Ecology

Pigliucci, M. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: Where are we going now?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 481–486 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfennig, D. W. et al. Phenotypic plasticity’s impacts on diversification and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 459–467 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xue, B. & Leibler, S. Benefits of phenotypic plasticity for population growth in varying environments. PNAS 115, 12745–12750 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murren, C. J. et al. Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: Limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity. Heredity 115, 293–301 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheiner, S. Selection experiments and the study of phenotypic plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 889–898 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garland, T. & Kelly, S. A. Phenotypic plasticity and experimental evolution. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2344–2361 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DeWitt, T. J., Sih, A. & Wilson, D. S. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 77–81 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oostra, V., Saastamoinen, M., Zwaan, B. J. & Wheat, C. W. Strong phenotypic plasticity limits potential for evolutionary responses to climate change. Nat. Commun. 9, 1005 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Snell-Rood, E. C. An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Anim. Behav. 85, 1004–1011 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gu, L. et al. Induction and reversibility of Ceriodaphnia cornuta horns under varied intensity of predation risk and their defensive effectiveness against Chaoborus larvae. Freshw. Biol. 66, 1200–1210 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Buskirk, J. & Steiner, U. The fitness costs of developmental canalization and plasticity. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 852–860 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C. et al. Resurrecting the metabolome: Rapid evolution magnifies the metabolomic plasticity to predation in a natural Daphnia population. Mol. Ecol. 30, 2285–2297 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auld, J. R., Agrawal, A. A. & Relyea, R. A. Re-evaluating the costs and limits of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 20, 25 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Tsuji, H., Taoka, K.-I. & Shimamoto, K. Regulation of flowering in rice: Two florigen genes, a complex gene network, and natural variation. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 14, 45–52 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bay, R. A. & Palumbi, S. R. Multilocus adaptation associated with heat resistance in reef-building corals. Curr. Biol. 24, 2952–2956 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nei, M., Niimura, Y. & Nozawa, M. The evolution of animal chemosensory receptor gene repertoires: Roles of chance and necessity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 951–963 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nozawa, M., Kawahara, Y. & Nei, M. Genomic drift and copy number variation of sensory receptor genes in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 20421–20426 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raible, F. et al. Opsins and clusters of sensory G-protein-coupled receptors in the sea urchin genome. Dev. Biol. 300, 461–475 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Abbott, L. F. & Nelson, S. B. Synaptic plasticity: Taming the beast. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 1178–1183 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, S. L. Trajectories of brain development: Point of vulnerability or window of opportunity?. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 27, 3–18 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Miyakawa, H. et al. Gene up-regulation in response to predator kairomones in the water flea, Daphnia pulex. BMC Dev. Biol. 10, 1 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dennis, S. R., LeBlanc, G. A. & Beckerman, A. P. Endocrine regulation of predator-induced phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 176, 625–635 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boidron-Metairon, I. F. Morphological plasticity in laboratory-reared echinoplutei of Dendraster excentricus (Eschscholtz) and Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck) in response to food conditions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 119, 31–41 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miner, B. G. Larval feeding structure plasticity during pre-feeding stages of echinoids: Not all species respond to the same cues. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 343, 158–165 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaturvedi, A. et al. Extensive standing genetic variation from a small number of founders enables rapid adaptation in Daphnia. Nat. Commun. 12, 4306 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, M., Sewell, M. & Prowse, T. Nutritional ecology of sea urchin larvae: Influence of endogenous and exogenous nutrition on echinopluteal growth and phenotypic plasticity in Tripneustes gratilla. Funct. Ecol. 22, 643–648 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sewell, M. A., Cameron, M. J. & McArdle, B. H. Developmental plasticity in larval development in the echinometrid sea urchin Evechinus chloroticus with varying food ration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 309, 219–237 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, D. K., Sewell, M. A., Angerer, R. C. & Angerer, L. M. Rapid adaptation to food availability by a dopamine-mediated morphogenetic response. Nat. Commun. 2, 592 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williamson, D. The Origins of Larvae (Springer, 2003).Book 

Google Scholar 
McIntyre, D. C., Lyons, D. C., Martik, M. & McClay, D. R. Branching out: Origins of the sea urchin larval skeleton in development and evolution. Genesis 52, 173–185 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Littlewood, D. & Smith, A. A combined morphological and molecular phylogeny for sea urchins (Echinoidea: Echinodermata). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 347, 213–234 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kroh, A. & Smith, A. B. The phylogeny and classification of post-Palaeozoic echinoids. J. Syst. Paleontol. 8, 147–212 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, A. B. et al. Testing the molecular clock: Molecular and paleontological estimates of divergence times in the Echinoidea (Echinodermata). Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 1832–1851 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reitzel, A. M. & Heyland, A. Reduction in morphological plasticity in echinoid larvae: Relationship of plasticity with maternal investment and food availability. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9, 109–121 (2007).
Google Scholar 
McAlister, J. S. Evolutionary responses to environmental heterogeneity in Central American echinoid larvae: Plastic versus constant phenotypes. Evolution 62, 1358–1372 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soars, N. A., Prowse, T. A. A. & Byrne, M. Overview of phenotypic plasticity in echinoid larvae, ‘Echinopluteus transversus’ type vs typical echinoplutei. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser. 383, 113–125 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eckert, G. L. A novel larval feeding strategy of the tropical sand dollar, Encope michelini (Agassiz): Adaptation to food limitation and an evolutionary link between planktotrophy and lecithotrophy. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 187, 103–128 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miner, B. G. & Vonesh, J. R. Effects of fine grain environmental variability on morphological plasticity. Ecol. Lett. 7, 794–801 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strathmann, R. R., Fenaux, L. & Strathmann, M. F. Heterochronic developmental plasticity in larval sea urchins and its implications for evolution of nonfeeding larvae. Evolution 20, 972–986 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poorbagher, H., Lamare, M. D., Barker, M. F. & Rayment, W. Relative importance of parental diet versus larval nutrition on development and phenotypic plasticity of Pseudechinus huttoni larvae (Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Mar. Biol. Res. 6, 302–314 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertram, D. F. & Strathmann, R. R. Effects of maternal and larval nutrition on growth and form of planktotrophic larvae. Ecology 79, 315–327 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miner, B. G. Evolution of feeding structure plasticity in marine invertebrate larvae: A possible trade-off between arm length and stomach size. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 315, 117–125 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
McAlister, J. S. Egg size and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in larvae of the echinoid genus Strongylocentrotus. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 352, 306–316 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
