Ecology

International Energy Agency. Offshore Wind Outlook 2019. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/495ab264-4ddf-4b68-b9c0-514295ff40a7/Offshore_Wind_Outlook_2019.pdf (2019).United Nations. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1). 49. (New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2016).Copping, A. et al. Annex IV State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Annex-IV-2016-State-of-the-Science-Report_MR.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. (2016).Dean, N. Performance factors. Nature Energy 5, 5–5 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Global Wind Energy Council. Globarl offshore wind report 2020. https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2020/08/GWEC-offshore-wind-2020-5.pdf (2020).Jansen, M. et al. Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy. Nat. Energy 5, 614–622 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
IRENA. Global Renewables Outlook: Energy transformation 2050 (Edition: 2020), International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. ISBN 978-92-9260-238-3. www.irena.org/publications (2020).Wiser, R. et al. Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nat. Energy 6, 555–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
IRENA. Future of wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation paper), International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Oct/IRENA_Future_of_wind_2019.pdf (2019).European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. Brussels, 11.12.2019 COM(2019) 640 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (2019).European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy for a climate neutral future. Brussels, 19.11.2020 COM(2020) 741 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A741%3AFIN (2020).European Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2019 on climate change – a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in accordance with the Paris Agreement (2019/2582(RSP)). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019IP0217 (2019).Arneth, A. et al. Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 30882–30891 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Copping, A. E., Freeman, M. C., Gorton, A. M. & Hemery, L. G. Risk Retirement—Decreasing Uncertainty and Informing Consenting Processes for Marine Renewable Energy Development. J. Marine Sci. Eng. 8, 172 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
WWF. Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Power Production in the North Sea. A Literature Overview. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/WWF-OSW-Environmental-Impacts.pdf (2014).Cook, A. S. C. P., Humphreys, E. M., Bennet, F., Masden, E. A. & Burton, N. H. K. Quantifying avian avoidance of offshore wind turbines: Current evidence and key knowledge gaps. Marine Environ. Res. 140, 278–288 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Willsteed, E. A., Jude, S., Gill, A. B. & Birchenough, S. N. R. Obligations and aspirations: A critical evaluation of offshore wind farm cumulative impact assessments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2332–2345 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stelzenmüller, V. et al. Operationalizing risk-based cumulative effect assessments in the marine environment. Sci. Total Environ. 724, 138118 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ehler, C. & Douvere, F. in Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO. 99pp. (2009).Borja, A. et al. Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Marine Pollut. Bull. 76, 16–27 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, J. L., Remmers, T., Wheeler, A. J., Murphy, J. & Cummins, V. A systematic review and meta-analysis of GIS use to reveal trends in offshore wind energy research and offer insights on best practices. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 128, 109916 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gasparatos, A., Doll, C. N. H., Esteban, M., Ahmed, A. & Olang, T. A. Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 161–184 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, Y. & Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Education Res. 39, 93–112 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mengist, W., Soromessa, T. & Legese, G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX 7, 100777 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pullin, A. & Stewart, G. Guidelines for Systematic Review in Environmental Management. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1647–1656 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Molen, J., Smith, H. C. M., Lepper, P., Limpenny, S. & Rees, J. Predicting the large-scale consequences of offshore wind turbine array development on a North Sea ecosystem. Continental Shelf Res. 85, 60–72 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Backer, A., Van Hoey, G., Coates, D., Vanaverbeke, J. & Hostens, K. Similar diversity-disturbance responses to different physical impacts: Three cases of small-scale biodiversity increase in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Marine Pollut. Bull. 84, 251–262 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Floeter, J. et al. Pelagic effects of offshore wind farm foundations in the stratified North Sea. Prog. Oceanograph. 156, 154–173 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindeboom, H. J. et al. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; A compilation. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 035101 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bray, L. et al. Expected effects of offshore wind farms on Mediterranean Marine Life. J. Marine Sci. Eng. 4, 18 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dannheim, J. et al. Benthic effects of offshore renewables: identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research. ICES J. Marine Sci. 77, 1092–1108 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, J. C. & Elliott, M. The habitat-creation potential of offshore wind farms. Wind Energy 12, 203–212 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, R., João, E. & Knapp, C. W. Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 83, 106404 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korpinen, S. & Andersen, J. H. A Global Review of Cumulative Pressure and Impact Assessments in Marine Environments. Front. Marine Sci. 3, 00153 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nõges, P. et al. Quantified biotic and abiotic responses to multiple stress in freshwater, marine and ground waters. Sci. Total Environ. 540, 43–52 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gissi, E. et al. A review of the combined effects of climate change and other local human stressors on the marine environment. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142564 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gușatu, L. F. et al. Spatial and temporal analysis of cumulative environmental effects of offshore wind farms in the North Sea basin. Sci. Rep. 11, 10125 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gissi, E. et al. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLoS ONE 12, e0180501 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vaissière, A. C., Levrel, H., Pioch, S. & Carlier, A. Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe. Marine Policy 48, 172–183 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iglesias, G., Tercero, J. A., Simas, T., Machado, I. & Cruz, E. Environmental Effects. In Wave and Tidal Energy (eds Greaves, D. & Iglesias, G.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119014492.ch9 (2018).Causon, P. D. & Gill, A. B. Linking ecosystem services with epibenthic biodiversity change following installation of offshore wind farms. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 340–347 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Copping, A. E. & Hemery, L. G. OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). 323 pp., (2020).Gill, A. B. Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 605–615 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheidat, M. et al. Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and wind farms: A case study in the Dutch North Sea. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 025102 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skov, H. et al. Patterns of migrating soaring migrants indicate attraction to marine wind farms. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160804 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanermen, N. et al. Attracted to the outside: a meso-scale response pattern of lesser black-backed gulls at an offshore wind farm revealed by GPS telemetry. ICES J. Marine Sci. 77, 701–710 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, B. Research on marine mammals summary and discussion of research results. In Offshore Wind Energy: Research on Environmental Impacts. 77–86 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34677-7_8 (2006).Thaxter, C. B. et al. Bird and bat species’ global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc. Royal Soc. B.: Biol Sci. 284, 20170829 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, J. C. et al. Coastal and Offshore Wind Energy Generation: Is It Environmentally Benign? Energies 3, 1383–1422 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Busch, M., Kannen, A., Garthe, S. & Jessopp, M. Consequences of a cumulative perspective on marine environmental impacts: Offshore wind farming and seabirds at North Sea scale in context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ocean Coastal Manag. 71, 213–224 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garthe, S., Markones, N. & Corman, A.-M. Possible impacts of offshore wind farms on seabirds: a pilot study in Northern Gannets in the southern North Sea. J. Ornithol. 158, 345–349 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandt, M. J., Diederichs, A., Betke, K. & Nehls, G. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 421, 205–216 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T. & Öhman, M. C. The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES J. Marine Sci. 63, 775–784 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bergström, L., Sundqvist, F. & Bergström, U. Effects of an offshore wind farm on temporal and spatial patterns in the demersal fish community. Marine Ecol. Progr. Ser. 485, 199–210 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Hal, R., Griffioen, A. B. & van Keeken, O. A. Changes in fish communities on a small spatial scale, an effect of increased habitat complexity by an offshore wind farm. Marine Environ. Res. 126, 26–36 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Degraer, S. et al. Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functioning: A synthesis. Oceanography 33, 48–57 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zettler, M. L. & Pollehne, F. The Impact of Wind Engine Constructions on Benthic Growth Patterns in the Western Baltic. In Offshore Wind Energy: Research on Environmental Impacts (eds Köller, J., Köppel, J. & Peters, W.). 201–222 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006).Wilhelmsson, D. Marine environmental aspects of offshore wind power development. (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2010).Teilmann, J. & Carstensen, J. Negative long term effects on harbour porpoises from a large scale offshore wind farm in the Baltic – Evidence of slow recovery. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045101 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Halouani, G. et al. A spatial food web model to investigate potential spillover effects of a fishery closure in an offshore wind farm. J. Marine Syst. 212, 103434 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reubens, J. T., Degraer, S. & Vincx, M. The ecology of benthopelagic fishes at offshore wind farms: a synthesis of 4 years of research. Hydrobiologia 727, 121–136 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilber, D. H., Carey, D. A. & Griffin, M. Flatfish habitat use near North America’s first offshore wind farm. J. Sea Res. 139, 24–32 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Welcker, J. & Nehls, G. Displacement of seabirds by an offshore wind farm in the North Sea. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 554, 173–182 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vallejo, G. C. et al. Responses of two marine top predators to an offshore wind farm. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8698–8708 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tougaard, J., Henriksen, O. D. & Miller, L. A. Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 125, 3766–3773 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kastelein, R. A., Jennings, N., Kommeren, A., Helder-Hoek, L. & Schop, J. Acoustic dose-behavioral response relationship in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) exposed to playbacks of pile driving sounds. Marine Environ. Res. 130, 315–324 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanermen, N. et al. Assessing seabird displacement at offshore wind farms: power ranges of a monitoring and data handling protocol. Hydrobiologia 756, 155–167 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wahlberg, M. & Westerberg., H. Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 288, 295–309 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desholm, M. Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at proposed wind farms. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 2672–2679 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanermen, N. et al. Seabird avoidance and attraction at an offshore wind farm in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Hydrobiologia 756, 51–61 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandt, M. J. et al. Disturbance of harbour porpoises during construction of the first seven offshore wind farms in Germany. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 596, 213–232 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Masden, E. A., Haydon, D. T., Fox, A. D. & Furness, R. W. Barriers to movement: Modelling energetic costs of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Marine Pollut. Bull. 60, 1085–1091 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloret, J. et al. Unravelling the ecological impacts of large-scale offshore wind farms in the Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 824, 153803 (2022).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Everaert, J. Collision risk and micro-avoidance rates of birds with wind turbines in Flanders. Bird Study 61, 220–230 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rice, J. et al. Indicators for Sea-floor Integrity under the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecol. Indicators 12, 174–184 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira, H. et al. A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators. Front. Marine Sci. 3, 00207 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brabant, R., Vanermen, N., Stienen, E. & Degraer, S. Towards a cumulative collision risk assessment of local and migrating birds in North Sea offshore wind farms. Hydrobiologia 756, 63–74 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biol. Lett. 1, 296–298 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelsey, E. C., Felis, J. J., Czapanskiy, M., Pereksta, D. M. & Adams, J. Collision and displacement vulnerability to offshore wind energy infrastructure among marine birds of the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. J. Environ. Manag. 227, 229–247 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, I. et al. Harbour porpoise responses to pile-driving diminish over time. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190335 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindeboom, H. J. & Degraer, S. In Long-term Research Challenges in Wind Energy—A Research Agenda by the European Academy of Wind Energy (eds Gijs van Kuik & Joachim Peinke) 77–81 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).Stenberg, C. et al. Long-term effects of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea on fish communities. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 528, 257–265 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvador, S., Gimeno, L. & Sanz Larruga, F. J. The influence of regulatory framework on environmental impact assessment in the development of offshore wind farms in Spain: Issues, challenges and solutions. Ocean Coastal Manag. 161, 165–176 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bailey, H., Brookes, K. L. & Thompson, P. M. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquatic Biosyst. 10, 8 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Apolonia, M., Fofack-Garcia, R., Noble, D. R., Hodges, J. & Correia da Fonseca, F. X. Legal and Political Barriers and Enablers to the Deployment of Marine Renewable Energy. Energies 14, 4896 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borja, A. et al. Moving Toward an Agenda on Ocean Health and Human Health in Europe. Front. Marine Sci. 7, 00037 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, Guidance document on wind energy developments and EU nature legislation, Publications Office of the European Union https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/095188 (2021).O’Hagan, A. M. & Lewis, A. W. The existing law and policy framework for ocean energy development in Ireland. Marine Policy 35, 772–783 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Long, R. D., Charles, A. & Stephenson, R. L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy 57, 53–60 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borgwardt, F. et al. Exploring variability in environmental impact risk from human activities across aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1396–1408 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Copping, A., Hanna, L., Van Cleve, B., Blake, K. & Anderson, R. M. Environmental Risk Evaluation System-an Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and Estuarine Environments. Estuaries Coasts 38, S287–S302 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lüdeke, J. Offshore Wind Energy: Good Practice in Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Compensation. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 19, 1750005 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boehlert, G. W. & Gill, A. B. Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: a current synthesis. J. Oceanograph. 23, 68–81 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammar, L., Wikström, A. & Molander, S. Assessing ecological risks of offshore wind power on Kattegat cod. Renew. Energy 66, 414–424 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nunneri, C., Lenhart, H. J., Burkhard, B. & Windhorst, W. Ecological risk as a tool for evaluating the effects of offshore wind farm construction in the North Sea. Reg Environ. Change 8, 31–43 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchison, Z. L. et al. Offshore Wind Energy and Benthic Habitat Changes: Lessons from Block Island Wind Farm. Oceanography 33, 58–69 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pirttimaa, P. & Cruz, E. Ocean energy and the environment: Research and strategic actions. European Technology and Innovation Platform for Ocean Energy (ETIP Ocean), pp.36. https://www.etipocean.eu/assets/Uploads/ETIP-Ocean-Ocean-energy-and-the-environment.pdf (2020).Hooper, T., Beaumont, N. & Hattam, C. The implications of energy systems for ecosystem services: A detailed case study of offshore wind. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 230–241 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mangi, S. C. The Impact of Offshore Wind Farms on Marine Ecosystems: A Review Taking an Ecosystem Services Perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE 101, 999–1009, (2013).Pınarbaşı, K. et al. A modelling approach for offshore wind farm feasibility with respect to ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Sci. Total Environ. 667, 306–317 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maldonado, A. D. et al. A Bayesian Network model to identify suitable areas for offshore wave energy farms, in the framework of ecosystem approach to marine spatial planning. Sci. Total Environ. 838, 156037 (2022).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stelzenmüller, V., Gimpel, A., Letschert, J., Kraan, C. & DÖRING, R. Research for PECH Committee – Impact of the use of offshore wind and other marine renewables on European fisheries. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652212/IPOL_STU(2020)652212_EN.pdf (2020).Galparsoro, I. et al. A new framework and tool for ecological risk assessment of wave energy converters projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 151, 111539 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaikkonen, L., Parviainen, T., Rahikainen, M., Uusitalo, L. & Lehikoinen, A. Bayesian Networks in Environmental Risk Assessment: A Review. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 17, 62–78 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
González, D. A., Gleeson, J. & McCarthy, E. Designing and developing a web tool to support Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environ. Modell. Softw. 111, 472–482 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pınarbaşı, K. et al. Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Marine Policy 83, 83–91 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pınarbaşı, K., Galparsoro, I. & Borja, Á. End users’ perspective on decision support tools in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 108, 103658 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

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

Google Scholar 
Buermann, W. et al. Widespread seasonal compensation effects of spring warming on northern plant productivity. Nature 562, 110–114 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Finzi, A. C. et al. Carbon budget of the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research site: pattern, process, and response to global change. Ecol. Monogr. 90, e01423 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keeling, C. D., Chin, J. F. S. & Whorf, T. P. Increased activity of northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements. Nature 382, 146–149 (1996).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dragoni, D. et al. Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 886–897 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. et al. Explaining inter-annual variability of gross primary productivity from plant phenology and physiology. Agric. For. Meteorol. 226–227, 246–256 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fu, Z. et al. Maximum carbon uptake rate dominates the interannual variability of global net ecosystem exchange. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 3381–3394 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Savage, J. A. & Chuine, I. Coordination of spring vascular and organ phenology in deciduous angiosperms growing in seasonally cold climates. New Phytol. 230, 1700–1715 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Delpierre, N. et al. Temperate and boreal forest tree phenology: from organ-scale processes to terrestrial ecosystem models. Ann. For. Sci. 73, 5–25 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xue, B.-L. et al. Global patterns of woody residence time and its influence on model simulation of aboveground biomass. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 821–835 (2017).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Russell, M. B. et al. Residence times and decay rates of downed woody debris biomass/carbon in eastern US forests. Ecosystems 17, 765–777 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. D. et al. Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: results from the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 566–584 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 234–240 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4382–4387 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ahlström, A., Schurgers, G., Arneth, A. & Smith, B. Robustness and uncertainty in terrestrial ecosystem carbon response to CMIP5 climate change projections. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044008 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3269–3340 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fatichi, S., Leuzinger, S. & Körner, C. Moving beyond photosynthesis: from carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling. New Phytol. 201, 1086–1095 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, X. & Keenan, T. F. No evidence for a negative effect of growing season photosynthesis on leaf senescence timing. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 3083–3093 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, M. et al. The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 580, 227–231 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Oishi, A. C. et al. Warmer temperatures reduce net carbon uptake, but do not affect water use, in a mature southern Appalachian forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 252, 269–282 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Delpierre, N., Berveiller, D., Granda, E. & Dufrêne, E. Wood phenology, not carbon input, controls the interannual variability of wood growth in a temperate oak forest. New Phytol. 210, 459–470 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, J.-G. et al. Photoperiod and temperature as dominant environmental drivers triggering secondary growth resumption in Northern Hemisphere conifers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20645–20652 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rossi, S. et al. Critical temperatures for xylogenesis in conifers of cold climates. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17, 696–707 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Babst, F. et al. Twentieth century redistribution in climatic drivers of global tree growth. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4313 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gao, S. et al. An earlier start of the thermal growing season enhances tree growth in cold humid areas but not in dry areas. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 397–404 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zweifel, R. et al. Why trees grow at night. New Phytol. 231, 2174–2185 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tumajer, J., Scharnweber, T., Smiljanic, M. & Wilmking, M. Limitation by vapour pressure deficit shapes different intra-annual growth patterns of diffuse- and ring-porous temperate broadleaves. New Phytol. 233, 2429–2441 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Etzold, S. et al. Number of growth days and not length of the growth period determines radial stem growth of temperate trees. Ecol. Lett. 25, 427–439 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Zohner, C. M., Renner, S. S., Sebald, V. & Crowther, T. W. How changes in spring and autumn phenology translate into growth-experimental evidence of asymmetric effects. J. Ecol. 109, 2717–2728 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabon, A. et al. Cross-biome synthesis of source versus sink limits to tree growth. Science 376, 758–761 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Orangeville, L. et al. Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2339–2351 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Helcoski, R. et al. Growing season moisture drives interannual variation in woody productivity of a temperate deciduous forest. New Phytol. 223, 1204–1216 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McMahon, S. M. & Parker, G. G. A general model of intra-annual tree growth using dendrometer bands. Ecol. Evol. 5, 243–254 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Orangeville, L. et al. Peak radial growth of diffuse-porous species occurs during periods of lower water availability than for ring-porous and coniferous trees. Tree Physiol. 42, 304–316 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. D. et al. Seasonal dynamics and age of stemwood nonstructural carbohydrates in temperate forest trees. New Phytol. 197, 850–861 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Elmore, A. J., Nelson, D. M. & Craine, J. M. Earlier springs are causing reduced nitrogen availability in North American eastern deciduous forests. Nat. Plants 2, 16133 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuny, H. E. et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nat. Plants 1, 15160 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tardif, J. C. & Conciatori, F. Influence of climate on tree rings and vessel features in red oak and white oak growing near their northern distribution limit, southwestern Quebec, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 2317–2330 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roibu, C.-C. et al. The climatic response of tree ring width components of ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and common oak (Quercus robur L.) from eastern Europe. Forests 11, 600 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kern, Z. et al. Multiple tree-ring proxies (earlywood width, latewood width and δ13C) from pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.), Hungary. Quat. Int. 293, 257–267 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trumbore, S., Gaudinski, J. B., Hanson, P. J. & Southon, J. R. Quantifying ecosystem-atmosphere carbon exchange with a 14C label. Eos. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 83, 265–268 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Del Mar Delgado, M. et al. Differences in spatial versus temporal reaction norms for spring and autumn phenological events. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 31249–31258 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Joint effects of climate, tree size, and year on annual tree growth derived from tree-ring records of ten globally distributed forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 245–266 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Banbury Morgan, R. et al. Global patterns of forest autotrophic carbon fluxes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2840–2855 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Churkina, G., Schimel, D., Braswell, B. H. & Xiao, X. Spatial analysis of growing season length control over net ecosystem exchange. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1777–1787 (2005).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. et al. Phenological mismatches between above- and belowground plant responses to climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 97–102 (2022).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 1023–1027 (2016).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. et al. Drought limits wood production of Juniperus przewalskii even as growing seasons lengthens in a cold and arid environment. CATENA 196, 104936 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lian, X. et al. Summer soil drying exacerbated by earlier spring greening of northern vegetation. Sci. Adv. 6, eaax0255 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bourg, N. A., McShea, W. J., Thompson, J. R., McGarvey, J. C. & Shen, X. Initial census, woody seedling, seed rain, and stand structure data for the SCBI SIGEO Large Forest Dynamics Plot. Ecology 94, 2111–2112 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. CTFS-ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 528–549 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Davies, S. J. et al. ForestGEO: understanding forest diversity and dynamics through a global observatory network. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108907 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Herrmann, V. et al. Tree circumference dynamics in four forests characterized using automated dendrometer bands. PLoS ONE 11, e0169020 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Friedl, M., Gray, J. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q2 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Dynamics Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006. LAADS DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q2.006 (2019).Anderson-Teixeira, K. et al. Forestgeo/Climate: initial release. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4041609 (2020).Benestad, R. E., Hanssen-Bauer, I. & Chen, D. Empirical-Statistical Downscaling (World Scientific, 2008).Boose, E. & Gould, E. Shaler Meteorological Station at Harvard Forest 1964–2002. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/PASTA/213335F5DAA17222A738C105B9FA60C4 (2021).Boose, E. Fisher Meteorological Station at Harvard Forest since 2001. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/PASTA/69E92642B512897032446CFE795CFFB8 (2021).Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F. & Latorre, B. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
van de Pol, M. et al. Identifying the best climatic predictors in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1246–1257 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gabry, J. et al. Rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. R package version 2.21.1 https://mc-stan.org/rstanarm (2020).Stan Development Team. Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual, 2.28. https://mc-stan.org/users/documentation/ (2019).Stokes, M. A. & Smiley, T. L. An Introduction to Tree-ring Dating (Univ. Arizona Press, 1968).Speer, J. H. Fundamentals of Tree-ring Research (Univ. Arizona Press, 2010).Alexander, M. R. et al. The potential to strengthen temperature reconstructions in ecoregions with limited tree line using a multispecies approach. Quat. Res. 92, 583–597 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dye, A. et al. Comparing tree-ring and permanent plot estimates of aboveground net primary production in three eastern U.S. forests. Ecosphere 7, e01454 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pederson, N. Climatic Sensitivity and Growth of Southern Temperate Trees in the Eastern United States: Implications for the Carbon Cycle—ProQuest (Columbia Univ., 2005).Maxwell, J. T. et al. Sampling density and date along with species selection influence spatial representation of tree-ring reconstructions. Clim. Past 16, 1901–1916 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, E. R. & Kairiukstis, L. A. Methods of Dendrochronology: Applications in the Environmental Sciences (Springer Netherlands, 1990).Cook, E. R. A Time Series Analysis Approach to Tree Ring Standardization (Univ. Arizona, 1985).Cook, E. R. & Peters, K. Calculating unbiased tree-ring indices for the study of climatic and environmental change. Holocene 7, 361–370 (1997).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Briffa, K. R. Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Clim. 10, 2548–2568 (1997).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Bunn, A. G. A dendrochronology program library in R (dplR). Dendrochronologia 26, 115–124 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zang, C. & Biondi, F. Dendroclimatic calibration in R: the bootRes package for response and correlation function analysis. Dendrochronologia 31, 68–74 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Authors and AffiliationsDepartment of Agronomy, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Alegre, BrazilAléxia Gonçalves Pereira, Marcia Flores da Silva Ferreira, Thamyres Cardoso da Silveira, José Henrique Soler-Guilhen, Guilherme Bravim Canal, Luziane Brandão Alves, Francine Alves Nogueira de Almeida & Adésio FerreiraDepartment of Biological Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, BrazilFernanda Amato GaiottoAuthorsAléxia Gonçalves PereiraMarcia Flores da Silva FerreiraThamyres Cardoso da SilveiraJosé Henrique Soler-GuilhenGuilherme Bravim CanalLuziane Brandão AlvesFrancine Alves Nogueira de AlmeidaFernanda Amato GaiottoAdésio FerreiraCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
Marcia Flores da Silva Ferreira. More

White and black spruce are the dominant conifers at Arctic treelines and the boreal forest–tundra ecotone more generally in North America, with white spruce dominating on better drained sites. White spruce reaches its northwestern-most limit in Alaska, USA, at 68.1º N, 163.2º W. For comparison, the northeastern range extent of the species26 is Labrador, Canada, at 57.9º N, 62.5º W (ref. 12), giving an east–west range of >100º in longitude. Of the approximately 6,500-km-long northern boundary of white spruce in North America, 10–15% is located in Alaska’s Brooks Range, where white spruce is the dominant treeline tree.Study areaThe 1,000-km Brooks Range is a high-latitude mountain range dividing Arctic tundra from boreal forest in Alaska. The mountains and nearby lowlands are notable for their wilderness character, protected as a near-contiguous conservation area of >150,000 km2. In the east between the Arctic Ocean’s Beaufort Sea and the uppermost Yukon River basin, the range is cold and dry, reaching 2,736 m above sea level. The south slope of the eastern Brooks Range is included in Alaska’s Northeast Interior climate division, where precipitation is among the lowest in the state51. Descending to the Chukchi Sea in the west, the range is included in Alaska’s West Coast climate division, where precipitation is the highest in northern Alaska51.The Noatak and Kobuk rivers flow in their entirety above the Arctic Circle, draining the western Brooks Range. Both rivers empty into the Chukchi Sea near Kotzebue, Alaska (Fig. 1a). The Baird Mountains of the southwestern Brooks Range separate the Kobuk from the Noatak basin, and the De Long Mountains of the northwestern Brooks Range separate the Noatak from the river basins of the North Slope and from the Wulik basin, located northwest of the Noatak basin. The lower basins of the Noatak and Kobuk rivers are included in the West Coast climate division, with greater precipitation, warmer winters and cooler summers than in the Central Interior climate division and greater precipitation and warmer temperatures than in the North Slope climate division51. The upper basin of the 700-km Noatak River lies at the intersection of all three climate divisions, which warmed from 1949 to 2012; December–January precipitation increased from 1949 to 2012 in the West Coast climate division, as did North Slope winter precipitation from 1980 to 2012 (ref. 52).The Noatak River basin is entirely protected within federal conservation units. Its vegetation includes dwarf, low and tall shrub tundra communities that cover about 60% of the 33,000 km2 basin53. Tussock sedge tundra covers another 30%, and wetlands and barrens cover most of the remainder. The main valley and tributaries along the lowest 200 km of the Noatak River support stands of white spruce, typically associated with a deeper active layer or an absence of permafrost. The treelines bounding these forests have long been identified as the northwest range extent of white spruce26.The upper Noatak basin, a 500-km reach, is underlain by extensive continuous permafrost54. It has been considered empty of spruce since US Geological Survey (USGS) geologist Philip Smith explored the Kobuk, Alatna and Noatak rivers by canoe in 1911 (ref. 55). The adjacent Kobuk and Alatna river basins support boreal forests of black and white spruce, paper birch and aspen along much of their lengths. By surveying