level natural selection modes: A quadratic framework to link multiple functional traits with competitive ability. J. Ecol. 107, 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13094 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yan, W. M., Zhong, Y. Q. W. & Shangguan, Z. P. Contrasting responses of leaf stomatal characteristics to climate change: A considerable challenge to predict carbon and water cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3781–3793. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13654 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
González, A. P. R., Dumalasová, V., Rosenthal, J., Skuhrovec, J. & Latzel, V. The role of transgenerational effects in adaptation of clonal offspring of white clover (Trifolium repens) to drought and herbivory. Evol. Ecol. 31, 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-016-9844-5 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, W. et al. Transient stability of epigenetic population differentiation in a clonal invader. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01851 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Quan, J., Münzbergová, Z. & Latzel, V. Time dynamics of stress legacy in clonal transgenerational effects: A case study on Trifolium repens. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8959 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Harris, C. J. et al. A DNA methylation reader complex that enhances gene transcription. Science 362, 1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7854 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, K. R., Cheng, X. L., Shu, X., Liu, Y. & Zhang, Q. F. Linking soil bacterial and fungal communities to vegetation succession following agricultural abandonment. Plant Soil 431, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3743-1 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, X. L. et al. A group of SUVH methyl-DNA binding proteins regulate expression of the DNA demethylase ROS1 in Arabidopsis. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 61, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12768 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gallego-Bartolome, J. DNA methylation in plants: Mechanisms and tools for targeted manipulation. New Phytol. 227, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16529 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. W., Bossdorf, O., Prati, D., Fischer, M. & van Kleunen, M. Transgenerational effects of land use on offspring performance and growth in Trifolium repens. Oecologia 180, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3480-6 (2016).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Muir, C. D., Pease, J. B. & Moyle, L. C. Quantitative genetic analysis indicates natural selection on leaf phenotypes across wild tomato species (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Genetics 198, 1629. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.169276 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ramirez-Valiente, J. A. et al. Natural selection and neutral evolutionary processes contribute to genetic divergence in leaf traits across a precipitation gradient in the tropical oak Quercus oleoides. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2176–2192. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14566 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jueterbock, A. et al. The seagrass methylome is associated with variation in photosynthetic performance among clonal shoots. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.571646 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ganguly, D. R., Crisp, P. A., Eichten, S. R. & Pogson, B. J. The Arabidopsis DNA methylome is stable under transgenerational drought stress. Plant Physiol. 175, 1893–1912. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00744 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ganguly, D. R., Crisp, P. A., Eichten, S. R. & Pogson, B. J. Maintenance of pre-existing DNA methylation states through recurring excess-light stress. Plant Cell Environ. 41, 1657–1672. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13324 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nixon, P. J., Michoux, F., Yu, J. F., Boehm, M. & Komenda, J. Recent advances in understanding the assembly and repair of photosystem II. Ann. Bot. 106, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq059 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perez, T. M. & Feeley, K. J. Photosynthetic heat tolerances and extreme leaf temperatures. Funct. Ecol. 34, 2236–2245. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13658 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kitayama, K., Pattison, R., Cordell, S., Webb, D. & MuellerDombois, D. Ecological and genetic implications of foliar polymorphism in Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud (Myrtaceae) in a habitat matrix on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Ann. Bot. 80, 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1996.0473 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Konopkova, A. et al. Nucleotide polymorphisms associated with climate and physiological traits in silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) provenances. Flora 250, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2018.11.012 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baer, A., Wheeler, J. K. & Pittermann, J. Limited hydraulic adjustments drive the acclimation response of Pteridium aquilinum to variable light. Ann. Bot. 125, 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcaa006 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hao, X. F., Jin, Z. P., Wang, Z. Q., Qin, W. S. & Pei, Y. X. Hydrogen sulfide mediates DNA methylation to enhance osmotic stress tolerance in Setaria italic L.. Plant Soil 453, 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04590-5 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Colaneri, A. C. & Jones, A. M. Genome-wide quantitative identification of DNA differentially methylated sites in Arabidopsis seedlings growing at different water potential. PLoS One 8, 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059878 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, C. & Weigel, D. Epigenetic variation: Origin and transgenerational inheritance. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 15, 562–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2012.08.004 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Spens, A. E. & Douhovnikoff, V. Epigenetic variation within Phragmites australis among lineages, genotypes, and ramets. Biol. Invas. 18, 2457–2462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1223-1 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M., Pozo, M. I. & Bazaga, P. Jack of all nectars, master of most: DNA methylation and the epigenetic basis of niche width in a flower-living yeast. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2602–2616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05402.x (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M. & Bazaga, P. Epigenetic correlates of plant phenotypic plasticity: DNA methylation differs between prickly and nonprickly leaves in heterophyllous Ilex aquifolium (Aquifoliaceae) trees. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 171, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12007 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller, T. E., Lasky, J. R. & Yi, S. V. The multivariate association between genomewide DNA methylation and climate across the range of Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1823–1837. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13573 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Madliger, C. L., Love, O. P., Hultine, K. R. & Cooke, S. J. The conservation physiology toolbox: Status and opportunities. Conserv. Physiol. 6, 16. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coy029 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Münzbergová, Z. & Haisel, D. Effects of polyploidization on the contents of photosynthetic pigments are largely population-specific. Photosynth. Res. 140, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-018-0604-y (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Balachandran, S. et al. Concepts of plant biotic stress. Some insights into the stress physiology of virus-infected plants, from the perspective of photosynthesis. Physiol. Plant. 100, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1997.1000201.x (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavlíková, Z., Holá, D., Vlasáková, B., Procházka, T. & Münzbergová, Z. Physiological and fitness differences between cytotypes vary with stress in a grassland perennial herb. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188795 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, B. B., Zhang, H., Jing, Q. & Wang, J. X. Light pollution on the growth, physiology and chlorophyll fluorescence response of landscape plant perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Ecol. Indic. 115, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106448 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cameron, D. D., Geniez, J. M., Seel, W. E. & Irving, L. J. Suppression of host photosynthesis by the parasitic plant Rhinanthus minor. Ann. Bot. 101, 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm324 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Molina-Montenegro, M. A., Salgado-Luarte, C., Oses, R. & Torres-Diaz, C. Is physiological performance a good predictor for fitness? Insights from an invasive plant species. PLoS One 8, 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076432 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