McIntyre, D. C., Seay, N. W., Croce, J. C. & McClay, D. R. Short-range Wnt5 signaling initiates specification of sea urchin posterior ectoderm. Development 140, 4881–4889 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adomako-Ankomah, A. & Ettensohn, C. A. Growth factor-mediated mesodermal cell guidance and skeletogenesis during sea urchin gastrulation. Development 140, 4214–4225 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duloquin, L., Lhomond, G. & Gache, C. Localized VEGF signaling from ectoderm to mesenchyme cells controls morphogenesis of the sea urchin embryo skeleton. Development 134, 2293–2302 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ettensohn, C. A. Lessons from a gene regulatory network: Echinoderm skeletogenesis provides insights into evolution, plasticity and morphogenesis. Development 136, 11–21 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rafiq, K., Shashikant, T., McManus, C. J. & Ettensohn, C. A. Genome-wide analysis of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network of sea urchins. Development 141, 950–961 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Röttinger, E. et al. FGF signals guide migration of mesenchymal cells, control skeletal morphogenesis and regulate gastrulation during sea urchin development. Development 135, 353–365 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cavalieri, V., Spinelli, G. & Di Bernardo, M. Impairing Otp homeodomain function in oral ectoderm cells affects skeletogenesis in sea urchin embryos. Dev. Biol. 262, 107–118 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hegarty, S. V., Sullivan, A. M. & O’Keeffe, G. W. Midbrain dopaminergic neurons: A review of the molecular circuitry that regulates their development. Dev. Biol. 379, 123–138 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ryu, S. et al. Orthopedia homeodomain protein is essential for diencephalic dopaminergic neuron development. Curr. Biol. 17, 873–880 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smidt, M. P., Smits, S. M. & Burbach, J. P. H. Molecular mechanisms underlying midbrain dopamine neuron development and function. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 480, 75–88 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rast, J. P., Smith, L. C., Loza-Coll, M., Hibino, T. & Litman, G. W. Genomic insights into the immune system of the sea urchin. Science 314, 952–956 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hibino, T. et al. The immune gene repertoire encoded in the purple sea urchin genome. Dev. Biol. 300, 349–365 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zigler, K. S. & Lessios, H. Speciation on the coasts of the new world: Phylogeography and the evolution of bindin in the sea urchin genus Lytechinus. Evolution 58, 1225–1241 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Maggio, R. & Millan, M. J. Dopamine D2–D3 receptor heteromers: Pharmacological properties and therapeutic significance. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 10, 100–107 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holl, K. D. Restoring tropical forests from the bottom up. Science 355, 455–456 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rights and Resources Initiative. Estimate of the Area of Land and Territories of Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Afro-Descendants Where Their Rights Have Not Been Recognized https://doi.org/10.53892/UZEZ6605 (Rights + Resources, 2020).Erbaugh, J. T. et al. Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1472–1476 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, C., Rodrigues, S. T., Calmon, M. & Kumar, C. Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not know. Biotropica 48, 731–744 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramprasad, V., Joglekar, A. & Fleischman, F. Plantations and pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, B. M. Species richness and aboveground carbon stocks in the homegardens of central Kerala, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140, 430–440 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ribot, J. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. J. Peasant Stud. 41, 667–705 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, D. K. & Robbins, P. Ecologies of the colonial present: pathological forestry from the taux de boisement to civilized plantations. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 1, 447–469 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: an overview. Conserv. Soc. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26392956.pdf (2009).Barletti, J. P. S. & Larson, A. M. Rights Abuse Allegations in the Context of REDD+ Readiness and Implementation: A Preliminary Review and Proposal for Moving Forward https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006630 (Center for International Forestry Research, 2017).Pellegrini, P. & Fernández, R. J. Crop intensification, land use, and on-farm energy-use efficiency during the worldwide spread of the green revolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2335–2340 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
IUFRO. Forests, Trees and the Eradication of Poverty: Potential and Limitations. World Series Vol. 39 (International Union of Forest Research Organizations, 2020).Luttrell, C., Sills, E., Aryani, R., Ekaputri, A. D. & Evinke, M. F. Beyond opportunity costs: who bears the implementation costs of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation? Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang 23, 291–310 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coleman, E. A., Manyindo, J., Parker, A. R. & Schultz, B. Stakeholder engagement increases transparency, satisfaction, and civic action. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24486–24491 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brando, P. M. et al. Drought effects on litterfall, wood production and belowground carbon cycling in an Amazon forest: results of a throughfall reduction experiment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1839–1848 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nobre, C. A. et al. Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10759–10768 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y. & Grace, J. Tropical forests and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trends Res. Ecol. Environ. 15, 332–337 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulholland, P. J. & Elwood, J. W. The role of lake and reservoir sediments as sinks in the perturbed global carbon cycle. Tellus 34, 490–499 (1982).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dean, W. E. & Gorham, E. Magnitude and significance of carbon burial in lakes, reservoirs, and peatlands. Geology 26, 535–538 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tranvik, L. J., Cole, J. J. & Prairie, Y. T. The study of carbon in inland waters-from isolated ecosystems to players in the global carbon cycle. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 41–48 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mendonça, R. et al. Organic carbon burial in global lakes and reservoirs. Nat. Commun. 8, 1694 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stallard, R. F. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 231–257 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, N. J., Heathcote, A. J. & Engstrom, D. R. Anthropogenic alteration of nutrient supply increases the global freshwater carbon sink. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw2145 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marotta, H., Pinho, L. & Gudasz, C. Greenhouse gas production in low-latitude lake sediments responds strongly to warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 11–14 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cardoso, S. J. B., Enrich-Prast, A. C., Pace, M. L. & Rol, F. B. Do models of organic carbon mineralization extrapolate to warmer tropical sediments? Limnol. Oceanogr. 59, 48–54 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I. & Schmitt, O. Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nat. Commun. 7, 13603 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51, 933 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tateishi, R. et al. Production of global land cover data – GLCNMO2008. J. Geogr. Geol. 6, (2014).Hess, L. L. et al. Wetlands of the lowland Amazon basin: extent, vegetative cover, and dual-season inundated area as mapped with JERS-1 synthetic aperture radar. Wetlands 35, 745–756 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clow, D. W. et al. Organic carbon burial in lakes and reservoirs of the conterminous United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7614–7622 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundin, E. J. et al. Large difference in carbon emission – burial balances between boreal and arctic lakes. Sci. Rep. 5, 14248 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Heathcote, A. J., Anderson, N. J., Prairie, Y. T., Engstrom, D. R. & del Giorgio, P. A. Large increases in carbon burial in northern lakes during the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 6, 10016 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503, 355–359 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, N. J., Dietz, R. D. & Engstrom, D. R. Land-use change, not climate, controls organic carbon burial in lakes. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20131278 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sanders, L. M. et al. Carbon accumulation in Amazonian floodplain lakes: a significant component of Amazon budgets? Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2, 29–35 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Appleby, P. G. & Oldfield, F. In Uranium-series Disequilibrium: Applications to Earth, Marine, and Environmental Sciences (eds. Ivanovich, M. & Harmon, R. S.) (Clarendon Press, 1992).Engstrom, D. R., Fritz, S. C., Almendinger, J. E. & Juggins, S. Chemical and biological trends during lake evolution in recently deglaciated terrain. Nature 408, 161–166 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, J.-H. et al. Tracing soil organic carbon in the lower Amazon River and its tributaries using GDGT distributions and bulk organic matter properties. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 90, 163–180 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boye, K. et al. Thermodynamically controlled preservation of organic carbon in floodplains. Nat. Geosci. 10, 415–419 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marotta, H., Paiva, L. T. & Petrucio, M. M. Changes in thermal and oxygen stratification pattern coupled to CO2 outgassing persistence in two oligotrophic shallow lakes of the Atlantic Tropical Forest, Southeast Brazil. Limnology 10, 195–202 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, N. J., Bennion, H. & Lotter, A. F. Lake eutrophication and its implications for organic carbon sequestration in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2741–2751 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanders, L. M. et al. Historic carbon burial spike in an Amazon floodplain lake linked to riparian deforestation near Santarém, Brazil. Biogeosciences 15, 447–455 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 73–79 (2019).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marotta, H., Duarte, C. M., Sobek, S. & Enrich-Prast, A. Large CO 2 disequilibria in tropical lakes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, (2009).Richey, J. E., Melack, J. M., Aufdenkampe, A. K., Ballester, V. M. & Hess, L. L. Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO2. Nature 416, 617–620 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunne, T., Mertes, L. A. K. K., Meade, R. H., Richey, J. E. & Forsberg, B. R. Exchanges of sediment between the flood plain and channel of the Amazon River in Brazil. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 110, 450–467 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