transects at and beyond hydrological divides separating the Noatak, Wulik, Kobuk and Alatna river basins, as well as further east in the Brooks Range (Fig. 1a), and informed by very high-resolution satellite scenes (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Figs. 1–13), we documented the locations of over 7,000 individual spruce colonists (Extended Data Fig. 1b–d and Supplementary Figs. 1–3). Overall, we traversed 22° of longitude (141–163° W) in the field, mostly along the treeline from Canada to the Chukchi Sea, locating dozens of populations of colonizing spruce (Fig. 1a) above alpine and beyond Arctic treelines (see ‘Regional extent of colonization’).The primary AOI (Fig. 1a) included the USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) 10 watersheds Kaluich, Cutler, Amakomanak and Imelyak located in the HUC 8 Upper Noatak Subbasin. However, we also documented (longitude, latitude, distance from established treeline) fast-growing, healthy spruce well beyond established treelines within six additional western Arctic watersheds, each separated by over 30 km in the western Brooks Range and 80–200 km distant from the AOI. These populations are within the far upper reaches of the Noatak basin (Lucky Six Creek, 67.594° N, 154.858° W; Kugrak River, 67.428° N, 155.723° W; Ipnelivuk River, 67.552° N, 156.293° W; upper Wrench Creek, 68.251° N, 162.617° W); 25 km northwest of the nearest established treeline and outside the Noatak basin in the Wulik River valley (68.120° N, 163.219° W); and along the Chukchi Sea coast (67.041° N, 163.114° W). We also note that, in the central Brooks Range, humans have actively or inadvertently disseminated spruce seeds and juveniles on the North Slope, with individual white spruce germinating and surviving there for at least 20 years37,56.Patterns of expansionDigitizing spruce shadowsWe used cloud-free Maxar Digital Globe WorldView-1 and WorldView-2 satellite scenes (WV; https://evwhs.digitalglobe.com/myDigitalGlobe/login) of snow-covered landscapes from three missions in early spring 2018, a near-record year for snow depth in northwest Alaska (Fig. 1b, Extended Data Table 1 and Supplementary Figs. 1–13). Ground sample distances of 0.47–0.5 m, a root-mean-squared error of 3.91–3.94 m and off-nadir angles of 5–25º with low sun-elevation angles of 18–27º provided clear images from which to digitize the lengths of individual spruce shadows and identify their locations (Supplementary Information sections 1.2 and 1.3). One technician (S. Taylor), supervised in quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) by R.J.D., digitized 5,986 shadows (densities in Extended Data Fig. 1b, locations in Supplementary Fig. 1) on GEP using WV images as super-overlays. The technician identified all spruce shadows across the imported image tiles and then digitized them as line segments from base to shadow tip.The super-overlays degraded the imagery somewhat, making small tree shadows more difficult to distinguish from snowdrift, rock or shrub shadows (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6). We suspect that many trees in the height class of 2–3 m were missed. These line segments, saved as .kml files, were imported into R (v.4.1.1)57 using the sf package58, where the length of each line segment was calculated and the coordinates of the shadow’s base were identified. The line segment lengths were used to estimate tree heights, and the coordinates were used in nearest-neighbour calculations and extractions of gridded data values. We estimated snow depth at 2.5–3 m because geolocated trees measured as ≤2.5 m in the field (see below) did not appear on imagery. We observed some trees taller than 2.5 m with no visible shadows on imagery, possibly buried in deeper snow or growing in shadows cast by terrain at the time of image capture. Thus, our estimates of adult populations may be underestimates, although there were also errors of commission where shrub shadows were mistakenly classified as spruce (see following).Digitizing and field validationTo estimate identification accuracy (Supplementary Information sections 1.2 and 1.3) among the 1,971 digitized shadows used for population reconstruction (enclosed by red rectangles in Supplementary Figs. 1–4), we visited 157 shadow locations first identified on imagery (8% of the 1,971) and located in the field with the built-in GNSS of late-model Apple iPhones (models 12 Pro Max, 12 Pro and second-generation SE) with positional accuracy in the open landscapes estimated at 3 m. At these 157 locations, 11 shadows were cast by very tall willows (7%). Of the 146 shadows confirmed as trees, 2 were dead (1%) and 1 had a recently broken top with green foliage on the ground. We added the length of the broken top to the standing height measured with a laser range-finder. Trees that were collinear in the solar azimuth at image capture contributed to errors of omission. The tree standing to solar azimuth obscured others as overlapping shadows fell in line, generating both errors of omission and an overestimate of the height of the first tree in the series. Six trees shadowed in three instances by what we identified on imagery as single shadows fell in this category. An additional three trees were missed during digitizing, also going unnoticed during QAQC, and were discovered in the field when matching shadows with trees. Supplementary Information section 1.3 provides details and a confusion matrix.In summary, 157 trees were expected from digitized shadows and 155 were found in the field. Applying the accuracy of the count overall suggests that 1,945 trees would better estimate the reconstructed population. Across the AOI, the total adult count of 5,988 shadows may represent 5,910 trees. Moreover, in so far as our estimates of ages based on tree heights are predictive, perhaps 2% of the ‘trees’ in our reconstruction are not a single tree casting a long shadow, but 2–3 younger, collinear trees. Thus, our estimate of past populations may be slightly biased to older trees, implying that the population growth rate may be slightly higher than estimated. However, the slightly fewer trees than shadows would suggest that the growth rate is lower. The relative size of these errors appears minor, and we did not incorporate them into the analysis, which seems to us robust and perhaps conservative in adult abundance estimates owing to image degradation with GEP super-overlays and other errors of omission. This study would have benefited from less image degradation using dedicated geographic information system (GIS) or image software. However, the low cost, simplicity and convenience of GEP was appealing for the large-scale digitizing.Returning from the field with individual tree data, R.J.D. displayed digitized shadow points together with field points on GEP, visually matching each field point to the nearest shadow, conditional on relative congruence between shadow size and tree height. This required care in clumps of trees with varying heights (example in Supplementary Information sections 1.2–1.3). The relative patterning of field points compared with shadows and the lengths of shadows compared with tree heights in these cases provided some measure of confidence in attribution.We made field expeditions to six study areas within the extent of the WV imagery we used for digitizing, three within the ‘simulated population area’ rectangle in Extended Data Fig. 1a (red rectangle in Supplementary Figs. 1–4) and three study areas further east (Extended Data Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. 2). Among-area variability was apparent in snow depth, terrain slope relative to the solar azimuth at the time of image capture and the solar-elevation angle itself because of the timing of image capture. The variability was identified, calculated and applied on the basis of geographic variability in the heights of trees casting shadows and from the slope and intercept of a mixed-model linear regression of field-measured height on digitized shadow length (see below).Field surveysWe validated species and heights of spruce casting shadows within the AOI along 403 km of ground transects. Our sampling did not appear spatially biased when compared with imagery as measured by proximity to a remote fixed-wing-aircraft landing site. Four field campaigns focused on three objectives in watersheds that were within or adjacent to the Noatak basin but did not have established treelines visible on WV growing season scenes: (1) to locate and document colonists at the geographic range boundary of white spruce; (2) to verify the locations of a sample of trees suggested by imagery in the AOI; and (3) to collect ecological measurements germane to white spruce range expansion. For adults (trees ≥2.5 m), datasets included height above ground (n = 340), diameter at breast height (DBH (~1.4 m); n = 296), CAG (n = 17), foliar nutrient content (n = 17), basal increment cores taken ≤20 cm above the ground (n = 140), tall shrub abundance within 5 m of sampled adults (n = 246), counts of juveniles within 5 m of sampled adults (n = 250), abundance class of cones (n = 339) and status of adults (live, n = 340; dead, n = 8). Of the dead adults, seven of eight were standing and largely without bark, with a median height of 4.1 m. The fallen dead tree was 6.2 m long with a DBH of 13.4 cm; all bark and limbs to fine branches remained. Only one dead adult, 4.1 m tall with a DBH of 4 cm, showed signs of decomposition with shelf fungus on the stem and decomposed limbs on the ground. Five juveniles ≥1.5 m tall had been stripped of their bark and all but their uppermost branches by apparently either porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) or snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Anecdotally, we recorded other signs and possible causes of damage such as wind, bear (Ursus arctos), caribou (Rangifer tarandus) or struggling growth such as layering, stunted krummholz or clonal reproduction, although these growth forms were nearly totally absent.Field measurements for n = 770 juveniles located in the AOI and presented here included overall height, height above ground of bud scars representing 2015–2020 height (n = 302), damage and status. We used these measures to estimate age to increment core of adults (Supplementary Information section 2) and the RGR of juveniles (Supplementary Information section 3).Range expansion analysesDigitized established treelines (DETs) used here were downloaded as CTM_Treeline.kml from https://arcticdata.io/catalog/view/doi:10.18739/A2280506H. Ref. 34 describes drawing DETs on very high-resolution satellite imagery such as WV and Quick Bird. We clipped DETs to the four USGS HUC 10 watersheds within the HUC 8 Middle Kobuk subbasin and adjacent to the AOI (see ‘Environmental conditions’ below). The coordinates of the vertices for the clipped DETs provided the 3,366 locations of established treelines.We used the rdist.earth() function in the R package fields59 to identify the nearest neighbouring mapped adult and juvenile colonists in the AOI and DET vertices in adjacent Kobuk watersheds (Supplementary Information sections 1.8 and 1.9). Using the coordinates of nearest neighbours, we calculated differences in latitude as latitudinal displacement. Displacement north equalled the product of latitudinal displacement and 111.32 km, the distance between 67º and 68º N along 157.6891º W, which splits the AOI. Displacement in elevation was found by extracting from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR) Alaska 5-m digital elevation models (DEMs) the elevation of DET vertices, mapped adults and mapped juveniles using the extract() function in the raster R package60 and then subtracting the elevation of the nearest neighbours from focal adults and juveniles. When geolocated adults or juveniles had estimated establishment years (see ‘Individual growth’ below), we calculated movement rates as the difference between the establishment year of an aged tree and the establishment year of the oldest tree sampled (1901, year of founding) as the denominator and displacement (difference in metres above sea level, kilometres or degrees of latitude) as the numerator (Supplementary Information sections 1.19–1.21). To time the progression of spruce away from DETs, we also binned establishment year by decade as decadal class, identifying within each decadal class the maximum displacement in kilometres north of and elevation in metres above (or below) nearest neighbours.Population growthFrom the 5,986 spruce shadow lengths within the AOI (Extended Data Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 1) that we digitized from snow-covered scenes of DigitalGlobe WV imagery (Extended Data Table 1), we identified a sample of shadows stratified by length and cast by spruce that we located with GNSS-equipped late-model iPhones. We measured the height of n = 260 trees using a laser range-finder (LTI TruPulse 200) and/or a smartphone app (Arboreal Tree on iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max with laser scanners) and collected n = 122 basal cores from individuals ≥2.5 m in height, then matched to shadows on imagery as described above (see ‘Digitizing and field validation’). Using the relationship between height and