dos Santos, V. & Ferreira, M. J. Are photosynthetic leaf traits related to the first-year growth of tropical tree seedlings? A light-induced plasticity test in a secondary forest enrichment planting. For. Ecol. Manage. 460, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.117900 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, Q. W. et al. Phosphorus-fertilisation has differential effects on leaf growth and photosynthetic capacity of Arachis hypogaea L.. Plant Soil 447, 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04041-w (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Madriaza, K., Saldana, A., Salgado-Luarte, C., Escobedo, V. M. & Gianoli, E. Chlorophyll fluorescence may predict tolerance to herbivory. Int. J. Plant Sci. 180, 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/700583 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franks, P. J., Drake, P. L. & Beerling, D. J. Plasticity in maximum stomatal conductance constrained by negative correlation between stomatal size and density: An analysis using Eucalyptus globulus. Plant Cell Environ. 32, 1737–1748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.002031.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Belluau, M. & Shipley, B. Linking hard and soft traits: Physiology, morphology and anatomy interact to determine habitat affinities to soil water availability in herbaceous dicots. PLoS One 13, 25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193130 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jerbi, A. et al. High biomass yield increases in a primary effluent wastewater phytofiltration are associated to altered leaf morphology and stomatal size in Salix miyabeana. Sci. Total Environ. 738, 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139728 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sakoda, K. et al. Higher stomatal density improves photosynthetic induction and biomass production in Arabidopsis under fluctuating light. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.589603 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. Y. et al. Effect of summer warming on growth, photosynthesis and water status in female and male Populus cathayana: Implications for sex-specific drought and heat tolerances. Tree Physiol. 40, 1178–1191. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa069 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, P. T., Niederhuth, C. E. & Schmitz, R. J. A comparative analysis of 5-azacytidine- and zebularine-induced DNA demethylation. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 6, 2773–2780. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.030262 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. X. et al. Application of 5-azacytidine induces DNA hypomethylation and accelerates dormancy release in buds of tree peony. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 147, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.12.010 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sammarco, I., Muenzbergova, Z. & Latzel, V. DNA methylation can mediate local adaptation and response to climate change in the clonal plant Fragaria vesca: Evidence from a European-scale reciprocal transplant experiment. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.827166 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Atighi, M. R., Verstraeten, B., De Meyer, T. & Kyndt, T. Genome-wide DNA hypomethylation shapes nematode pattern-triggered immunity in plants. New Phytol. 227, 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16532 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nowicka, A. et al. Comparative analysis of epigenetic inhibitors reveals different degrees of interference with transcriptional gene silencing and induction of DNA damage. Plant J. 102, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14612 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Christman, J. K. 5-Azacytidine and 5-aza-2 ’-deoxycytidine as inhibitors of DNA methylation: Mechanistic studies and their implications for cancer therapy. Oncogene 21, 5483–5495. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205699 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Issa, J. P. J. & Kantarjian, H. M. Targeting DNA methylation. Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 3938–3946. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-2783 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Amoah, S. et al. A hypomethylated population of Brassica rapa for forward and reverse epi-genetics. BMC Plant Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-12-193 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McGuigan, K., Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgro, C. M. How is epigenetics predicted to contribute to climate change adaptation? What evidence do we need?. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 376, 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0119 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sano, H., Kamada, I., Youssefian, S., Katsumi, M. & Wabiko, H. A single treatment of rice seedlings with 5-azacytidine induces heritable dwarfism and undermethylation of genomic DNA. Mol. Gen. Genet. 220, 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00391751 (1990).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kondo, H., Ozaki, H., Itoh, K., Kato, A. & Takeno, K. Flowering induced by 5-azacytidine, a DNA demethylating reagent in a short-day plant, Perilla frutescens var. crispa. Physiol. Plant. 127, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00635.x (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumpatla, S. P. & Hall, T. C. Longevity of 5-azacytidine-mediated gene expression and re-establishment of silencing in transgenic rice. Plant Mol. Biol. 38, 1113–1122. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006071018039 (1998).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lira-Medeiros, C. F. et al. Epigenetic variation in mangrove plants occurring in contrasting natural environment. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010326 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raj, S. et al. Clone history shapes Populus drought responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12521–12526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103341108 (2011).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richards, C. L., Schrey, A. W. & Pigliucci, M. Invasion of diverse habitats by few Japanese knotweed genotypes is correlated with epigenetic differentiation. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01824.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Platt, A., Gugger, P. F., Pellegrini, M. & Sork, V. L. Genome-wide signature of local adaptation linked to variable CpG methylation in oak populations. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3823–3830. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13230 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pfeifer, G. P. Mutagenesis at methylated CpG sequences. DNA Methyl. Basic Mech. 301, 259–281 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh, C. P. & Xu, G. L. Cytosine methylation and DNA repair. DNA Methyl. Basic Mech. 301, 283–315 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Angélil, O. et al. An independent assessment of anthropogenic attribution statements for recent extreme temperature and rainfall events. J. Clim. 30(1), 5–16 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Coordinating AgMIP data and models across global and regional scales for 1.5°C and 2.0°C assessments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. 376, 20160455 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, D. et al. Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): Background and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 571–583 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coumou, D. & Rahmstorf, S. A decade of weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 491–496 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4–6 (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Diffenbaugh, N. S. et al. Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events. PNAS 114(19), 4881–4886 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tai, A. P. K., Martin, M. V. & Heald, C. L. Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 817–821 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. PNAS 117(8), 4211–4217 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dong, W. H., Liu, Z., Liao, H., Tang, Q. H. & Li, X. E. New climate and socio-economic scenarios for assessing global human health challenges due to heat risk. Clim. Change 130(4), 505–518 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, S. C., Wigley, T. M. L., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Rahbek, C. & Fordham, D. A. Persistent Quaternary climate refugia are hospices for biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 244–248 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, H., Amelung, D. & Said, N. The accuracy of German citizens’ confidence in their climate change knowledge. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 776–780 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. 2015, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.Roche, K. R., Müller-Itten, M., Dralle, D. N., Bolster, D. & Müller, M. F. Climate change and the opportunity cost of conflict. PNAS 117(4), 1935–1940 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Challinor, A. J. et al. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 287–291 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lv, S. et al. Yield gap simulations using ten maize cultivars commonly planted in Northeast China during the past five decades. Agric. For. Meteorol. 