McLeod, E. et al. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 552–560 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abril, G. et al. Technical note: large overestimation of pCO2 calculated from pH and alkalinity in acidic, organic-rich freshwaters. Biogeosciences 12, 67–78 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Verpoorter, C., Kutser, T., Seekell, D. A. & Tranvik, L. J. A global inventory of lakes based on high-resolution satellite imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 6396–6402 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gardner, T. A. et al. Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol. Lett. 12, 561–582 (2009).Dietz, R. D., Engstrom, D. R. & Anderson, N. J. Patterns and drivers of change in organic carbon burial across a diverse landscape: insights from 116 Minnesota lakes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 708–727 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobbs, W. O., Engstrom, D. R., Scottler, S. P., Zimmer, K. D. & Cotner, J. B. Estimating modern carbon burial rates in lakes using a single sediment sample. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 11, 316–326 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Appleby, P. G. & Oldfield, F. The calculation of Pb-210 dates assuming a constant rate of supply of unsupported Pb-210 to the sediment. Catena 5, 1–8 (1978).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, L. J. & Delorme, L. D. Assessment of 210Pb data from Canadian lakes using the CIC and CRS models. Environ. Geol. 28, 78–87 (1996).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Breithaupt, J. L., Smoak, J. M., Smith, T. J. & Sanders, C. J. Temporal variability of carbon and nutrient burial, sediment accretion, and mass accumulation over the past century in a carbonate platform mangrove forest of the Florida Everglades. J. Geophys. Res. G Biogeosci. 119, 2032–2048 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanders, C. J. et al. Elevated rates of organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in a highly impacted mangrove wetland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2475–2480 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitra, S., Wassmann, R. & Vlek, P. L. G. An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock. Curr. Sci. 88, 25–35 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ravichandran, K. S. Thermal residual stresses in a functionally graded material system. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 201, 269–276 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedges, J. I. et al. Compositions and fluxes of particulate organic material in the Amazon River1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31, 717–738 (1986).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araujo-Lima, C. A. R. M., Forsberg, B. R., Victoria, R. & Martinelli, L. Energy sources for detritivorous fishes in the Amazon. Science 234, 1256–1258 (1986).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinelli, L. A., Victoria, R. L. & Forsberg, B. R. Isotopic composition of majors carbon reservoirs in the Amazon floodplain. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 20, 31–46 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Martinelli, L. A. et al. Inland variability of carbon-nitrogen concentrations and δ13C in Amazon floodplain (várzea) vegetation and sediment. Hydrol. Process. 17, 1419–1430 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zar, J. H. Biostatistical Analysis, Books a la Carte Edition (Pearson, 2010). More

Lindenmayer, D. B., Cunningham, R. B., Donnelly, C. F. & Lesslie, R. On the use of landscape surrogates as ecological indicators in fragmented forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 159(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00433-9 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hannah, L., Carr, J. L. & Lankerani, A. Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodivers. Conserv. 4(2), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137781 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sabatini, F. M. et al. Where are europe’s last primary forests?. Divers. Distrib. 24(10), 1426–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12778 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mikoláš, M. et al. Primary forest distribution and representation in a central european landscape: results of a large-scale field-based census. For. Ecol. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117466 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hilmers, T. et al. Biodiversity along temperate forest succession. J. Appl. Ecol. 55(6), 2756–2766. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13238 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagel, T. A., Svoboda, M. & Diaci, J. Regeneration patterns after intermediate wind disturbance in an old-growth fagus-abies forest in southeastern Slovenia. For. Ecol. Manag. 226(1–3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.039 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thorn, S. et al. Estimating retention benchmarks for salvage logging to protect biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 4762. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18612-4 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity — a review identifying global gaps in knowledge. Biol. Conserv. 191, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paillet, Y. et al. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 24(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cálix, M., Alexander, K. N. A., Nieto, A., Dodelin, B. et al. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles (IUCN. 19 s, Brussels, Belgium, 2018). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe/publicationsSchiegg, K. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Écoscience 7(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2000.11682598 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J. et al. Implications from large-scale spatial diversity patterns of saproxylic beetles for the conservation of european beech forests. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00200.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, A. et al. Animal diversity in beech forests – an analysis of 30 years of intense faunistic research in hessian strict forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119564 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brunet, J., Fritz, Ö. & Richnau, G. Biodiversity in European beech forests—a review with recommendations for sustainable forest management. Ecol. Bull. 53, 77–94 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Bilek, L., Remes, J. & Zahradnik, D. Managed vs. unmanaged. Structure of beech forest stands (Fagus sylvatica L.) after 50 years of development central Bohemia. For. Syst. 20(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2011201-10243 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J., Bußler, H. & Kneib, T. Saproxylic beetle assemblages related to silvicultural management intensity and stand structures in a beech forest in southern Germany. J. Insect Conserv. 12(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9065-2 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doerfler, I., Müller, J., Gossner, M. M., Hofner, B. & Weisser, W. W. Success of a deadwood enrichment strategy in production forests depends on stand type and management intensity. For. Ecol. Manag. 400, 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.013 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doerfler, I., Gossner, M. M., Müller, J., Seibold, S. & Weisser, W. W. Deadwood enrichment combining integrative and segregative conservation elements enhances biodiversity of multiple taxa in managed forests. Biol. Conserv. 228, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.013 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doerfler, I. et al. Restoration-oriented forest management affects community assembly patterns of deadwood-dependent organisms. J. Appl. Ecol. 57(12), 2429–2440. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13741 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zumr, V., Remeš, J. & Pulkrab, K. How to increase biodiversity of saproxylic beetles in commercial stands through integrated forest management in central Europe. Forests https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060814 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Svoboda, M., Fraver, S., Janda, P., Bače, R. & Zenáhlíková, J. Natural development and regeneration of a central european montane spruce forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 260(5), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.027 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Šebková, B. et al. Spatial and volume patterns of an unmanaged submontane mixed forest in central Europe: 160 years of spontaneous dynamics. For. Ecol. Manag. 262(5), 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.028 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bílek, L. et al. Gap regeneration in near-natural european beech forest stands in central bohemia – the role of heterogeneity and micro-habitat factors. Dendrobiology https://doi.org/10.12657/denbio.071.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Čada, V. et al. Frequent severe natural disturbances and non-equilibrium landscape dynamics shaped the mountain spruce forest in central Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 363, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.023 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thorn, S. et al. Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 55(1), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Schuck, A. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob. Change Biol. 9(11), 1620–1633. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vera, F. W. M. (ed.) Grazing Ecology and Forest History (CABI, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994420.0000.Book 