shadow length and the probability distribution of establishment year for the 122 cored trees identified within five height classes (Extended Data Fig. 2b), we simulated population growth within two contiguous sub-watersheds (the 135 km2 ‘simulated population area’in Extended Data Fig. 1a; western portion in Extended Data Fig. 2a; red rectangles in Supplementary Figs. 1–4; details in Supplementary Information section 4). These sub-watersheds contained n = 1,971 shadows cast on 26 March 2018. We treated these shadows as single spruce but recognize that they include as many as 138 willows (7%) and calculate an additional 118 (6%) spruce missed either by digitizing omission or by collinearity (Supplementary Information sections 1.2 and 1.3). Incorporating these errors together would not change the outcome of the simulations enough to change the doubling time of the population by more than a few percent.Estimates of tree height from shadow lengthOn a flat landscape covered uniformly in snow, the total height H of a tree equals snow depth S added to the product of shadow length L on the snow surface and the tangent of solar-elevation angle 𝛼, as H = S + Ltan(𝛼). However, because both the relative solar elevation and snow depth vary with terrain, we used a linear mixed-effects model (lmer() in the lme4 R package61) of height on shadow length (random factor of sample area with six levels), interpreting the fixed-effects intercept as the average snow depth (mean ± s.e. = 2.84 ± 0.14 m, t = 20.29) and the regression coefficient as the average tangent of solar elevation relative to the terrain slope (0.27 ± 0.04 m m−1, t = 6.96; details in Supplementary Information sections 4.1 and 4.2).Using these fixed-effects estimates and the random-effects covariance matrix, we applied Monte Carlo sampling to estimate the 1,971 heights with each run of the simulation, thereby propagating the error in height estimates. These 1,971 heights were then binned into five height classes with 0.5-m intervals from 4–5.5 m and with ≥1-m intervals from 3–4 m and 5.5–7 m (details in Supplementary Information sections 4.3 and 4.4). Height classes deduced from the shadow measurements were in some cases only 0.5 m in width. Because the mean snow depth (the intercept in the mixed-effects model) differed by more than this from one part of the study area to another (BobWoods, GaiaHill and BuffaloDrifts in Supplementary Information sections 4.1 and 4.2), this approach may have introduced systematic misclassification between locations. While applying a Monte Carlo model with coefficients drawn randomly using the mvrnorm() function from the MASS package in R with the random-effects covariance matrix was meant to alleviate this, we also ran the simulation with three uniform height classes with a wider interval (1.3-m width, for classes of 3–4.3 m, 4.3–5.6 m and 5.6–7 m).Estimating population-scale establishment yearWe estimated establishment years for each of the 1,971 trees (Supplementary Information sections 4.3 and 4.4). We did so by using the establishment yeardistributions by height class as Gaussian kernel densities for the 122 aged adults binned into the five height classes defined above (Extended Data Fig. 2b). Kernel density estimates were constructed using the function density() in R with options bw = “SJ” as the smoothing bandwidth, n = 107 as the number of consecutive establishment years, from = 1897 as the earliest year and to = 2004 as the latest year. For each of the 1,971 estimated heights binned into height classes, an establishment year was drawn (with replacement) from the corresponding kernel density distribution. We interpreted the total number of individuals in each establishment year as ‘recruitment by year’ into the population of survivors that we had digitized on the 2018 imagery. Sorting and cumulatively summing recruitment by year gave what we interpreted as population size (N) for each year (t) for trees that survived to 2018. Resampling in this manner for 1,000 runs, each time fitting exponential growth equation N(t) = N0ek(t – 1900) using nls() in R and then averaging the population RGR, provided population doubling time as ln(2) divided by mean k. The simulation was run again using three height classes, each of 1.3 m in width. The resulting mean doubling time was unchanged, but variability increased (Supplementary Information section 4.6).Individual growthCurrent annual growth and foliar chemistryIn autumn 2019, we collected current-year lateral branch tips on the west and east sides of each sampled spruce (n1 = 17 adult colonists and n2 = 457 adults at established treelines) at 1.4 m above the ground. Current annual branch growth was measured on 2–6 branches per spruce from the previous year’s bud scar to the tip of the branch. The number of samples varied, ensuring sufficient mass for foliar chemical analysis. Established treelines were sampled for adult foliage in 12 watersheds of the Noatak, Kobuk and Koyukuk river basins where we have ongoing experiments. At these sites, we used a replicated nested plot-based design (Extended Data Table 3). Colonist foliage sample locations (n = 8) in the upper Noatak basin were widespread across three watersheds. At each location, except the upper Noatak where 1–3 spruce per location were sampled, we sampled n = 5 white spruce separated by ≥10  m at a DBH of 8–12 cm. Needles from each branch tip were pooled by individual, dried for 48 h at 60 °C and weighed. Needles of individuals were pooled by treeline location after grinding to powder using a steel ball mill grinder (Mini-Beadbeater, Biospec Products) and subsampled for chemical analysis. Foliar N and 15N isotope were analysed for one subsample run on an Elemental Combustion Analyzer (Costech, 4010) coupled to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Delta Plus XP, Thermo Fisher Scientific) at the University of Alaska Anchorage Environment and Natural Resources Institute Stable Isotope Laboratory. Foliar P was measured for another subsample by the Pennsylvania State College Analytical Services Lab using the acid digestion method and analysed by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy62.Juvenile RGRSeveral results presented here depend on juvenile vertical height growth during 2015–2020, which we assumed followed h(t) = h2015e(RGR t), where h(t) is height above ground for year t after 2015, h2015 is the height above ground in 2015 and RGR is the relative growth rate (Supplementary Information section 3). We used juvenile RGR in three contexts: (1) as a means of estimating establishment year in juveniles (Supplementary Information section 3.3); (2) as a metric of growth for comparison between colonist and established treeline juveniles (Supplementary Information section 6); and (3) to estimate the establishment year of cored trees (see second paragraph in ‘Dendrochronology’ below and Supplementary Information section 2).To estimate the RGR for each of 505 juveniles (n1 = 300 juveniles from m1 = 4 colonist populations and n2 = 205 juveniles from m2 = 14 established treelines; Extended Data Table 2), we measured the heights above ground (h) of the six uppermost bud scars in 2020, representing height increments in 2016–2020, the five consecutive years with the warmest mean daily July air temperature on record for Kotzebue. RGR in each juvenile was calculated as the regression slope of ln(h(t)) against t (mean R2 = 0.99 for 300 colonist regressions and 0.98 for 271 established treeline regressions; Supplementary Information section 3.4).To estimate the establishment year of juveniles, we used RGR to back-calculate T, the years required for an individual colonist to grow from 2 cm to h2015, as T = ln(h2015/2)/RGR. By subtracting T from 2020, we estimated the establishment year of each juvenile (Supplementary Information section 3.3).RGR values for colonist and established treeline juveniles (Extended Data Table 2) were compared using a linear mixed-effects model with field site (m = 24) as a random intercept, ln(RGR) as the dependent variable, ln(h2015) as a covariate to capture allometric growth and population (colonist or established treeline) as the fixed factor of interest (Supplementary Information section 6). Using the lmer() function of the lme4 package61 in R with REML = F, we found that the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for the interaction model was lower than that for the corresponding additive one (∆AIC = 22, likelihood ratio test χ2 = 24, degrees of freedom = 1, P 1 km beyond the established treeline, we recorded the location, age classes and presence of cones when possible. In watersheds of the uppermost Noatak basin and the Wulik basin, we also recorded both the total height of juveniles and the height above ground of the sixth bud scar from the tip to estimate RGR and so estimate age. We encountered three watersheds with tree island krummholz >1 km beyond the treeline but do not include these as colonist populations because clonal growth can be very old9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. Of the 34 watersheds in which we encountered colonist populations >1 km beyond established treelines, 4 watersheds were located between 141° and 149.7° W (eastern Brooks Range), 21 watersheds were located between 149.7° and 156.3° W (central Brooks Range) and 9 watersheds were located between 156.3° and 163.3° W (western Brooks Range). Watersheds west of 150.5° W with colonists are shown in Fig. 1a.In 2021, R.J.D. led a field expedition to a small watershed in the Koyukuk basin (Arrigetch Creek, 67.439° N, 154.090° W). The watershed had been purposefully surveyed for juvenile white spruce above and beyond the treeline during 1978–1980 when seven juveniles 11–112 cm tall (six seedlings More

Tershy, B. R., Shen, K. W., Newton, K. M., Holmes, N. D. & Croll, D. A. The importance of islands for the protection of biological and linguistic diversity. Bioscience 65, 592–597 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spatz, D. R. et al. Globally threatened vertebrates on islands with invasive species. Sci. Adv. 3, e1603080 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kier, G. et al. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 9322–9327 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Doherty, T. S., Glen, A. S., Nimmo, D. G., Ritchie, E. G. & Dickman, C. R. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602480113 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Watari, Y. et al. First synthesis of the economic costs of biological invasions in Japan. NeoBiota 67, 79–101 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuthbert, R. N. et al. Economic costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom. NeoBiota 67, 299–328 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reaser, J. K., Meyerson, L., Cronk, Q., Poorter, M. D. & Eldredge, L. G. Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems. Environ. Conserv. 34, 98–111 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N. & Towns, D. R. Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Island Invasives (ed. Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N. & Towns, D. R.) 542 (IUCN, 2011).Jones, H. P. et al. Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4033–4038 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS ONE 9, e113934 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. www.cbd.int/GBO5 (2020).Atkinson, I. A. E. The spread of commensal species of Rattus to oceanic islands and their effects on island avifaunas. in Conservation of Island Birds, Vol. 3 35–81 (CPB Tech Publ, 1985).Holmes, N. D. et al. Tracking invasive species eradications on islands at a global scale. in Island Invasives: Scaling Up to Meet the Challenge (ed. Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Martin, A. R., Russell, J. C. & West, C. J.) (IUCN, 2019).Kappes, P. J. et al. Do invasive vertebrate eradications from islands serve a role in addressing climate change solutions?. Climate 9, 172 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Wit, L. A. et al. Invasive vertebrate eradications on islands as a tool for implementing global Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Conserv. 47, 139–148 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pullin, A. S. et al. Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication. in Conservation Research, Policy and Practice (eds. Sutherland, W. J. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2020).Campbell, K. & Donlan, C. J. Feral goat eradications on islands. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1362–1374 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Howald, G. et al. Invasive rodent eradication on islands. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1258–1268 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keitt, B. et al. The global islands invasive vertebrate eradication database: a tool to improve and facilitate restoration of island ecosystems. in Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. (ed. Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N. & Towns, D. R.) 74–77 (IUCN, 2011).Holmes, N. D. et al. Globally important islands where eradicating invasive mammals will benefit highly threatened vertebrates. PLoS ONE 14, 1–17 (2019).