205, 1–10 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Chao, W., Kehui, C. & Shah, F. Heat stress decreases rice grain weight: Evidence and physiological mechanisms of heat effects prior to flowering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23(18), 10922 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Chao, W. et al. Estimating the yield stability of heat-tolerant rice genotypes under various heat conditions across reproductive stages: A 5-year case study. Sci. Rep. 11, 13604 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Food security and food production systems. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change 485–533 (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Tigchelaar, M., Battisti, D. S., Naylor, R. L. & Ray, D. K. Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. PNAS 115(26), 6644–6649 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. PNAS 114, 9326–9331 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Diffenbaugh, N. S., Hertel, T. W., Scherer, M. & Verma, M. Response of corn markets to climate volatility under alternative energy futures. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 514–518 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jensen, H. G. & Anderson, K. Grain price spikes and beggar-thy-neighbor policy responses: A global economywide analysis. World Bank Econ. Rev. 31, 158–175 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Fraser, E. D. G., Simelton, E., Termansen, M., Gosling, S. N. & South, A. “Vulnerability hotspots”: Integrating socio-economic and hydrological models to identify where cereal production may decline in the future due to climate change induced drought. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 195–205 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Puma, M. J., Bose, S., Chon, S. Y. & Cook, B. I. Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 024007 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wheeler, T. & Braun, J. V. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341(6145), 508–513 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lunt, T., Jones, A. W., Mulhern, W. S., Lezaks, D. P. M. & Jahn, M. M. Vulnerabilities to agricultural production shocks: An extreme, plausible scenario for assessment of risk for the insurance sector. Clim. Risk Manag. 13, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Jägermeyr, J. & Frieler, K. Spatial variations in crop growing seasons pivotal to reproduce global fluctuations in maize and wheat yields. Sci. Adv. 4(11), eaat4517 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Elliott, J. et al. Characterizing agricultural impacts of recent large-scale US droughts and changing technology and management. Agric. Syst. 159, 275–281 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Tack, J., Barkley, A. & Nalley, L. L. Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6931–6936 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tao, F., Zhang, Z., Liu, J. & Yokozawa, M. Modelling the impacts of weather and climate variability on crop productivity over a large area: A new super-ensemblebased probabilistic projection. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 1266–1278 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Parent, B. et al. Maize yields over Europe may increase in spite of climate change, with an appropriate use of the genetic variability of flowering time. PNAS 115(42), 10642–10647 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yang, C. Y., Fraga, H., Ieperen, W. V. & Santos, J. A. Assessment of irrigated maize yield response to climate change scenarios in Portugal. Agric. Water Manag. 184, 178–190 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Miller, S. A. & Moore, F. C. Climate and health damages from global concrete production. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0733-0 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassie, B. T. et al. Exploring climate change impacts and adaptation options for maize production in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia using different climate change scenarios and crop models. Clim. Change 129, 145–158 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tao, F. & Zhang, Z. Climate change, high-temperature stress, rice productivity, and water use in Eastern China: A new superensemble-based probabilistic projection. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 52, 531–551 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glotter, M. & Elliott, J. Simulating US agriculture in a modern Dust Bowl drought. Nat. Plants 3, 16193 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Challinor, A. J., Koehler, A. K., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Whitfield, S. & Das, B. Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 954–958 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cammarano, D. et al. Using historical climate observations to understand future climate change crop yield impacts in the Southeastern US. Clim. Change 134, 311–326 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Etten, J. V. et al. Crop variety management for climate adaptation supported by citizen science. PNAS 116(10), 4194–4199 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Urban, D. W., Sheffield, J. & Lobell, D. B. The impacts of future climate and carbon dioxide changes on the average and variability of US maize yields under two emission scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 045003 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty 32 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).Ruane, A. C., Goldberg, R. & Chryssanthacopoulos, J. Climate forcing datasets for agricultural modeling: Merged products for gap-filling and historical climate series estimation. Agr. For. Meteorol. 200, 233–248 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J. & Piontek, F. A trendpreserving bias correction-the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4, 219–236 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, 1022 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
You, L.Z., et al. Spatial Production Allocation Model (SPAM) 2000 Version 3.2. http://mapspam.info (2015).Hoogenboom, G., et al. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.6 (DSSAT Foundation, 2015). http://dssat.net (2015).Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A. & Ramankutty, N. Crop planting dates: An analysis of global patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 607–620 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Batjes, H.N. A Homogenized Soil Data File for Global Environmental Research: A Subset of FAO. ISRIC and NRCS Profiles (Version 1.0). Working Paper and Preprint 95/10b (International Soil Reference and Information Centre, 1995).Xiong, W. et al. Can climate-smart agriculture reverse the recent slowing of rice yield growth in China?. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 196, 125–136 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hertel, T. W. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications 5–30 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Google Scholar 
Corong, E. L., Hertel, T. W., McDougall, R., Tsigas, M. E. & Mensbrugghe, D. V. The standard GTAP model, version 7. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 2(1), 1–119 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ciscar, J. C. et al. Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. PNAS 108, 2678–2683 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hsiang, S. et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356(6345), 1362–1369 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Taheripour, F., Hertel, T. W. & Liu, J. The role of irrigation in determining the global land use impacts of biofuels. Energy Sustain. Soc. 3(1), 4 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Ali, T., Huang, J. K. & Yang, J. Impact assessment of global and national biofuels developments on agriculture in Pakistan. Appl. Energy 104, 466–474 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Yang, J., Huang, J. K., Qiu, H. G., Rozelle, S. & Sombilla, M. A. Biofuels and the greater Mekong Subregion: Assessing the impact on prices, production and trade. Appl. Energy 86, S37–S46 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Horridge, M. SplitCom, programs to disaggregate a GTAP sector (Centre of Policy Studies, Vitorial University). https://www.copsmodels.com/splitcom.htm (2005).Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, B. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, B. T., Wen, H. Q. Z., Xu, Y., Song, L. C. & Zhang, X. B. Projected changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in China by the CMIP5 multimodel ensembles. J. Clim. 27, 6591–6611 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J. & Ficher, E. M. A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nat. Geosci. 9(1), 1–6 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nat. Clim. Change 5(6), 519–527 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat. Geosci. 7(10), 709–715 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Azar, C., Johansson, D. J. A. & Mattsson, N. Meeting global temperature targets the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Environ. Res. Lett. 8(3), 1345–1346 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Liu, B. et al. Testing the responses of four wheat crop models to heat stress at anthesis and grain filling. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1890–1903 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Elad, Y. & Pertot, I. Climate change impacts on plant pathogens and plant diseases. J. Crop Improv. 28, 99–139 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Challinora, A. J. et al. Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst. 159, 296–306 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors?. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, N. et al. Increased uncertainty in simulated maize phenology with more frequent supra-optimal temperature under climate warming. Eur. J. Agron. 71, 19–33 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the twenty-first century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. PNAS 111, 3268–3273 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Sale, P. F. & Steneck, R. S. Critical Science Gaps Impede Use of No-take Fishery Reserves (University of Maine/University of New Hampshire Sea Grant College Program, 2005).Book 