Google Scholar 
Vera, F. W. M. The dynamic European forest. Arboric. J. 26(3), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2002.9747335 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swanson, M. E. et al. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1890/090157 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lachat, T. et al. Influence of canopy gaps on saproxylic beetles in primeval beech forests: a case study from the Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh forest, Ukraine. Insect Conserv. Divers. 9(6), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12188 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gossner, M. M. et al. Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv. Biol. 27(3), 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12023 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Procházka, J. & Schlaghamerský, J. Does dead wood volume affect saproxylic beetles in montane beech-fir forests of central Europe?. J. Insect Conserv. 23(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00130-4 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S. & Möller, G. C. Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 255(3–4), 1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.029 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouget, C., Larrieu, L. & Brin, A. Key features for saproxylic beetle diversity derived from rapid habitat assessment in temperate forests. Ecol. Ind. 36, 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.031 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sebek, P. et al. Open-grown trees as key habitats for arthropods in temperate woodlands: the diversity, composition, and conservation value of associated communities. For. Ecol. Manag. 380, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.08.052 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kozel, P. et al. Connectivity and succession of open structures as a key to sustaining light-demanding biodiversity in deciduous forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 58(12), 2951–2961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14019 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nagel, T. A., Svoboda, M. & Kobal, M. Disturbance, life history traits, and dynamics in an old-growth forest landscape of southeastern Europe. Ecol. Appl. 24(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0632.1 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, M. et al. The forest cycle of Suserup Skov – revisited and revised. Ecol. Bull. 52, 33–42 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Trotsiuk, V., Hobi, M. L. & Commarmot, B. Age structure and disturbance dynamics of the relic virgin beech forest Uholka (Ukrainian Carpathians). For. Ecol. Manag. 265, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.042 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wermelinger, B., Duelli, P. & Obrist, M. K. Dynamics of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in windthrow areas in alpine spruce forests. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 77, 133–148 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Wermelinger, B. et al. Impact of windthrow and salvage-logging on taxonomic and functional diversity of forest arthropods. For. Ecol. Manag. 391, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.01.033 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, P., Schmidt, M., Feldmann, E., Willig, J. & Larkin, R. Long-term development of species richness in a central European beech (Fagus Sylvatica) forest affected by windthrow—support for the intermediate disturbance hypothesis?. Ecol. Evol. 11(18), 12801–12815. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8028 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Korpeľ, S. Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten (Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 1995) (in German).
Google Scholar 
Emborg, J., Christensen, M. & Heilmann-Clausen, J. The structural dynamics of Suserup Skov, a near natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. For. Ecol. Manag. 126, 173–189 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peňa, J., Remeš, J. & Bílek, L. Dynamics of natural regeneration of even-aged beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands at different shelterwood densities. J. For. Sci. 56(12), 580–588 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bílek, L., Peňa, J. F. B., Remeš, J. (2013b). National Nature Reserve Voděradské Bučiny 30 Years of Forestry Research Folia Forestalia Bohemica edn, Vol. 86 (Lesnická práce, 2013).Ruchin, A. B. & Egorov, L. V. Vertical stratification of beetles in deciduous forest communities in the centre of European Russia. Diversity 13, 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110508 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmain, G. et al. Can rove beetles (Staphylinidae) be excluded in studies focusing on saproxylic beetles in central European beech forests?. Bull. Entomol. Res. 105(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485314000741 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmidl, J. & Bußler, H. Ökologische gilden xylobionter Käfer Deutschlands. Nat. Landsch. 36, 202–218 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Association of extinction risk of saproxylic beetles with ecological degradation of forests in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 29(2), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12427 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hejda, R., Farkač, J. & Chobot, K. Red List of Threatened Species of the Czech Republic Vol. 36, 1–612 (Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny České republiky, Praha, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Lepš, J., Šmilauer, P. Biostatistika (Nakladatelství Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích, 2016)Chao, A. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand. J. Stat. 11, 265–270 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Chao, A. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43, 783–791 (1987).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Colwell, R. K. EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 9. User’s Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates (2013).Seibold, S. et al. Experiments with dead wood reveal the importance of dead branches in the canopy for saproxylic beetle conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 409, 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.052 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chao, A. et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0133.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chao, A., Ma, K. H., Hsieh, T. C. iNEXT (iNterpolation and EXTrapolation)Online: Software for Interpolation and Extrapolation of Species Diversity. ProgramandUser’s Guide published at http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/ (2016).Schenker, N. & Gentleman, J. F. On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am. Stat. 55, 182–186 (2001).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Horak, J. et al. Biodiversity of most dead wood-dependent organisms in thermophilic temperate oak woodlands thrives on diversity of open landscape structures. For. Ecol. Manag. 315, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.018 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using Canoco (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615146.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Šmilauer, P. & Lepš, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using Canoco 5 2nd edn. (New York, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