Google Scholar 
DIISE. The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications: developed by Island Conservation, University of California Santa Cruz Coastal Conservation Action Lab, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland and Landcare Research New Zealand. http://diise.islandconservation.org (2019).Joppa, L. N. et al. Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science (80-.) 352, 416–418 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, C. M. & Bode, M. Recent advances of quantitative modeling to support invasive species eradication on islands. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e246 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Essl, F. et al. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Post-2020 target on invasive alien species—what should it include and how should it be monitored?. NeoBiota 62, 99–121 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellard, C., Cassey, P. & Blackburn, T. M. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150623 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Convention on Biological Diversity. Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its Thurd Meeting (Part I) (2021).Wilson, R. C., Shenhav, A., Straccia, M. & Cohen, J. D. The eighty five percent rule for optimal learning. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Samaniego, A. et al. Factors leading to successful island rodent eradications following initial failure. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Holmes, N. D. et al. Factors associated with rodent eradication failure. Biol. Conserv. 185, 8–16 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nuñez, M. A., Pauchard, A. & Ricciardi, A. Invasion Science and the Global Spread of SARS-CoV-2. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 642–645 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyd, M. & Wilson, N. The prioritization of island nations as refuges from extreme pandemics. Risk Anal. 40, 227–239 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garden, P., Mcclelland, P. & Broome, K. The history of the aerial application of rodenticide in New Zealand. in Island Invasives: Scaling Up to Meet the Challenge (ed. Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Martin, A. R., Russell, J. C. & West, C. J.) 114–119 (2019).Towns, D. R. & Broome, K. G. From small Maria to massive Campbell: forty years of rat eradications from New Zealand islands. N. Z. J. Zool. 30, 377–398 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glen, A. S. et al. Eradicating multiple invasive species on inhabited islands: the next big step in island restoration?. Biol. Invasions 15, 2589–2603 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whittaker, R. J. & Fernandez-Palacios, J. M. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, B. D., Luque, G. M., Bellard, C., Holmes, N. D. & Donlan, C. J. Improving invasive ant eradication as a conservation tool: a review. Biol. Conserv. 198, 37–49 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, K. J. et al. The next generation of rodent eradications: Innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biol. Conserv. 185, 47–58 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, Z. T., Lumley, T., Bodey, T. W. & Russell, J. C. The clock is ticking: temporally prioritizing eradications on islands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 1443–1456 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leonard, D. L. Recovery expenditures for birds listed under the US Endangered Species Act: the disparity between mainland and Hawaiian taxa. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2054–2061 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 12144–12148 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Russell, J. C., Meyer, J. Y., Holmes, N. D. & Pagad, S. Invasive alien species on islands: impacts, distribution, interactions and management. Environ. Conserv. 44, 359–370 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seebens, H. et al. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat. Commun. 8, 14435 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rocamora, G. Eradication of invasive animals and other island restoration practices in Seychelles: achievements, challenges and scaling up perspectives. in Island Invasives: Scaling Up to Meet the Challenge 588–599 (2019).Russell, J. C., Innes, J. G., Brown, P. H. & Byrom, A. E. Predator-free New Zealand: conservation country. Bioscience 65, 520–525 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Innes, J. et al. New Zealand ecosanctuaries: types, attributes and outcomes. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 49, 370–393 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, Z. T., Hanson, J. O., Perry, G. L. W. & Russell, J. C. Incorporating management action suitability in conservation plans. J. Appl. Ecol. (2022).UNEP. Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States: Results of the UNEP Foresight Process (2014).Dahl, A. L. Island conservation issues in international conventions and agreements. Environ. Conserv. 44, 267–285 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Martin, A. R., Russell, J. C. & West, C. J. Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Island Invasives 2017 Vol. 62 733 (IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2019).Segal, R. D., Whitsed, R. & Massaro, M. Review of the reporting of ecological effects of rodent eradications on Australian and New Zealand islands. Pac. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1071/pc20064 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angulo, E. et al. Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: the example of economic costs of biological invasions. Sci. Total Environ. 775, 144441 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Catalano, A. S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M. M. & Knight, A. T. Learning from published project failures in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 238, 108223 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
United Nations. Small Island Developing States (SIDS). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#fn6 (2021).The World Bank. World Bank list of economies. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (2020).Pichlmueller, F. et al. Island invasion and reinvasion: Informing invasive species management with genetic measures of connectivity. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2258–2270 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fewster, R. M., Buckland, S. T., Siriwardena, G. M., Baillie, S. R. & Wilson, J. D. Analysis of population trends for farmland birds using generalized additive models. Ecology 81, 1970–1984 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Antunes, A. P. et al. Empty forest or empty rivers? A century of commercial hunting in Amazonia. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600936 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheeseman, J. F., Fewster, R. M. & Walker, M. M. Circadian and circatidal clocks control the mechanism of semilunar foraging behaviour. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–7 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fewster, R. M. & Patenaude, N. J. Cubic splines for estimating the distribution of residence time using individual resightings data. in Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations 393–415 (Springer US, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78151-8_17.Wood, S. N. Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 673–686 (2004).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org (2021). More

Price, D. T. et al. Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev. 21, 322–365 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y., Hogg, H. E., Price, T. D., Edwards, J. & Williamson, T. Past and projected future changes in moisture conditions in the Canadian boreal forest. Forestry Chron. 90, 678–691 (2014).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Lu, P., Parker, W. C., Colombo, S. J. & Skeates, D. A. Temperature-induced growing season drought threatens survival and height growth of white spruce in southern Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecol. Manag. 448, 355–363 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giorgi, F., Raffaele, F. & Coppola, E. The response of precipitation characteristics to global warming from climate projections. Earth Syst. Dyn. 10, 73–89 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sherwood, S. & Fu, Q. A drier future? Science 343, 737–739 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seager, R. et al. Dynamical and thermodynamical causes of large-scale changes in the hydrological cycle over North America in response to global warming. J. Clim. 27, 7921–7948 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tam, B. Y. et al. CMIP5 drought projections in Canada based on the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. Can. Water Resour. J. 44, 90–107 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Z., Dijkstra, P., Koch, G. W., Peñuelas, J. & Hungate, B. A. Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: a meta-analysis of experimental manipulation. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 927–942 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, J., Hartmann, H., Trumbore, S., Ziegler, W. & Zhang, Y. High temperature causes negative whole-plant carbon balance under mild drought. New Phytol. 200, 330–339 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Effects of climate warming on photosynthesis in boreal tree species depend on soil moisture. Nature 562, 263–267 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, W. D. & Turner, M. G. Origins of abrupt change? Postfire subalpine conifer regeneration declines nonlinearly with warming and drying. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01340 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Girardin, M. P. et al. No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E8406–E8414 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sulla-Menashe, D., Woodcock, C. E. & Friedl, M. A. Canadian boreal forest greening and browning trends: an analysis of biogeographic patterns and the relative roles of disturbance versus climate drivers. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014007 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, C. et al. A drought-induced pervasive increase in tree mortality across Canada’s boreal forests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 467–471 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, Z. et al. Regional drought-induced reduction in the biomass carbon sink of Canada’s boreal forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2423–2427 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ju, J. & Masek, J. G. The vegetation greenness trend in Canada and US Alaska from 1984–2012 Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ. 176, 1–16 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Orangeville, L. et al. Beneficial effects of climate warming on boreal tree growth may be transitory. Nat. Commun. 9, 3213 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnstone, J. F. et al. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory and forest resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 369–378 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodgers, V. L., Smith, N. G., Hoeppner, S. S. & Dukes, J. S. Warming increases the sensitivity of seedling growth capacity to rainfall in six temperate deciduous tree species. AoB Plants 10, ply003 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moyes, A. B., Castanha, C., Germino, M. J. & Kueppers, L. M. Warming and the dependence of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) establishment on summer soil moisture within and above its current elevation range. Oecologia 171, 271–282 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balducci, L. et al. How do drought and warming influence survival and wood traits of Picea mariana saplings? J. Exp. Bot. 66, 377–389 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Geographic range predicts photosynthetic and growth response to warming in co-occurring tree species. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 148–152 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coursolle, C. et al. Moving towards carbon neutrality: CO2 exchange of a black spruce forest ecosystem during the first 10 years of recovery after harvest. Can. J. Forest Res. 42, 1908–1918 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Khomik, M., Williams, C. A., Vanderhoof, M. K., MacLean, R. G. & Dillen, S. Y. On the causes of rising gross ecosystem productivity in a regenerating clearcut environment: leaf area vs. species composition. Tree Physiol. 34, 686–700 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engelbrecht, B. et al. Drought sensitivity shapes species distribution patterns in tropical forests. Nature 447, 80–82 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, S. K. & Reich, P. B. Regional legacies of logging: departure from presettlement forest conditions in northern Minnesota. Ecol. Appl. 15, 726–744 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burrill, E. A. et al. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and User Guide Version 9.0.1 for Phase 2 https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/ (Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2022).Cumming, S. G. et al. A gap analysis of tree species representation in the protected areas of the Canadian boreal forest: applying a new assemblage of digital Forest Resource Inventory data. Can. J. Forest Res. 45, 163–173 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Perring, M. P., Mackay, A. W. & Blomqvist, L. Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 396–401 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reyer, C. P. O. et al. Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: approaches and challenges. J. Ecol. 103, 5–15 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stralberg, D. et al. Climate‐change refugia in boreal North America: what, where, and for how long? Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 261–270 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Etterson, J. R., Cornett, M. W., White, M. A. & Kavajecz, L. C. Assisted migration across fixed seed zones detects adaptation lags in two major North American tree species. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02092 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Solarik, K. A., Cazelles, K., Messier, C., Bergeron, Y. & Gravel, D. Priority effects will impede range shifts of temperate tree species into the boreal forest. J. Ecol. 108, 1155–1173 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stefanski, A., Bermudez, R., Sendall, K. M., Montgomery, R. A. & Reich, P. B. Surprising lack of sensitivity of biochemical limitation of photosynthesis of nine tree species to open‐air experimental warming and reduced rainfall in a southern boreal forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 746–759 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perala, D. A. How endemic injuries affect early growth of aspen suckers. Can. J. Forest Res. 14, 755–762 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buckman, R. E. Effects of prescribed burning on hazel in Minnesota. Ecology 45, 626–629 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, B. D. & Bergeron, Y. Site patterns of natural regeneration following clear-cutting in northwestern Quebec. Can. J. Forest Res. 19, 1458–1469 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, I. et al. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, M. P., Prasad, A. M., Matthews, S. N. & Iverson, L. R. Climate Change Tree Atlas, Version 4 https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas (Northern Research Station and Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, US Forest Service, 2020)Niinemets, Ü. & Valladares, F. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate Northern Hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol. Monogr. 76, 521–547 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Amelung, W. et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 5427 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blouin, M. et al. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 64(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12025 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deckmyn, G. et al. KEYLINK: Towards a more integrative soil representation for inclusion in ecosystem scale models I. Review and model concept. PeerJ 8, 9750. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9750 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, H. R. P. et al. Global distribution of earthworm diversity. Science 366, 6464. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax4851 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertrand, M. et al. Earthworm services for cropping systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 553–567 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Angst, G. et al. Earthworms act as biochemical reactors to convert labile plant compounds into stabilized soil microbial necromass. Commun. Biol. 2, UNSP 441 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bohlen, P. J. & Edwards, C. A. Earthworm effects on N dynamics and soil respiration in microcosms receiving organic and inorganic nutrients. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 341–348 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bossuyt, H., Six, J. & Hendrix, P. F. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 251–258 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubbers, I. M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 187–194 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, W., Gonzalez, G. & Zou, X. M. Earthworm abundance and functional group diversity regulate plant litter decay and soil organic carbon level: A global meta-analysis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 150, 103473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103473 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruck, S., Joschko, M., Schultz-Sternberg, R., Kroschewski, B. & Tessmann, J. A classification scheme for earthworm populations (Lumbricidae) in cultivated agricultural soils in Brandenburg, Germany. J. Plan Nutr. Soil Sci. 169, 651–660 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westernacher, E. & Raff, O. Orientation behaviour of earthworms (Lumbricidae) toward different crops. Biol. Fertil. Soils 3, 131–133 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Coppens, F., Garnier, P., Degryze, S., Merckx, R. & Recous, S. Soil moisture, carbon and nitrogen dynamics following incorporation versus surface application of labelled residues in soil columns. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 894–905 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Angers, D. A. & Recous, S. Decomposition of wheat straw and rye residues as affected by particle size. Plant Soil 189, 197–203 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iqbal, A., Garnier, P., Lashermes, G. & Recous, S. A new equation to simulate the contact between soil and maize residues of different sizes during their decomposition. Biol. Fertil. Soils 50, 645–655 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Šimek, M. & Pižl, V. Soil CO2 flux affected by Aporrectodea caliginosa earthworms. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 5, 364–370 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Potthoff, M., Joergensenb, R. G. & Woltersc, V. Short-term effects of earthworm activity and straw amendment on the microbial C and N turnover in a remoistened arable soil after summer drought. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 583–591 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernard, L. et al. Endogeic earthworms shape bacterial functional communities and affect organic matter mineralization in a tropical soil. ISME J. 6, 213–122 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Borken, W., Gründel, S. & Beese, F. Potential contribution of Lumbricus terrestris L. to carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a forest soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 32, 142–148 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. Short-term and long-term effects of the endogeic earthworm Millsonia anomala (Omodeo) (Megascolecidae, Oligochaeta) of tropical savannas, on soil organic matter. Biol. Fertil. Soils 11, 234–238 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreau-Valancogne, P., Bertrand, M., Holmstrup, M. & Roger-Estrade, J. Integration of thermal time and hydrotime models to describe the development and growth of temperate earthworms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 63, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.03.022 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubbers, I. M., van Groenigen, K. J., Brussaard, L. & van Groenigen, J. W. Reduced greenhouse gas mitigation potential of no-tillage soils through earthworm activity. Sci. Rep. 5, 13787 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Joschko, M. et al. Spatial analysis of earthworm biodiversity at the regional scale. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 367–380 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kanianska, R., Jad’ud’ova, J., Makovnikova, J. & Kizekova, M. Assessment of relationships between earthworms and soil abiotic and biotic factors as a tool in sustainable agricultural. Sustainability 8, 906 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chertov, O. et al. Romul_Hum model of soil organic matter formation coupled with soil biota activity. III Parameterisation of earthworm activity. Ecol. Model. 345, 140–149 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelosi, C., Bertrand, M., Makowski, D. & Roger-Estrade, J. WORMDYN: A model of Lumbricus terrestris population dynamics in agricultural fields. Ecol. Model. 218, 219–234 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisk, M. C., Fahey, T. J., Groffman, P. M. & Bohlen, P. J. Earthworm invasion, fine-root distributions, and soil respiration in north temperate forests. Ecosystems 7, 55–62 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rizhiya, E. et al. Earthworm activity as a determinant for N2O emission from crop residue. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2058–2069 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Snyder, B. A., Boots, B. & Hendrix, P. F. Competition between invasive earthworms (Amynthas corticis, Megascolecidae) and native north American millipedes (Pseudopolydesmus erasus, Polydesmidae): Effects on carbon cycling and soil structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1442–1449 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapuis-Lardy, L. et al. Effect of the endogeic earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on the microbial structure and activity related to CO2 and N2O fluxes from a tropical soil (Madagascar). Appl. Soil Ecol. 45, 201–208 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertora, C., van Vliet, P. C. J., Hummelink, E. W. J. & van Groenigen, J. W. Do earthworms increase N2O emissions in ploughed grassland?. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 632–640 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Binet, F., Fayolle, L. & Pussard, M. Significance of earthworms in stimulating soil microbial activity. Biol. Fertil. Soils 27, 79–84 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butenschoen, O. et al. Endogeic earthworms alter carbon translocation by fungi at the soil–litter interface. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2854–2864 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cortez, J., Hameed, R. & Bouche, M. B. C-transfer and N-transfer in soil with or without earthworms fed with C-14 labelled and N-15 labelled wheat straw. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21, 491–497 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marhan, S., Langel, R., Kandeler, E. & Scheu, S. Use of stable isotopes (13C) for studying the mobilisation of old soil organic carbon by endogeic earthworms (Lumbricidae). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 43, S201–S208 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheu, S. Effects of litter (beech and stinging nettle) and earthworms (Octolasion lacteum) on carbon and nutrient cycling in beech forests on a basalt-limestone gradient: A laboratory experiment. Biol. Fertil. Soils 24, 384–393 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolters, V. & Schaefer, M. Effects of burrowing by the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Savigny) on beech litter decomposition in an agricultural and in a forest soil. Geoderma 56, 627–632 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Roberson, L. A., Watson, R. A. & Klein, C. J. Over 90 endangered fish and invertebrates are caught in industrial fisheries. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–8 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Curr. Biol. 31, 1–15 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
MacNeil, M. A. et al. Global status and conservation potential of reef sharks. Nature 583, 801–806 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dent, F. & Clarke, S. State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fish. Aquac. Tech. Pap. No. 590. 187 (2015).FAO. 2008. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome (2008).Davidson, L. N. K., Krawchuk, M. A. & Dulvy, N. K. Why have global shark and ray landings declined: improved management or over fishing? Fish Fish 17, 438–458 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, S. C. et al. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1115–1126 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’ s sharks and rays. Elife 3, 1–35 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Sustainability in action. Rome https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en (2020).Smith, H. et al. Ecology and the science of small-scale fisheries: A synthetic review of research effort for the Anthropocene. Biol. Conserv. 254, 108895 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. et al. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Policy 40, 194–204 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature 572, 461–466 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leurs, G. et al. Industrial fishing near West African marine protected areas and its potential effects on mobile marine predators. Fron. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–13 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
White, W. T. et al. Shark longline fishery of Papua New Guinea: Size and species composition and spatial variation of the catches. Mar. Freshw. Res. 71, 662–669 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacquet, J. & Pauly, D. Funding priorities: Big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 22, 832–835 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, J. E. et al. An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol. Conserv. 143, 795–805 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soykan, C. U. et al. Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme Section on fisheries bycatch. Endanger. Species Res. 5, 91–102 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haque, A. B. et al. Socio-ecological approach on the fishing and trade of rhino rays (Elasmobranchii: Rhinopristiformes) for their biological conservation in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Ocean Coast. Manag. 210, 105690 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barausse, A. et al. The role of fisheries and the environment in driving the decline of elasmobranchs in the nor-thern Adriatic Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1593–1603 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Jiménez, J. C. & Mendez-Loeza, I. The small-scale shark fisheries in the southern Gulf of Mexico: Understanding their heterogeneity to improve their management. Fish. Res. 172, 96–104 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saidi, B., Enajjar, S. & Bradai, M. N. Elasmobranch captures in shrimps trammel net fishery off the Gulf of Gabès (Southern Tunisia, Mediterranean Sea). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 32, 421–426 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vögler, R., González, C. & Segura, A. M. Spatio-temporal dynamics of the fish community associated with artisanal fisheries activities within a key marine protected area of the Southwest Atlantic (Uruguay). Ocean Coast. Manag. 190, 105175 (2020).Dulvy, N. K. et al. Challenges and priorities in Shark and Ray conservation. Curr. Biol. 27, R565–R572 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, L. N. K. & Dulvy, N. K. Global marine protected areas to prevent extinctions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–6 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giakoumi, S. et al. Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: A regional meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373, 6560 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Di Franco, A. et al. Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas performance for small-scale fisheries management. Sci. Rep. 6, 38135 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ban, N. C., Kushneryk, K., Falk, J., Vachon, A. & Sleigh, L. Improving compliance of recreational fishers with Rockfish Conservation Areas: community–academic partnership to achieve and evaluate conservation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 2308–2318 (2019).Di Lorenzo, M., Guidetti, P., Di Franco, A., Calò, A. & Claudet, J. Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: A meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish. 15, 1–10 (2020).Belharet, M. et al. Extending full protection inside existing marine protected areas, or reducing fishing effort outside, can reconcile conservation and fisheries goals. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1948–1957 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 247–254 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Franco, A. et al. Linking home ranges to protected area size: The case study of the Mediterranean Sea. Biol. Conserv. 221, 175–181 (2018).MacKeracher, T., Diedrich, A. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Sharks, rays and marine protected areas: A critical evaluation of current perspectives. Fish Fish 20, 255–267 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward-Paige, C. A., Keith, D. M., Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. Recovery potential and conservation options for elasmobranchs. J. Fish. Biol. 80, 1844–1869 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lester, S. E. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. MEPS 384, 33–46 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, B. C. et al. Addressing criticisms of large-scale marine protected areas. Bioscience 68, 359–370 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, C. et al. Understanding persistent non-compliance in a remote, large-scale marine protected area. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–13 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
White, T. D. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a large marine protected area for reef shark conservation. Biol. Conserv. 207, 64–71 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Speed, C. W., Cappo, M. & Meekan, M. G. Evidence for rapid recovery of shark populations within a coral reef marine protected area. Biol. Conserv. 220, 308–319 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Escalle, L. et al. Restricted movements and mangrove dependency of the nervous shark Carcharhinus cautus in nearshore coastal waters. J. Fish. Biol. 87, 323–341 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, B. C. et al. Effective coverage targets for ocean protection. Conserv. Lett. 9, 398–404 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guidetti, P., Danovaro, R., Bottaro, M. & Ciccolella, A. Marine protected areas and endangered shark conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31, 2671–2672 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubchenco, J. & Grorud-Colvert, K. Making waves: The science and politics of ocean protection. Science 350, 382–383 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zupan, M. et al. Marine partially protected areas: drivers of ecological effectiveness. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 381–387 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K., Allen, D. J., Ralph, G. M. & Walls, R. H. L. The Conservation Status of Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea. IUCN, Malaga, Spain. pp. 236 (2016).Morales-Muñiz, A. & Roselló, E. 20,000 years of fishing in the Strait: archaeological fish and shellfish assemblages from southern Iberia. In Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecysosytems: a Global Perspective (eds Torben, R. C. & Erlandson, J. M.), pp. 243–278 (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2008).Coll, M. et al. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS One 5, e11842 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cashion, M. S., Bailly, N. & Pauly, D. Official catch data underrepresent shark and ray taxa caught in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Mar. Pol. 105, 1–9 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferretti, F., Myers, R. A., Serena, F. & Lotze, H. K. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 22, 952–964 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Colloca, F., Enea, M., Ragonese, S. & Di Lorenzo, M. A century of fishery data documenting the collapse of smooth-hounds (Mustelus spp.) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27, 1145–1155 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colloca, F., Carrozzi, V., Simonetti, A. & Lorenzo, M. D. Using local ecological knowledge of fishers to reconstruct abundance trends of Elasmobranch populations in the Strait of Sicily. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. pp 200 (2016).Milazzo, M., Cattano, C., Al Mabruk, S. A. A. & Giovos, I. Mediterranean sharks and rays need action. Science 371, 355–356 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Claudet, J., Loiseau, C., Sostres, M. & Zupan, M. Underprotected marine protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot. One Earth 2, 380–384 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Maynou, F. et al. Estimating trends of population decline in long-lived marine species in the Mediterranean Sea based on fishers’ perceptions. PLoS One 6, e21818 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Serena, F. et al. Species diversity, taxonomy and distribution of Chondrichthyes in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Eur. Zool. J. 87, 497–536 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morey, G., Moranta, J., Riera, F., Grau, A. M. & Morales-NIN, B. Elasmobranchs in trammel net fishery associated to marine reserves in the Balearic Islands (NW Mediterranean). Cybium 30, 125–132 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Temple, A. J. et al. Marine megafauna interactions with small-scale fisheries in the southwestern Indian Ocean: a review of status and challenges for research and management. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 28, 89–115 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siskey, M. R., Shipley, O. N. & Frisk, M. G. Skating on thin ice: Identifying the need for species- ­ specific data and defined migration ecology of Rajidae spp. Fish Fish 20, 286–302 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapman, D. D., Feldheim, K. A., Papastamatiou, Y. P. & Hueter, R. E. There and back again: a review of residency and return migrations in Sharks, with implications for population structure and management. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 547–570 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Heupel, M. R., Carlson, J. K. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Shark nursery areas: Concepts, definition, characterization and assumptions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 337, 287–297 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Speed, C., Field, I., Meekan, M. & Bradshaw, C. Complexities of coastal shark movements and their implications for management. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 408, 275–293 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Knip, D. M., Heupel, M. R. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Mortality rates for two shark species occupying a shared coastal environment. Fish. Res. 125–126, 184–189 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Espinoza, M., Farrugia, T. J. & Lowe, C. G. Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 401, 63–74 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers, R. A. & Mertz, G. The limits of exploitation: A precautionary approach. Ecol. Appl. 8, 165–169 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferretti, F., Osio, G., Jenkins, C., Rosenberg, A. A. & Lotze, H. K. Long-term change in a meso-predator community in response to prolonged and heterogeneous human impact. Sci. Rep. 3, 1057 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K. et al. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312, 1806–1809 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Lorenzo, M. et al. Ontogenetic trophic segregation between two threatened smooth ‑ hound sharks in the Central Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–15 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mulas, A. et al. Resource partitioning among sympatric elasmobranchs in the central-western Mediterranean continental shelf. Mar. Biol. 166, 1–16 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, P. M., Teixeira, C. M., Pita, C., Cabral, H. N. & França, S. Portuguese artisanal fishers’ knowledge about Elasmobranchs—A case study. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Cortés, E. & Brooks, E. N. Stock status and reference points for sharks using data-limited methods and life history. Fish Fish 19, 1110–1129 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prince, J. D. Gauntlet fisheries for elasmobranchs – The secret of sustainable shark fisheries. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. 37, 407–416 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The neglected complexities of shark fisheries, and priorities for holistic risk-based management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 182, 104994 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Juhel, J. B. et al. Reef accessibility impairs the protection of sharks. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 673–683 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Espinoza, M., Cappo, M., Heupel, M. R., Tobin, A. J. & Simpfendorfer, C. A. Quantifying shark distribution patterns and species-habitat associations: Implications of Marine Park zoning. PLoS One 9, e106885 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cattano, C., Turco, G., Di Lorenzo, M., Visconti, G. & Milazzo, M. Sandbar shark aggregation in the central Mediterranean Sea and potential effects of tourism. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31, 1420–1428 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connell, C. P., Stroud, E. M. & He, P. The emerging field of electrosensory and semiochemical shark repellents: Mechanisms of detection, overview of past studies, and future directions. Ocean Coast. Manag. 97, 2–11 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbato, M. et al. The use of fishers’ Local Ecological Knowledge to reconstruct fish behavioural traits and fishers’ perception of conservation relevance of elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 22, 603–622 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Sala, E. et al. Author correction: protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592, 397–402 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Franco, A. et al. Improving marine protected area governance through collaboration and co-production. J. Environ. Manag. 269, 110757 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abràmoff, M. D., Magalhães, P. J. & Ram, S. J. Image processing with imageJ. Biophotonics Int 11, 36–41 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Froese, R., & Pauly, D. FishBase. https://www.fishbase.org (2021).Micheli, F. et al. Cumulative human impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea marine ecosystems: assessing current pressures and opportunities. PLoS ONE 8, e79889 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Atwood, T. B. et al. Herbivores at the highest risk of extinction among mammals, birds, and reptiles. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb8458 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Munstermann, M. J. et al. A global ecological signal of extinction risk in terrestrial vertebrates. Cons. Biol. 36, 1–13 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Martin, T. G., Wintle, A., Rhodes, J. R., Field, A. & Low-choy, S. J. REVIEWS AND Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1235–1246 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rigby, R. A., Stasinopoulos, D. M. & Lane, P. W. Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. Appl. Stat. 54, 507–554 (2005).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org (2016).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akaike, H. A new look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 19, 716–723 (1974).ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kariya, T. Institute of Mathematical Statistics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to The Annals of Statistics. Ann. Stat. 19, 1403–1433, www.jstor.org (1991). ®.
Google Scholar 
Stasinopoulos, D. M. & Rigby, R. A. Generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) in R. J. Stat. Softw. 23, 1–46 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Buuren, S. & Fredriks, M. Worm plot: A simple diagnostic device for modelling growth reference curves. Stat. Med. 20, 1259–1277 (2001).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. (2020).Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical ecology, 2nd English edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1998).Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, A. J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package Version 2.0-2 (2011). Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/. (2012).Di Lorenzo et al. Dataset1: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318878.v1 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Dataset2: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318881.v3 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Dataset3: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318884.v1 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Dataset4: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318887.v1 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Code1: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318875.v2 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Code2: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318890.v1 (2022).Di Lorenzo et al. Code3: Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18318893.v1 (2022). More