Google Scholar 
Hilborn, R. & Walters, C. J. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty (Springer, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Hamilton, S. L., Regetz, J. & Warner, R. R. Postsettlement survival linked to larval life in a marine fish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 1561–1566 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raventos, N. & Macpherson, E. Effect of pelagic larval growth and size-at-hatching on post-settlement survivorship in two temperate labrid fish of the genus Symphodus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 285, 205–211 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, D. W., Christie, M. R., Stallings, C. D., Pusack, T. J. & Hixon, M. A. Using post-settlement demography to estimate larval survivorship: A coral reef fish example. Oecologia 179, 729–739 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garrido, S. et al. Born small, die young: Intrinsic, size-selective mortality in marine larval fish. Sci. Rep. 5, 17065 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shima, J. S. et al. Reproductive phenology across the lunar cycle: Parental decisions, offspring responses, and consequences for reef fish. Ecology 101, e03086 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pini, J., Planes, S., Rochel, E., Lecchini, D. & Fauvelot, C. Genetic diversity loss associated to high mortality and environmental stress during the recruitment stage of a coral reef fish. Coral Reefs 30, 399–404 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bourret, V., Dionne, M. & Bernatchez, L. Detecting genotypic changes associated with selective mortality at sea in Atlantic salmon: Polygenic multilocus analysis surpasses genome scan. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4444–4457 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Planes, S. & Lenfant, P. Temporal change in the genetic structure between and within cohorts of a marine fish, Diplodus sargus, induced by a large variance in individual reproductive success. Mol. Ecol. 11, 1515–1524 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Planes, S. & Romans, P. Evidence of genetic selection for growth in new recruits of a marine fish. Mol. Ecol. 13, 2049–2060 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, W. S. Adaptation genomics: Next generation sequencing reveals a shared haplotype for rapid early development in geographically and genetically distant populations of rainbow trout. Mol. Ecol. 21, 219–222 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carreras, C. et al. East is east and west is west: Population genomics and hierarchical analyses reveal genetic structure and adaptation footprints in the keystone species Paracentrotus lividus (Echinoidea). Divers. Distrib. 26, 382–398 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carreras, C. et al. Population genomics of an endemic Mediterranean fish: Differentiation by fine scale dispersal and adaptation. Sci. Rep. 7, 43417 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Babbucci, M. et al. An integrated genomic approach for the study of mandibular prognathism in the European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Sci. Rep. 6, 38673 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbanti, A. et al. Helping decision making for reliable and cost-effective 2b-RAD sequencing and genotyping analyses in non-model species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 795–806 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Torrado, H., Carreras, C., Raventos, N., Macpherson, E. & Pascual, M. Individual-based population genomics reveal different drivers of adaptation in sympatric fish. Sci. Rep. 10, 12683 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xuereb, A. et al. Asymmetric oceanographic processes mediate connectivity and population genetic structure, as revealed by RADseq, in a highly dispersive marine invertebrate (Parastichopus californicus). Mol. Ecol. 27, 2347–2364 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Benestan, L. et al. Seascape genomics provides evidence for thermal adaptation and current-mediated population structure in American lobster (Homarus americanus). Mol. Ecol. 25, 5073–5092 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, F. et al. Switchgrass genomic diversity, ploidy, and evolution: Novel insights from a network-based SNP discovery protocol. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003215 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S., Meyer, E., McKay, J. K. & Matz, M. V. 2b-RAD: A simple and flexible method for genome-wide genotyping. Nat. Methods 9, 808–810 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raventos, N. & Macpherson, E. Planktonic larval duration and settlement marks on the otoliths of Mediterranean littoral fishes. Mar. Biol. 138, 1115–1120 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Torrado, H. et al. Impact of individual early life traits in larval dispersal: A multispecies approach using backtracking models. Prog. Oceanogr. 192, 102518 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schunter, C. et al. A novel integrative approach elucidates fine-scale dispersal patchiness in marine populations. Sci. Rep. 9, 10796 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hixon, M. A. & Carr, M. H. Synergistic predation, density dependence, and population regulation in marine fish. Science 277, 946–949 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Macpherson, E. et al. Mortality of juvenile fishes of the genus Diplodus in protected and unprotected areas in the western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 160, 135–147 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Macpherson, E. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat use and aggregation in juvenile sparid fishes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 220, 127–150 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eckert, G. J. Estimates of adult and juvenile mortality for labrid fishes at One Tree Reef, Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Biol. 95, 167–171 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pascual, M., Rives, B., Schunter, C. & Macpherson, E. Impact of life history traits on gene flow: A multispecies systematic review across oceanographic barriers in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 12, e0176419 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schunter, C. et al. Matching genetics with oceanography: Directional gene flow in a Mediterranean fish species. Mol. Ecol. 20, 5167–5181 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciotti, B. J. & Planes, S. Within-generation consequences of postsettlement mortality for trait composition in wild populations: An experimental test. Ecol. Evol. 9, 2550–2561 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoklavich, M. M. & Bailey, K. M. Hatching period, growth and survival of young walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma as determined from otolith analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 64, 13–23 (1990).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cargnelli, L. M. & Gross, M. R. The temporal dimension in fish recruitment: Birth date, body size, and size-dependent survival in a sunfish (bluegill: Lepomis macrochirus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53, 360–367 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moginie, B. F. & Shima, J. S. Hatch date and growth rate drives reproductive success in nest-guarding males of a temperate reef fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 592, 197–206 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sponaugle, S., Boulay, J. N. & Rankin, T. L. Growth- and size-selective mortality in pelagic­larvae of a common reef fish. Aquat. Biol. 13, 263–273 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biro, P. A., Abrahams, M. V., Post, J. R. & Parkinson, E. A. Behavioural trade-offs between growth and mortality explain evolution of submaximal growth rates. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 1165–1171 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Litvak, M. K. & Leggett, W. C. Age and size-selective predation on larval fishes: the bigger-is-better hypothesis revisited. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 81, 13–24 (1992).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Alessandro, E. K., Sponaugle, S. & Cowen, R. K. Selective mortality during the larval and juvenile stages of snappers (Lutjanidae) and great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 474, 227–242 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meekan, M. G. et al. Bigger is better: Size-selective mortality throughout the life history of a fast-growing clupeid, Spratelloides gracilis. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser. 317, 237–244 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Takasuka, A., Aoki, I. & Mitani, I. Evidence of growth-selective predation on larval Japanese anchovy Engraulis japonicus in Sagami Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 252, 223–238 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanford, E. & Kelly, M. W. Local adaptation in marine invertebrates. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 509–535 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raventos, N., Torrado, H., Arthur, R., Alcoverro, T. & Macpherson, E. Temperature reduces fish dispersal as larvae grow faster to their settlement size. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 1419–1432 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Logsdon, N. J., Deshpande, A., Harris, B. D., Rajashankar, K. R. & Walter, M. R. Structural basis for receptor sharing and activation by interleukin-20 receptor-2 (IL-20R2) binding cytokines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 12704–12709 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eldon, B., Riquet, F., Yearsley, J., Jollivet, D. & Broquet, T. Current hypotheses to explain genetic chaos under the sea. Curr. Zool. 62, 551–566 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Macpherson, E., Gordoa, A. & Garcia-Rubies, A. Biomass size spectra in littoral fishes in protected and unprotected areas in the NW Mediterranean. Estuarine Coast. Shelf Sci. 55, 777–788 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia-Rubies, A. & Zabala I Limousin, M. Effects of total fishing prohibition on the rocky fish assemblages of Medes Islands marine reserve (NW Mediterranean). Sci. Mar. 54(4), 317–328 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Vigliola, L. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of settlement among sparid fishes of the genus Diplodus in the northwestern Mediterranean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 168, 45–56 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dixon, P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 14, 927–930 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catchen, J., Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Amores, A. & Cresko, W. A. Stacks: An analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. hierfstat, a package for r to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T. adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3.Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H. & Urban, D. L. Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype-environment associations. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2215–2233 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Natsidis, P., Tsakogiannis, A., Pavlidis, P., Tsigenopoulos, C. S. & Manousaki, T. Phylogenomics investigation of sparids (Teleostei: Spariformes) using high-quality proteomes highlights the importance of taxon sampling. Commun. Biol. 2, 400 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2115–2122 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Al-Shahrour, F. et al. FatiGO: A functional profiling tool for genomic data: Integration of functional annotation, regulatory motifs and interaction data with microarray experiments. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W91–W96 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Supek, F., Bošnjak, M., Škunca, N. & Šmuc, T. REVIGO summarizes and visualizes long lists of gene ontology terms. PLoS ONE 6, e21800 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M., Zhao, Y. & Zhang, B. Efficient test and visualization of multi-set intersections. Sci. Rep. 5, 16923 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Animals, housing, and treatmentsAll procedures involving animals were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol #201709925). All methods were performance in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations, and permission and informed consent was obtained from the University of Florida (owners) for the use of the steers in this experiment.The experiment was carried out during July and August of 2017 at the Feed Efficiency Facility of University of Florida, North Florida Research and Education Center, located in Marianna, Florida (30°52′N, 85°11″W, 35 m asl). Both ‘Argentine’ bahiagrass and ‘Florigraze’ rhizoma peanut hays were obtained from commercial producers. The hay bales were stored in enclosed barns throughout the duration of the experiment.Twenty-five Brahman × Angus crossbred steers (Bos sp.) were utilized (average BW = 341 ± 17 kg, approx. 16 months of age). The steers were grazing bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) pastures, a C4 grass, prior to the start of the study. The day prior to the start of the experiment (e.g. day-1), steers brought to working facilities, where they remained 16 h off feed and water, in order to obtain shrunk bodyweights. On day 0 of the experiment, steers were weighed, blocked by bodyweight, and allocated to five treatments (5 steers per treatment) and housed in grouped pens. Hay intake was recorded utilizing GrowSafe© systems (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada), which utilize radio frequency identification to record feed intake by weight change measured to the nearest gram. Water was available ad libitum. Forage treatments were offered ad libitum by providing sufficient hay to maintain full feed troughs throughout each day of the experiment. Treatments were five proportions of ‘Florigraze’ rhizoma peanut hay in ‘Argentine’ bahiagrass hay: (1) 100% bahiagrass hay (0% RP); (2) 25% rhizoma peanut hay + 75% bahiagrass hay (25% RP); (3) 50% rhizoma peanut hay + 50% bahiagrass hay (50% RP); (4) 75% rhizoma peanut hay + 25% bahiagrass hay (75% RP); (5) 100% rhizoma peanut hay (100% RP). Diet chemical composition is presented in Table 1. All treatment proportions were weighed and mixed on as-fed basis. Mixing of diets was done manually; no hay mixers or choppers were used, to minimize leaf shatter.Sample collectionSteers were housed for 32 days and sampling occurred on 0, 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after initiation of treatment diets; exception was for feces, which were collected on d-1 given steers were fasted on d-0 of the experiment. The hay mixtures offered to the steers were collected (10 samples of each diet) and analyzed for nutritive value (Table 1), at the start of the experiment. All sampling occurred between 0700 and 1000 h on each of the sampling days.Fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum and placed in quart-sized plastic bags to avoid contamination. The feces were frozen at −20 °C. All fecal samples were thawed, dried at 55 °C for 72 h, and ground to pass a 2-mm stainless steel screen using a Wiley Mill (Model 4, Thomas-Wiley Laboratory Mill, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA). Samples were then ball milled using a Mixer Mill MM400 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) at 25 Hz for 9 min.Blood was obtained through jugular venipuncture using 10-mL K2 EDTA vials (Becton Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and stored in ice until centrifugation. All tubes were centrifuged at 714 G for 20 min using an Allegra X-22R centrifuge (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA). A 10-mL sample of plasma was collected and placed in a separate glass vial, the remaining plasma, white blood cell, and platelet fractions were discarded. The remaining RBC pellet was re-suspended with 9 vol. 0.9% NaCl solution and mixed at room temperature for 15 min at 2 Hz orbital shaker. The tubes were then centrifuged at 714 G for 20 min. The saline solution from the centrifuged tubes was discarded after centrifugation. The rinse procedure was repeated two more times for a total of three rinses. After the third rinse procedure, a 500-µL sample was removed, frozen at −20 °C, and subsequently freeze-dried for isotopic analyses.Hair clippings were obtained from an area of 20 × 20 cm on the left hindquarter, utilizing veterinary hair clippers (Sunbeam-Oster Inc., Boca Raton, FL, USA). Hair clippings were collected, placed in nylon bags (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA), and frozen for subsequent analysis. Clippings were always collected in the same location from each animal in order to ensure new hair growth would be analyzed. All hair samples were cleaned using soapy water and defatted following protocols for other keratin-based tissues 31,34. Each sample was sonicated twice for 30 min in a methanol and chloroform solution (2:1, v/v), rinsed with distilled water, and oven dried overnight at 60 °C. Each hair sample was ball milled using a Mixer Mill MM400 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) at 25 Hz for 9 min.CalculationsAfter processing, all samples were analyzed for total C and N using a CHNS analyzer through the Dumas dry combustion method (Vario MicroCube, Elementar Americas Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA) coupled to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IsoPrime 100, Elementar, Elementar Americas Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). Certified standards of L-glutamic acid (USGS40, USGS41; United States Geological Survey) were used for isotope ratio mass spectrometer calibration. Isotope ratios were as follows: δ13C of −26.39, + 37.63‰, and δ15N of −4.52, 47.57‰ for USGS40 and USGS41, respectively. Calibration of the IRMS was conducted according to Cook, et al. 35, with an accuracy of ≤ 0.06 ‰ for 15N and ≤ 0.08 ‰ for 13C.The isotope ratio for 13C/12C was calculated as:$$delta^{{{13}}} {text{C}} = , left( {^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{sample}}}} {-}^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{reference}}}} } right)/ , left( {^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{reference}}}} times { 1}000} right)$$
(1)

where δ13C is the C isotope ratio of the sample relative to Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) standard (‰), 13C/12Csample is the C isotope ratio of the sample, and 13C/12Creference is the C isotope ratio of PDB standard 5. The isotope ratio for 15N/14N was calculated as:$$delta^{{{15}}} {text{N}} = , left( {^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{sample}}}} -^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{reference}}}} } right)/left( {^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{reference}}}} times { 1}000} right)$$