Parisi, F. et al. Spatial patterns of saproxylic beetles in a relic silver fir forest (Central Italy), relationships with forest structure and biodiversity indicators. For. Ecol. Manag. 381, 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.09.041 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Siitonen, J. Decaying wood and saproxylic coleoptera in two old spruce forests: a comparison based on two sampling methods. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31, 89–95 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Alinvi, O., Ball, J. P., Danell, K., Hjältén, J. & Pettersson, R. B. Sampling saproxylic beetle assemblages in dead wood logs: comparing window and eclector traps to traditional bark sieving and a refinement. J. Insect Conserv. 11(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9012-2 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Økland, B. A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. Eur. J. Entomol. 93, 195–209 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Quinto, J., Marcos-García, M. D. L. Á., Brustel, H., Galante, E. & Micó, E. Effectiveness of three sampling methods to survey saproxylic beetle assemblages in mediterranean Woodland. J. Insect Conserv. 17(4), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9559-7 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J. et al. Increasing temperature may compensate for lower amounts of dead wood in driving richness of saproxylic beetles. Ecography 38(5), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00908 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schiegg, K. Are there saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity?. Ecography 23, 579–587 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouget, C., Larrieu, L., Nusillard, B. & Parmain, G. In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 22(9), 2111–2130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0531-3 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brunet, J. & Isacsson, G. Restoration of beech forest for saproxylic beetles—effects of habitat fragmentation and substrate density on species diversity and distribution. Biodivers. Conserv. 18(9), 2387–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9595-5 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eckelt, A. et al. “Primeval forest relict beetles” of central Europe: a set of 168 umbrella species for the protection of primeval forest remnants. J. Insect Conserv. 22(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-017-0028-6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Speight, M. C. D. (1989). Saproxylic Invertebrates and Their Conservation. Saproxylic Invertebrates and Their Conservation, Vol. 42, Nature and Environmental Series, Strasbourg, 81.Gustafsson, L. et al. Research on retention forestry in northern Europe. Ecol. Process. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0208-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zumr, V. & Remeš, J. Saproxylic beetles as an indicator of forest biodiversity and the influence of forest management on their crucial life attributes: review. Rep. For. Res. 65, 242–257 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bouget, C. & Duelli, P. The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol. Cons. 118(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gran, O. & Götmark, F. Long-term experimental management in Swedish mixed oak-rich forests has a positive effect on saproxylic beetles after 10 years. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 1451–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01736-5 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. & Storch, D. Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13059 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J., Engel, H. & Blaschke, M. Assemblages of wood-inhabiting fungi related to silvicultural management intensity in beech forests in southern Germany. Eur. J. For. Res. 126(4), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-007-0173-7 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friess, N. et al. Arthropod communities in fungal fruitbodies are weakly structured by climate and biogeography across European beech forests. Divers. Distrib. 25(5), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12882 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brin, A., Brustel, H. & Jactel, H. Species variables or environmental variables as indicators of forest biodiversity: a case study using saproxylic beetles in maritime pine plantations. Ann. For. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2009009 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J. & Bütler, R. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in european forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 129(6), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alencar, J. B. R., Fonseca, C. R. V., Marra, D. M. & Baccaro, F. B. Windthrows promote higher diversity of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera: Passalidae) in a central Amazon forest. Insect Conserv. Divers. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12523 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Audisio, P. et al. Preliminary re-examination of genus-level taxonomy of the pollen beetle subfamily Meligethinae (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 49(2), 341–504 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M., Stefańska, J. Chrząszcze – Coleoptera. Ryjkowce – Curculionidae, Część 1. Katalog Fauny Polski Vol. XXIII, no, 19 Warszawa.Laibner, S. Elateridae of the Czech and Slovak Republics (Kabourek, Zlín, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Frank, T. & Reichhart, B. Staphylinidae and Carabidae overwintering in wheat and sown wildflower areas of different age. Bull. Entomol. Res. 94(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1079/BER2004301 (2004).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herrmann, S., Kahl, T. & Bauhus, J. Decomposition dynamics of coarse woody debris of three important central European tree species. For. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0052-5 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hararuk, O., Kurz, W. A. & Didion, M. Dynamics of dead wood decay in swiss forests. For. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-020-00248-x (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jonsell, M., Weslien, J. & Ehnström, B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 7(6), 749–764. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008888319031 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bobiec, A. (ed.) The After Life of a Tree 252 (Warsawa, WWF Poland, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Gossner, M. M. et al. Deadwood enrichment in European forests – which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity?. Biol. Cons. 201, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.032 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, S. et al. Optimizing enrichment of deadwood for biodiversity by varying sun exposure and tree species: an experimental approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 57(10), 2075–2085. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13648 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gough, L. A. et al. Specialists in ancient trees are more affected by climate than generalists. Ecol. Evol. 5(23), 5632–5641. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1799 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koch Widerberg, M., Ranius, T., Drobyshev, I., Nilsson, U. & Lindbladh, M. Increased openness around retained oaks increases species richness of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers. Conserv. 21(12), 3035–3059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0353-8 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horák, J., Pavlíček, J., Kout, J. & Halda, J. P. Winners and losers in the wilderness: response of biodiversity to the abandonment of ancient forest pastures. Biodivers. Conserv. 27(11), 3019–3029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1585-z (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vandekerkhove, K. et al. Saproxylic beetles in non-intervention and coppice-with-standards restoration management in meerdaal forest (Belgium): an exploratory analysis. IFor. Biogeosci. For. 9(4), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1841-009 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lachat, T. et al. Saproxylic beetles as indicator species for dead-wood amount and temperature in European beech forests. Ecol. Ind. 23, 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.013 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, J. et al. Primary determinants of communities in deadwood vary among taxa but are regionally consistent. Oikos 129(10), 1579–1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07335 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Černecká, Ľ, Mihál, I., Gajdoš, P. & Jarčuška, B. The effect of canopy openness of European beech (Fagus Sylvatica) forests on ground-dwelling spider communities. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12380 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spitzer, L. et al. Does closure of traditionally managed open woodlands threaten epigeic invertebrates? Effects of coppicing and high deer densities. Biol. Cons. 141(3), 827–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.01.005 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Podrázský, V., Remeš, J. & Farkač, J. Složení společenstev střevlíkovitých brouků (Coleoptera: Carabidae) v lesních porostech s různou druhovou strukturou a systémem hospodaření. Zpr. Lesn. Výzk. 55, 10–15 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Welti, E. A. R. et al. Temperature drives variation in flying insect biomass across a german malaise trap network. Insect Conserv. Divers. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12555 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brang, P. et al. Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change. Forestry 87(4), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu018 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schall, P. et al. The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 55(1), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12950 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leidinger, J. et al. Shifting tree species composition affects biodiversity of multiple taxa in central European forests. For. Ecol. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119552 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, M. et al. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus Sylvatica) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 210(1–3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.032 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Plieninger, T. et al. Wood-pastures of Europe: geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol. Cons. 190, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiss, M. et al. The effect of coppicing on insect biodiversity. Small-scale mosaics of successional stages drive community turnover. For. Ecol. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118774 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Webb, T. J., vanden Berghe, E. & O’Dor, R. Biodiversity’s big wet secret: The global distribution of marine biological records reveals chronic under-exploration of the deep pelagic ocean. PLoS ONE 5, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010223 (2010).Drazen, J. C. & Sutton, T. T. Dining in the Deep: The Feeding Ecology of Deep-Sea Fishes. Annual Review of Marine Science 9, 337–366, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060543 (2017).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brierley, A. S. Diel vertical migration. Current Biology 24, R1074–R1076, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.08.054 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Irigoien, X. et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nature Communications 5, 10, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4271 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, T. R. et al. Quantifying carbon fluxes from primary production to mesopelagic fish using a simple food web model. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76, 690–701, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx234 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saba, G. K. et al. Toward a better understanding of fish-based contribution to ocean carbon flux. Limnology and Oceanography 66, 1639–1664, https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11709 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koslow, J. A., Kloser, R. J. & Williams, A. Pelagic biomass and community structure over the mid-continental slope off southeastern Australia based upon acoustic and midwater trawl sampling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 146, 21–35, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps146021 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaartvedt, S., Staby, A. & Aksnes, D. L. Efficient trawl avoidance by mesopelagic fishes causes large underestimation of their biomass. Marine Ecology Progress Series 456, 1–6, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09785 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehodey, P., Murtugudde, R. & Senina, I. Bridging the gap from ocean models to population dynamics of large marine predators: A model of mid-trophic functional groups. Progress in Oceanography 84, 69–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2009.09.008 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van de Putte, A., Flores, H., Volckaert, F. & van Franeker, J. A. Energy content of Antarctic mesopelagic fishes: Implications for the marine food web. Polar Biology 29, 1045–1051, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0148-z (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stowasser, G. et al. Food web dynamics in the Scotia Sea in summer: A stable isotope study. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 59, 208–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2011.08.004 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCormack, S. A. et al. Decades of dietary data demonstrate regional food web structures in the Southern Ocean. Ecology and Evolution 11, 227–241, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7017 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Griffiths, S. P., Olson, R. J. & Watters, G. M. Complex wasp-waist regulation of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 23, 459–475, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-012-9301-7 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunders, R. A., Hill, S. L., Tarling, G. A. & Murphy, E. J. Myctophid Fish (Family Myctophidae) Are Central Consumers in the Food Web of the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean). Frontiers in Marine Science 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00530 (2019).Dornan, T., Fielding, S., Saunders, R. A. & Genner, M. J. Swimbladder morphology masks Southern Ocean mesopelagic fish biomass. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 286, 8, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0353 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freer, J. J., Tarling, G. A., Collins, M. A., Partridge, J. C. & Genner, M. J. Predicting future distributions of lanternfish, a significant ecological resource within the Southern Ocean. Diversity and Distributions 25, 1259–1272, https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12934 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hidalgo, M. & Browman, H. I. Developing the knowledge base needed to sustainably manage mesopelagic resources Introduction. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76, 609–615, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz067 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proud, R. et al. From siphonophores to deep scattering layers: Uncertainty ranges for the estimation of global mesopelagic fish biomass. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76, 718–733, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy037 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caccavo, J. A. et al. Productivity and Change in Fish and Squid in the Southern Ocean. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.624918 (2021).Davison, P., Lara-Lopez, A. & Anthony Koslow, J. Mesopelagic fish biomass in the southern California current ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 112, 129–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.10.007 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pakhomov, E. & Yamamura, O. Report of the Advisory Panel on Micronekton Sampling Inter-calibration Experiment. Tech. Rep., PICES (2010).Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10, 235–251, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunders, R. A. & Tarling, G. A. Southern Ocean Mesopelagic Fish Comply with Bergmann’s Rule. American Naturalist 191, 343–351, https://doi.org/10.1086/695767 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proud, R., Cox, M. J. & Brierley, A. S. Biogeography of the Global Ocean’s Mesopelagic Zone. Current Biology 27, 113–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.11.003 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Robison, B. H. Conservation of Deep Pelagic Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 23, 847–858, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01219.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Constable, A. J. et al. Developing priority variables (“ecosystem Essential Ocean Variables” – eEOVs) for observing dynamics and change in Southern Ocean ecosystems. Journal of Marine Systems 161, 26–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.05.003 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
St John, M. A. et al. A Dark Hole in Our Understanding of Marine Ecosystems and Their Services: Perspectives from the Mesopelagic Community. Frontiers in Marine Science 3, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00031 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newman, L. et al. Delivering Sustained, Coordinated, and Integrated Observations of the Southern Ocean for Global Impact. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00433 (2019).Costello, M. J. & Vanden Berghe, E. ‘Ocean biodiversity informatics’: a new era in marine biology research and management. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316, 203–214, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps316203 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van de Putte, A. et al. From data to marine ecosystem assessments of the Southern Ocean, achievements, challenges, and lessons for the future. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.637063 (2021).Duhamel, G. et al. Biogeographic Patterns of Fish. In Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean, 328–362 (Scientific Committee of Antarctic Research, Cambridge, UK, 2014).Piatkowski, U., Rodhouse, P. G., White, M. G., Bone, D. G. & Symon, C. Nekton community of the Scotia Sea as sampled by the RMT-25 during the austral summer. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112, 13–28, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps112013 (1994).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, M. A. et al. Patterns in the distribution of myctophid fish in the northern Scotia Sea ecosystem. Polar Biology 31, 837–851, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-008-0423-2 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, M. A. et al. Latitudinal and bathymetric patterns in the distribution and abundance of mesopelagic fish in the Scotia Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 59, 189–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2011.07.003 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Loeb, V. J., Hofmann, E. E., Klinck, J. M., Holm-Hansen, O. & White, W. B. ENSO and variability of the Antarctic Peninsula pelagic marine ecosystem. Antarctic Science 21, 135–148, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954102008001636 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reiss, C. S. et al. Overwinter habitat selection by Antarctic krill under varying sea-ice conditions: implications for top predators and fishery management. Marine Ecology Progress Series 568, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12099 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flores, H. et al. Distribution, abundance and ecological relevance of pelagic fishes in the Lazarev Sea, Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367, 271–282, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07530 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flores, H. et al. Seasonal changes in the vertical distribution and