(2)
where δ15N is the N isotope ratio of the sample relative to atmospheric nitrogen (‰), 15N/14Nsample is the N isotope ratio of the sample, and 15N/14Nreference is the N isotope ratio of atmospheric N (standard) 5. The fraction factor (Δ) in this study was considered to be the difference between the diet isotopic composition (δ13C or δ15N) and that of the given sample 5.The dietary proportion of rhizoma peanut hay was back-calculated using δ13C and δ15N of each plant on a DM basis 3. This method is advantageous in that it does not require further tissue processing and facilitates implementation at the field scale. The proportion of rhizoma peanut was estimated using Eq. (3), described by Jones et al. 3:$$%RP=100-left{100 times frac{A-C}{B-C}right}$$
(3)
where %RP is the proportion of RP in the diet, A is the δ13C or δ15N of the sample obtained, B is the δ13C or δ15N of bahiagrass, and C is the δ13C or δ15N of RP.Statistical analysisAll response variables were analyzed using linear mixed model procedures as implemented in SAS PROC GLIMMIX (SAS/STAT 15.1, SAS Institute). Individual animals were considered the experimental unit. Treatment, collection day, and their interaction were considered fixed effects, and block was considered a random effect in the model. The data were analyzed as repeated measures, considering collection day as the repeated measure. The best covariance matrix was selected according to the lowest AICC fit statistic. Least squares treatment means were compared through pairwise t test using the PDIFF option of the LSMEAN statement in the aforementioned procedure. Based on the recommendations by Milliken and Johnson 36 and Saville 37, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Orthogonal polynomial contrasts (linear and quadratic effects) were used to test effects of RP inclusion on isotopic responses. The slice option was used when the treatment × collection day interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.05), using collection day as the factor, to test treatment effects across collection days. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. The contrast statement was used to test for linear or quadratic effects. Regression analyses for the dietary predictions were conducted using PROC REG from SAS.Predictions of dietary proportions based on Eq. (3) were generated for 16 subgroups reflecting combinations of isotope (13C or 15N), day (8 or 32), and sample type (feces, plasm, RBC, or hair). Analyses comparing predicted versus actual diet proportions included several components. First, we computed the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) following the recommendations from Crawford, et al. 38. The CCC is a measure of agreement that encompasses both precision and accuracy, along with corresponding 95% bias accelerated and corrected (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals. For comparative purposes we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient which only reflects precision. Both correlation coefficients range from −1.0 to 1.0 and we interpreted values ≥ 0.80 as indicating strong positive agreement/correlation. Next, we regressed the actual percentages on the predicted percentages using linear regression. Perfect prediction corresponds to the estimated regression line having an intercept of zero and a slope of 1.0. We then partitioned the mean square error (MSE) of the predicted (from Eq. (3), not the above linear regression) versus actual percentages as described in Rice and Cochran 39. This partitioning entails calculating the proportion of MSE attributable to three sources of error: the difference in mean predicted and actual values (mean component, denoted “MC”), the error resulting from the slope of the above linear regression deviating from 1.0 (slope component, denoted “SC”), and random error (random component, denoted “RC”). The results from the above analyses were examined to identify subgroups whose predictions were sufficiently good to warrant hypothesis testing. In this context “good” means that the predicted percentages were strongly correlated with the actual percentages and the magnitudes of the predicted percentages were similar to the actual percentages. The objective of the hypothesis testing was to formally evaluate whether dietary proportions could be directly predicted from Eq. (3) (in contrast to generating predictions using the equation from regressing actual dietary percentages on the predicted percentages from Eq. (3)). Paired two one-sided test (TOST) equivalence tests were conducted for the selected subgroups with α = 0.0540. These tests are formulated such that the null hypothesis is “non-equivalence” and the alternative hypothesis is “equivalence”. An input parameter to the test is the equivalence region, a range for which we consider the mean actual minus predicted difference to be unimportant (“equivalent”) from a practical standpoint. For each equivalence test we also computed the 90% confidence interval for the mean actual minus predicted difference which we refer to as the “minimum equivalence region”. Based on the structure of TOST equivalence tests, to reject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level, the equivalence region specified for the test must completely contain the minimum equivalence region. For example, if the pre-specified equivalence region is (−15%, 15%) and the computed minimum equivalence region is (−16%, −6%) the null hypothesis would not be rejected. Finally, we re-ran all of the analyses described above for the selected subgroups where, prior to analysis, predicted percentages outside of the valid range were assigned the appropriate boundary value (i.e., predicted percentages  100% were assigned a value of 100%). More

The pathosystemPlantago lanceolata L. is a perennial monoecious ribwort plantain that reproduces both clonally via the production side rosettes, and sexually via wind pollination. Seeds drop close to the mother plant and usually form a long-term seed bank47. Podospharea plantaginis (Castagne; U. Braun and S. Takamatsu) (Erysiphales, Ascomycota) is an obligate biotrophic powdery mildew that infects only P. lanceolata and requires living host tissue through its life cycle48. It completes its life cycle as localized lesions on host leaves, only the haustorial feeding roots penetrating the leaf tissue to feed nutrients from its host. Infection causes significant stress for host plant and may increase the host mortality31. The interaction between P. lanceolata and P. plantaginis is strain-specific, whereby the same host genotype may be susceptible to some pathogen genotypes while being resistant to others49. The putative resistance mechanism includes two steps. First, resistance occurs when the host plant first recognizes the attacking pathogen and blocks its growth. When the first step fails and infection takes place, the host may mitigate infection development. Both resistance traits vary among host genotypes49.Approximately 4000 P. lanceolata populations form a network covering an area of 50 × 70 km in the Åland Islands, SW of Finland. Disease incidence (0/1) in these populations has been recorded systematically every year in early September since 2001 by approximately 40 field assistants, who record the occurrence of the fungus P. plantaginis in the local P. lanceolata populations30. At this time, disease symptoms are conspicuous as infected plants are covered by white mycelia and conidia. The coverage (m2) of P. lanceolata in the meadows was recorded between 2001 and 2008 and is used as an estimate of host population size. In the field survey two technicians estimate Plantago population size by visually estimating how much ground/other vegetation P. lanceolata foliage covers (m2) in each meadow. The proportion of P. lanceolata plants in each population suffering from drought is also estimated annually in the survey. Data on average rainfall (mm) in July and August was estimated separately for each population using detailed radar-measured rainfall (obtained by Finnish Meteorological Institute) and it was available for years 2001–2008.Host population connectivity (SH)27 for each local population i was computed with the formula that takes into account the area of host coverage (m²) of all host populations surveyed, denoted with (Aj), and their spatial location compared to other host populations. We assume that the distribution of dispersal distances from a location are described by negative exponential distribution. Under this assumption, the following formula (1) quantifies for a focal population i, the effect of all other host populations, taking into account their population sizes and how strongly they are connected through immigration to it:$${S}_{i}^{H}=mathop{sum}limits_{jne i}{{{{{rm{e}}}}}}^{{-alpha d}_{{ij}}}sqrt{{A}_{j}}.$$
(1)
here, dij is the Euclidian distance between populations i and j and 1/α equals the mean dispersal distance, which was set to be two kilometres based on results from a previous study16.The annual survey data has demonstrated that P. plantaginis infects annually 2–16% of all host populations and persists as a highly dynamic metapopulation through extinctions and re-colonizations of local populations16. The number of host populations has remained relatively stable over the study period49. The first visible symptoms of P. plantaginis infection appear in late June as white-greyish lesions consisting of mycelium supporting the dispersal spores (conidia) that are carried by wind to the same or new host plants. Six to eight clonally produced generations follow one another in rapid succession, often leading to local epidemic with substantial proportion of the infected hosts by late summer within the host local population. Podosphaera plantaginis produces resting structures, chasmothecia, that appear towards the end of growing season in August–September31. Between 20% and 90% of the local pathogen populations go extinct during the winter, and thus the recolonization events play an important role in the persistence of the pathogen regionally16.Inoculation assay: Effect of connectivity and disease history on phenotypic disease resistanceHost and pathogen material for the experimentTo examine whether the diversity and level of resistance vary among host populations depending on their degree of connectivity (SH) and disease history, we selected 20 P. lanceolata populations for an inoculation assay. These populations occur in different locations in the host network, and were selected based on their connectivity values (S H of selected populations was 37–110 in isolated and 237–336 in highly connected category, Fig. 1). We did not include host populations in the intermediate connectivity category that was used in the population dynamic analyses in the inoculation assay due to logistic constraints. Podosphaera plantaginis is an obligate biotrophic pathogen that requires living host tissue throughout its life cycle, and obtaining sufficient inoculum for experiments is extremely time and space consuming. In both isolated and highly connected categories, half of the populations (IDs 193, 260, 311, 313, 337, 507, 1821, 1999, 2818 and 5206) were healthy during the study years 2001–2014, while half of the populations (IDs 271, 294, 309, 321, 490, 609, 1553, 1556, 1676 and 1847) were infected by P. plantaginis for several years during the same period. We collected P. lanceolata seeds from randomly selected ten individual plants around the patch area from each host population in August 2014.To acquire inoculum for the assay, we collected the pathogen strains as infected leaves, one leaf from ten plant individuals from four additional host populations (IDs 3301, 4684, 1784, and 3108) in August 2014. None of the pathogen populations were same as the sampled host populations and hence, the strains used in the assay all represent allopatric combinations. Both host and pathogen populations selected for the study were separated by at least two kilometres. The collected leaves supporting infection were placed in Petri dishes on moist filter paper and stored at room temperature until later use.Seeds from ten mother plants from each population were sown in 2:1 mixture of potting soil and sand, and grown in greenhouse conditions at 20 ± 2 °C (day) and 16 ± 2 °C (night) with 16:8 L:D photoperiod. Due to the low germination rate of collected seeds, population 260 (isolated and healthy population) was excluded from the study. Seedlings of ten different mother plants were randomly selected among the germinated plants for each population (n = 190), and grown in individual pots until the plants were eight weeks old.The pathogen strains were purified through three cycles of single colony inoculations and maintained on live, susceptible leaves on Petri dishes in a growth chamber 20 ± 2 °C with 16:8 L:D photoperiod. Every two weeks, the strains were transferred to fresh P. lanceolata leaves. Purified powdery mildew strains (M1–M4), one representing each allopatric population (3301, 4684, 1784 and 3108), were used for the inoculation assay. To produce enough sporulating fungal material, repeated cycles of inoculations were performed before the assay.Inoculation assay quantifying host resistance phenotypesIn order to study how the phenotypic resistance of hosts varies depending on population connectivity and infection history, we scored the resistance of 190 host genotypes, ten individuals from each study populations (n = 19), in an inoculation assay. Here, one detached leaf from each plant was exposed to a single pathogen strain (M1–M4) by brushing spores gently with a fine paintbrush onto the leaf. Leaves were placed on moist filter paper in Petri dishes and kept in a growth chamber at 20 ± 2 with a 16/8D photoperiod. All the inoculations were repeated on two individual Petri plates, leading to 760 host genotype—pathogen genotype combinations and a total of 1520 inoculations (19 populations * 10 plant genotypes * 4 pathogen strains * 2 replicates). We then observed and scored the pathogen infection on day 12 post inoculation, under dissecting microscope. The resulting plant phenotypic response was scored as 0 = susceptible (infection) when mycelium and conidia were observed on the leaf surface, and as 1 = resistance (no infection), when no developing lesions could be detected under a dissecting microscope. A genotype was defined resistant only if both inoculated replicates showed similar response (1), and susceptible if one or both replicates became infected (0).Statistical analysesBayesian spatio-temporal INLA model of the changes in host population sizeTo study how the pathogen infection influences on host population growth, we analyzed the relative change in host population size (m2) (defined as population size (t) − population size (t−1))/population size (t−1)) between consecutive years utilizing data from 2001 to 2008 in response to pathogen presence-absence status at t−1 (Supplementary Table 2). To assess whether this depends on host population connectivity, we estimated the separate effects of pathogen presence/absence in the previous year for connectivity categories—high-, low, and intermediate—that were based on the 0.2 and 0.8 quantiles of the host-connectivity values (Fig. 1A and Supplementary Figs. 1, 2). This allowed us to directly assess and compare the effect of the pathogen on host population growth in the extreme categories between isolated and highly connected host populations which were represented in the sampling for the inoculation study (Fig. 2).As covariates, we included the proportion (0–100%) of dry host plants measured each year within each local population as well as data on the amount of rainfall at the summer months (June, July, and August) obtained from the satellite images, as these were suggested be relevant for this pathosystem in an earlier analysis16. Observations where the change in host population size, or the host population coverage had absolute values larger than their 0.99 quantiles in the whole data, were regarded as outliers and omitted from the analysis. Before the analyses, all the continuous covariates were scaled and centred, and the categorical variables were transformed into binary variables.The relative changes in local host population size between consecutive years was analyzed by a Bayesian spatio-temporal statistical model that simultaneously considers the effects of a set of biologically meaningful predictors. The linear predictor thus consists of two parts (2,3):$$beta {X}_{t}+{z}_{t}{A}_{t}$$
(2)
where (beta) represents the correlation coefficients corresponding to the effects of environmental covariates, ({z}_{t}) corresponds to the spatiotemporal random effect, and ({X}_{t}) and ({A}_{t}) project these to the observation locations. For ({z}_{t}) we assume that the observations from a location in consecutive time points (t−1) and t are described by 1st order autoregressive process:$${z}_{t}=varphi {z}_{t-1}+{w}_{t}$$
(3)
where ({w}_{t}) corresponds to spatially structured zero-mean random noise, for which a Matern covariance function is assumed. Statistical inference then targets jointly the covariate effects (beta), the temporal autocorrelation (varphi), and the hyperparameters describing the spatial autocorrelation in wt. From these the overall variance, as well as spatial range—a distance after which spatial autocorrelation ceases to be significant—can be inferred (Supplementary Fig. 3). For more detailed description of the structure of the statistical model and how to do efficient inference with it using R-INLA, we refer to refs. 16,50.Identification of resistance phenotypesThe phenotype composition of each study population was defined by individual plant responses to the four pathogen strains, where each response could be “susceptible = 0” or “resistant = 1”. For example, a phenotype “1111” refers to a plant resistant to all four pathogen strains. The diversity of distinct resistance phenotypes within populations was estimated using the Shannon diversity index as implemented in the vegan software package51. The Shannon diversity index for all four study groups was then analyzed using a linear model with class predictors population type (well-connected or isolated), infection history (healthy or infected), and their interaction.Analysis of population connectivity and infection history effects on host resistanceTo test whether host population resistance varied depending on connectivity (SH) and infection history, we analyzed the inoculation responses (0 = susceptible, 1=resistant) of each host-pathogen combination by using a logit mixed-effect model in the lme4 package52. The model included the binomial dependent variable (resistance-susceptible; 1/0), and class predictors population type (well-connected or isolated), infection history (healthy or infected), mildew strain (M1, M2, M3, and M4) and their interactions. Plant individual and population were defined as random effects, with plant genotype (sample) hierarchically nested under population. Model fit was assessed using chi-square tests on the log-likelihood values to compare different models and significant interactions, and the best model was selected based on AIC-values. P-values for regression coefficients were obtained by using the car package53. We ran all the analyses in R software54.The metapopulation modelWe model the ecological and co-evolutionary dynamics of host and pathogen metapopulations to understand key features of the experimental system that impact on the qualitative