community structure of Antarctic macrozooplankton and micronekton. Deep-Sea Research Part I-Oceanographic Research Papers 84, 127–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2013.11.001 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duhamel, G. The Pelagic Fish Community of the Polar Frontal Zone off the Kerguelen Islands. In Fishes of Antarctica, 63–74, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2157-0_5 (Springer, Milano, 1998).Duhamel, G., Koubbi, P. & Ravier, C. Day and night mesopelagic fish assemblages off the Kerguelen Islands (Southern Ocean). Polar Biology 23, 106–112, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003000050015 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duhamel, G., Gasco, N. & Davaine, P. Poissons des îles Kerguelen et Crozet: Guide régional de l’océan Austral (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, 2005).Trebilco, R. et al. Mesopelagic community struture on the southern Kerguelen Axis. In The Kerguelen Plateau: Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries, 49–54 (Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, 2019).Constable, A. J. & Swadling, K. M. Ecosystem drivers of food webs on the Kerguelen Axis of the Southern Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 174, 6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104790 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van de Putte, A. P., Jackson, G. D., Pakhomov, E., Flores, H. & Volckaert, F. A. M. Distribution of squid and fish in the pelagic zone of the Cosmonaut Sea and Prydz Bay region during the BROKE-West campaign. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 57, 956–967, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.02.015 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flynn, A. J. & Williams, A. Lanternfish (Pisces: Myctophidae) biomass distribution and oceanographic-topographic associations at Macquarie Island, Southern Ocean. Marine and Freshwater Research 63, 251–263, https://doi.org/10.1071/mf11163 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sutton, C. A., Kloser, R. J. & Gershwin, L. A. Micronekton in southeastern Australian and the Southern Ocean; A collation of the biomass, abundance, biodiversity and distribution data from CSIRO’s historical mesopelagic depth stratified new samples. CSIRO, Aust. http://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/365479?index=1 (2018).Gon, O. & Heemstra, P. C. Fishes of the Southern Ocean (J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa, 1990).Darwin Core Maintenance Group. List of Darwin Core terms (2021).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2021).Holstein, J. worms: Retrieving Aphia Information from World Register of Marine Species (2018).Bivand, R. et al. maptools: Tools for handling spatial objects. R package version 1.1-1 (2021).Orsi, A. H., Whitworth, T. & Nowlin, W. D. On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep-Sea Research Part I-Oceanographic Research Papers 42, 641–673, https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-0637(95)00021-w (1995).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Constable, A. J. et al. Climate change and Southern Ocean ecosystems I: how changes in physical habitats directly affect marine biota. Global Change Biology 20, 3004–3025, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12623 (2014).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woods, B. et al. Myctobase. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5590999 (2021).Saunders, R. A., Collins, M. A., Stowasser, G. & Tarling, G. A. Southern Ocean mesopelagic fish communities in the Scotia Sea are sustained by mass immigration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 569, 173–185, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12093 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Provoost, P. & Bosch, S. obistools: Tools for data enhancement and quality control (2021).Murphy, E. J. et al. Understanding the structure and functioning of polar pelagic ecosystems to predict the impacts of change, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1646 (2016).McCormack, S. A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Trebilco, R., Blanchard, J. L. & Constable, A. Alternative energy pathways in Southern Ocean food webs: Insights from a balanced model of Prydz Bay, Antarctica. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2019.07.001 (2020).Rodhouse, P. G. K. Role of squid in the Southern Ocean pelagic ecosystem and the possible consequences of climate change. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 95, 129–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.07.001 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
The MathWorks Inc., V.. MATLAB (2019).Potter, D. C., Lough, R. G., Perry, R. I. & Neilson, J. D. Comparison of the mocness and iygpt pelagic samplers for the capture of 0-group cod (gadus morhua) on georges bank. ICES Journal of Marine Science 46, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/46.2.121 (1990).Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R. & Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology 77, 802–813, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01390.x (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oppel, S. et al. Comparison of five modelling techniques to predict the spatial distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation 156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.013 (2012).McClatchie, S., Thorne, R. E., Grimes, P. & Hanchet, S. Ground truth and target identification for fisheries acoustics. Fisheries Research 47, 173–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-7836(00)00168-5 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, M., Piatkowski, U. & Saunders, R. A. Distribution of mesopelagic fish in the Scotia Sea from RMT25 and pelagic trawls deployed from RRS James Clark Ross and RRS John Biscoe, UK Polar Data Centre https://doi.org/10.5285/f4dfc0ee-4f61-47c5-a5a8-238e02ff2fdd (2021).Hoddell, R. J., Crossley, C., Hosie, G. & Williams, D. Fish and zooplankton from RMT-8 net hauls on the BROKE voyage. Australian Antarctic Data Centre https://doi.org/10.4225/15/57BA97EA8A22D (2016).Constable, A., Williams, D. & Lamb, T. Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Marine Ecosystem. Australian Antarctic Data Centre https://doi.org/10.4225/15/5b31be45e8977 (2018).Van de Putte, A. Fish catches from Rectangular Midwater Trawl – data collected from the BROKE-West voyage of the Aurora Australis, 2006. Australian Antarctic Data Centre https://doi.org/10.4225/15/598d453109182 (2010).Flynn, A. J., Kloser, R. J. & Sutton, C. Micronekton assemblages and bioregional setting of the Great Australian Bight: A temperate northern boundary current system. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 157–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2018.08.006 (2018).Oozeki, Y., Hu, F., Tomatsu, C. & Kubota, H. Development of a new multiple sampling trawl with autonomous opening/closing net control system for sampling juvenile pelagic fish. Deep-Sea Research Part I-Oceanographic Research Papers 61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2011.12.001 (2012). More

Climate driversTo explore the impact of climate on forest resilience (see the following sections), we used monthly averaged total precipitation, 2-m air temperature, evapotranspiration deficit and surface solar radiation downwards acquired from the ERA5-Land reanalysis product at 0.1° spatial resolution for the 2000–2020 period (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home). Evapotranspiration deficit was quantified as the total precipitation minus evapotranspiration. In this study, we referred to climate regions as defined by the Köppen–Geiger world map of climate classification51 (http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/present.htm). The original 31 climatic zones were merged into major zones and only those characterized by vegetation cover were included in our study (tropical, arid, temperate and boreal; Extended Data Fig. 8).Vegetation dynamicsNDVI data acquired from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard the Terra satellite was used to derive changes in global vegetation for the period 2000–2020. We used cloud-free spatial composites provided at 16-day temporal resolution and 0.05° spatial resolution (MOD13C1 Version 6; https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod13c1v006/) and retained only pixels with good and marginal overall quality. The MODIS-derived NDVI dataset represents a state-of-the-art product of vegetation state whose retrieval algorithm is constantly improved52, and being derived from a unique platform and sensor, it is temporally and spatially consistent. Vegetation dynamics were analysed in terms of kNDVI, a nonlinear generalization of the NDVI based on ref. 22 and derived as follows:$$text{kNDVI=}tanh left({text{NDVI}}^{2}right)$$
(1)