patterns observed. The structure and parameters in our model are therefore not estimated using experimental data, but rather are chosen to cover a range of possibilities (e.g., low vs high transmission rates, variation in trade-off shapes for fitness costs). We construct the metapopulations in two stages to account for relatively well and poorly connected demes. All demes are identical in quality (i.e., no differences in intrinsic birth or death rates between demes) and only differ in their connectivity. Our metapopulation consists of an outer network of 20 demes, equally spaced around the unit square (0.2 units apart), and a 7×7 inner lattice of demes at a minimum distance of 0.2 units from the outer network (Fig. 3A), giving a total of 69 demes. Demes that are separated by a Euclidean distance of at most 0.2 are then connected to each other. This means that populations near the centre of the metapopulation are highly connected, while those on the boundary of the metapopulation are poorly connected. This also has the effect of making connections between well and poorly connected demes assortative (i.e., well/poorly connected demes tend to be connected to well/poorly connected demes). We relax the assumption of assortativity in a second type of network by randomly reassigning connections between demes, while maintaining the same degree distribution. (i.e., the probability of two demes being connected is proportionate to their degree). While well connected demes still have more connections to other well connected demes than to poorly connected demes, they are not more likely to be connected to a well connected deme than by chance based on the degree distribution. In both types of network structure, we classify a deme as well-connected if it is in the top 20% of the degree distribution and poorly connected if it is in the bottom 20%.We model the genetics using a multilocus gene-for-gene framework with haploid host and pathogen genotypes characterized by (L) biallelic loci, where 0 and 1 represent the presence and absence, respectively, of resistance and infectivity alleles. Host genotype (i) and pathogen genotype (j) are represented by binary strings: ({x}_{i}^{1}{x}_{i}^{2}ldots {x}_{i}^{L}) and ({y}_{j}^{1}{y}_{j}^{2}ldots {y}_{j}^{L}). Resistance acts multiplicatively such that the probability of host (i) being infected when challenged by pathogen (j) is ({Q}_{{ij}}={sigma }^{{d}_{{ij}}}), where (sigma) is the reduction in infectivity per effective resistance allele and ({d}_{{ij}}={sum }_{k=1}^{L}{x}_{i}^{k}big(1-{y}_{j}^{k}big)) is the number of effective resistance alleles (i.e., the number of loci where hosts have a resistance allele but pathogens do not have a corresponding infectivity allele). Hosts and pathogens with more resistance or infectivity alleles are assumed to pay higher fitness costs, ({c}_{H}left(iright)) eq. (4) and ({c}_{P}left(jright)) eq. (5) with:$${c}_{H}left(iright)={c}_{H}^{1}left(frac{1-{{{{{rm{e}}}}}}^{frac{{c}_{H}^{2}}{L}{sum }_{k=1}^{L}{x}_{i}^{k}}}{1-{{{{{rm{e}}}}}}^{{c}_{H}^{2}}}right)$$
(4)
and$${c}_{P}left(jright)={c}_{P}^{1}left(frac{1-{{{{{rm{e}}}}}}^{frac{{c}_{P}^{2}}{L}{sum }_{k=1}^{L}{y}_{j}^{k}}}{1-{{{{{rm{e}}}}}}^{{c}_{P}^{2}}}right)$$
(5)
where (0 , < , {c}_{H}^{1},; {c}_{P}^{1},le, 1) control the overall strength of the costs (i.e., the maximum proportional reduction in reproduction (hosts) or transmission rate (pathogens)) and ({c}_{H}^{2},; {c}_{P}^{2}in {{mathbb{R}}}_{ne 0}) control the shape of the trade-off. When ({c}_{H}^{2},; {c}_{P}^{2}, < , 0) the costs decelerate (increasing returns) and when ({c}_{H}^{2},; {c}_{P}^{2}, > , 0) the costs accelerate the costs accelerate (decreasing returns) (Supplementary Fig. 4). This formulation, therefore, allows for a wide-range of trade-off shapes that may occur in nature.The dynamics of the (finite) host and pathogen populations are modelled stochastically using the tau-leap method with a fixed step size of (tau=1). For population (p), the mean host birth rate at time (t) for host (i) (6) is$${B}_{i}^{p}left(tright)=left(aleft(1-{c}_{H}left(iright)right)-q{N}_{p}left(tright)right){S}_{i}^{p}left(tright)$$
(6)
where (a) is the maximum per-capita birth rate, (q) is the strength of density-dependent competition on births, ({N}_{p}left(tright)={S}_{i}^{p}left(tright)+{I}_{icirc }^{p}left(tright)) is the local host population size, ({S}_{i}^{p}left(tright)) and ({I}_{icirc }^{p}left(tright)={sum }_{j=1}^{n}{I}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)) are the local sizes of susceptible and infected individuals of genotype (i), and ({I}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)) is the local size of hosts of genotype (i) infected by pathogen (j). Host mutations occur at an average rate of ({mu }_{H}) per loci (limited to at most one mutation per time step), so that the mean number of mutations from host type (i) to ({i}^{{prime} }) is ({mu }_{H}{m}_{i{i}^{{prime} }}{B}_{i}^{p}left(tright)), where ({m}_{i{i}^{{prime} }}=1) if genotypes (i) and ({i}^{{prime} }) differ at exactly one locus, and is 0 otherwise.The mean local mortalities for susceptible and infected individuals are (b{S}_{i}^{p}left(tright)) and (left(b+alpha right){I}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)), respectively, where (b) is the natural mortality rate and (alpha) is the disease-associated mortality rate. The average number of infected hosts that recover is (gamma {I}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)), where (gamma) is the recovery rate.The mean number of new local infections of susceptible host type (i) by pathogen (j) eq. (7) is:$${INF}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)=beta left(1-{c}_{P}left(jright)right){Q}_{{ij}}{S}_{i}^{p}left(tright){Y}_{j}^{p}left(tright)$$
(7)
where (beta) is the baseline transmission rate and ({Y}_{j}^{p}left(tright)) is the local number of pathogen propagules following mutation and dispersal. Pathogen mutations occur in a similar manner to host mutations, with mutations from type (j) to ({j}^{{prime} }) occurring at rate ({mu }_{P}{m}_{j{j}^{{prime} }}{I}_{circ j}^{p}left(tright)) where ({mu }_{P}) is the mutation rate per loci (limited to at most one mutation per timestep) and ({I}_{circ j}^{p}left(tright)={sum }_{i=1}^{n}{I}_{{ij}}^{p}left(tright)) is the local number of pathogen (j.) Following mutation, the local number of pathogens of type (j) eq. (8) is:$${W}_{j}^{p}left(tright)={I}_{circ j}^{p}left(tright)left(1-{mu }_{P}Lright)+{mu }_{P}{m}_{j{j}^{{prime} }}{I}_{circ j}^{p}left(tright)$$
(8)
Pathogen dispersal occurs following mutation at a rate of (rho) between connected demes, given by the adjacency matrix ({G}_{{pr}}), with ({G}_{varSigma p}) the total number of connections for deme (p). The mean local number of pathogen propagules following mutation and dispersal eq. (9) is therefore:$${Y}_{j}^{p}left(tright)={W}_{j}^{p}left(tright)left(1-rho {G}_{varSigma p}right)+rho mathop {sum }limits_{r=1}^{{M}_{varSigma }}{G}_{{pr}}{W}_{j}^{r}left(tright)$$
(9)
We focus our parameter sweep on: (i) the structure of the network (assortative or random connections); (ii) the strength (left({c}_{H}^{1},; {c}_{P}^{1}right)) and shape (left({c}_{H}^{2},; {c}_{P}^{2}right)) of the trade-offs; (iii) the transmission rate (left(beta right)); and (iv) the dispersal rate (left(rho right)), fixing the remaining parameters as described in Supplementary Table 1 (preliminary investigations suggested they had less of an impact on the qualitative outcome) and conducting 100 simulations per parameter set. For each simulation we initially seed all populations with the most susceptible host type and place the least infective pathogen type in one of the well-connected populations to minimize the risk of early extinction. We then solve the dynamics for 10,000 time steps (preliminary investigations indicated this was a sufficient period for the metapopulations to reach a quasi-equilibrium in terms of overall resistance). We calculate the average level of resistance (proportion of loci with a resistance allele) between time steps 4001 and 5000 (transient dynamics) and over the final 1000 time steps (long-term dynamics) for well and poorly connected demes, categorized according to whether the disease is present in (infected) or absent from (uninfected) the local population at a given time point and discarding simulations where the pathogen is driven globally extinct.We compare the mean level of resistance in infected/uninfected poorly/well-connected populations across all simulations to the empirical results. We say that a simulation is a qualitative ‘match’ for the empirical findings if: (i) in poorly connected demes, the infected populations are on average at least 5% more resistant than uninfected populations; and (ii) in well-connected demes, the uninfected populations are on average at least 5% more resistant than infected populations. In other words, if ({R}_{{CS}}) is the mean resistance for a population with connectivity (C) ((C=W) and (C=P) for well and poorly connected demes, respectively) and infection status (S) ((S=U) and (S=I) for uninfected and infected populations, respectively), then a parameter set is a qualitative ‘match’ for the empirical findings if ({R}_{{WU}} > 1.05{R}_{{WI}}) and (1.05{R}_{{PI}}, > , 1.05{R}_{{PU}}). If these criteria are not met, then the parameter set is a qualitative ‘mismatch’ for the empirical findings. The model is not intended to be a replica of an empirical metapopulation, but rather is used to reveal the key factors which lead to qualitatively similar distributions of resistance and disease incidences observed in the study of the Åland islands. Hence, the purpose of the model is to determine which biological factors are likely to be crucial to the patterns observed herein.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More