kNDVI has recently been proposed as a strong proxy for ecosystem productivity that shows high correlations with both plot level measurements of primary productivity and satellite retrievals of sun-induced fluorescence22. In addition, kNDVI has been documented to be more closely related to primary productivity, to be resistant to saturation, bias and complex phenological cycles, and to show enhanced robustness to noise and stability across spatial and temporal scales compared to alternative products (for example, NDVI and near-infrared reflectance of vegetation). For these reasons, it has been retained in this study as the preferred metric to describe the state of the forest ecosystem.To obtain an accurate estimate of resilience indicators, vegetation time series need to be stationary without seasonal periodic patterns or long-term trends53. To this aim, vegetation anomalies were obtained from kNDVI data by first subtracting the multi-year 16-day sample mean and then removing linear trends from the resulting time series. Missing data, due for instance to snow cover affecting the retrieval of reflectance properties, have been gap-filled by climatological kNDVI values. The time series of kNDVI-based vegetation anomalies was used to derive resilience indicators and assess their spatial and temporal variations (see next sections).Interannual changes in vegetation were assessed in terms of growing-season-averaged kNDVI. To this end, a climatological growing season that spanned months with at least 75% of days in the greenness phase was derived from the Vegetation Index and Phenology satellite-based product54 (https://vip.arizona.edu/) and acquired for the 2000–2016 period at 0.05° spatial resolution. In addition, forest cover (FC) fraction was derived from the annual land-cover maps of the European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative (https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/)55 over the 2000–2018 period at 300-m spatial resolution. FC was retrieved by summing the fraction of broadleaved deciduous, broadleaved evergreen, needle leaf deciduous and needle leaf evergreen forest. FC was resampled to 0.05° to match the kNDVI spatial resolution.Spatial patterns of slowness and its dependence on environmental factorsIn this study, we quantified the resilience of forest ecosystems—their ability to recover from external perturbations—by the use of the 1-lag TAC (refs. 3,4,5). Such an indicator was initially computed on the whole time series of vegetation anomalies (2000–2020) for forest pixels with less than 50% missing data in the original NDVI and FC greater than 0.05 and referred to in the text as long-term TAC. This analysis was used to assess the spatial patterns of the forest slowness mediated by environmental factors that affect plant growth rates and capacity to recover from perturbations. The long-term TAC was explored both in the geographic and climate space (Extended Data Fig. 1). In the climate space, long-term TAC was binned in a 50 × 50 grid as a function of average annual precipitation and temperature, both computed over the 2000–2020 period, using the average as an aggregation metric weighted by the areal extents of each record. We retained only bins with at least 50 records.To explore the potential drivers of long-term TAC, we developed an RF regression model23 and predicted the observed long-term TAC (response variable) based on a set of environmental features (predictors). The use of machine learning in general and of RF in particular, being nonparametric and nonlinear data-driven methods, does not require a priori assumptions about the functional form relating the key drivers and the response functions. The environmental variables include vegetation properties (FC and growing-season-averaged kNDVI) and climate variables (total precipitation, 2-m air temperature, evapotranspiration deficit and surface solar radiation downwards). Each of the climate variables was expressed in terms of average, coefficient of variation and 1-lag autocorrelation and resampled to 0.05° spatial resolution to match the spatial resolution of kNDVI. All environmental variables were computed annually and then averaged over time, except the autocorrelation that was computed directly for the whole period, analogously to the long-term TAC. This resulted in a set of 14 predictors representing the forest density, the background climate, the climate variability and its TAC in the observational period (Extended Data Table 1). The RF model was developed by splitting the observed long-term TAC into two separate samples: 60% of records were used for model calibration, and the remaining 40% were used to validate model performances in terms of coefficient of determination (R2), mean squared error and percentage bias (PBIAS). Each record refers to a 0.05° pixel. The RF implemented here uses 100 regression trees, whose depth and number of predictors to sample at each node were identified using Bayesian optimization. The general model formulation is as follows:$$text{TAC},=,fleft(Xright)+{varepsilon }_{{rm{f}}}$$
(2)
in which f is the RF regression model, X are the environmental predictors and εf are the residuals. We found that the model explains 87% of the spatial variance (R2) of the observed long-term TAC with a mean squared error of 0.007 and an average overestimation of 0.058 (PBIAS; Extended Data Fig. 2a). By definition, machine learning methods are not based on the mechanistic representation of the phenomena and therefore cannot provide direct information on the underlying processes influencing the system response to drivers. However, some model-agnostic methods can be applied to gain insights into the outputs of RF models. Here we used variable importance metrics to quantify and rank how individual environmental factors influence TAC (Extended Data Fig. 2b). Furthermore, using partial dependence plots derived from the machine learning algorithm RF, we explored the ecosystem response function (TAC) across gradients of vegetation and climate features (Supplementary Discussion 1 and Extended Data Fig. 2c–f).CSD indicatorsTo explore the temporal variation in forest resilience, we used CSD indicators, here quantified in terms of temporal changes in TAC retrieved for two consecutive and independent periods ranging from 2000 to 2010 and from 2011 to 2020, and assessed the significance of the change in the sampled mean aggregated for different climate regions through a two-sided t-test (Fig. 1c). This analysis was complemented by the computation of TAC on the annual scale over a 2-year lagged temporal window (3-year window size) to track the temporal changes in CSD. This resulted in a time series of TAC with an annual time step.We point out that temporal dynamics of annual TAC are driven by two processes: the changes in the resilience of the system that affect the velocity of the recovery from external perturbations and the confounding effects of the changes in autocorrelation of the climate drivers (Xac) that directly affect the autocorrelation of NDVI. Given the specific goals of this study, we factored out the second process from the total TAC signal to avoid that an increasing autocorrelation in the drivers would affect our analysis and conclusions about the resilience and the potential increase in instability56. For this purpose, we disentangled the temporal changes in TAC due to variations in autocorrelation in the climate drivers (({rm{TAC}}| {X}_{{rm{ac}}})) by adopting the space-for-time analogy and applied the RF model (f) at an annual time step (t) in a set of factorial simulations as follows:$${text{TAC}}^{t},{rm{| }},{X}_{{rm{ac}}}=fleft({X}^{t}right)-fleft({X}_{-{rm{ac}}}^{t},{X}_{{rm{ac}}}^{2000}right)$$
(3)
The first term on the right side of equation (3) is the RF model simulation obtained by accounting for the dynamics of all predictors, and the second term is the RF model simulation generated by considering all predictors dynamic except the factors of autocorrelation in climate that are kept constant to their first-year value (year 2000). For such runs, we used predictors computed on an annual scale over a 2-year lagged temporal window, consistently to the TAC time series. We found that the direct effects of autocorrelation in climate have led to a positive trend of TAC in dry zones (due to the increasing autocorrelation of the drivers in these regions) and to an opposite effect in temperate humid forests (Supplementary Fig. 3). To remove these confounding effects, the estimated term ({{rm{TAC}}}^{t}| {X}_{{rm{ac}}}) is factored out from the TACt by subtraction to derive an enhanced estimate of annual resilience that is independent of autocorrelation in climate (Extended Data Fig. 3).Long-term linear trends computed on the resulting enhanced TAC time series (δTAC) represent our reference CSD indicator used in this study to explore the changes in forest resilience. δTAC was quantified for each grid cell (Fig. 1a) and represented in the climate space following the methodology previously described (Fig. 1b). We then assessed the significance of the trends at bin level by applying a two-sided t-test for the sampled trend distributions within each bin. This significance test is independent from the structural temporal dependencies originating from the use of a 2-year lagged temporal window to compute the TAC time series.Following an analogous approach described in equation (3), we disentangled the effect of the variation in forest density, background climate and climate variability on temporal changes in TAC (Fig. 1d,e). We recognize that other environmental factors not explicitly accounted for in our RF model could play a role in modulating the temporal variations in TAC. However, given the comprehensiveness of the suite of predictors used in equation (2) (Extended Data Table 1), it seems plausible that residuals mostly reflect the intrinsic forest resilience, the component intimately connected to the short-term responses of forests to perturbations, which is not directly related to climate variability. Forest ecosystem evolutionary processes could also play a role, but longer time series would be required to reliably capture these dynamics. Furthermore, abrupt declines (ADs) in the vegetation state and following recoveries, similarly to those potentially originating from forest disturbances (for example, wildfires and insect outbreaks), could influence the TAC changes. However, such occurrences, being distributed across the globe throughout the whole period, are expected to only marginally affect the resulting trend in TAC time series.Sensitivity analysisTo assess the robustness of our results with respect to the modelling choices described above, we performed a series of sensitivity analyses for the difference in TAC retrieved for the two independent periods (2000–2010 and 2011–2020). To this aim, we tested their dependence on: the quality flag of the NDVI data used for the analyses (good, good and marginal); the gap-filling procedure tested on different periods (year and growing season); the inclusion or exclusion of forest areas affected by ADs; the threshold on the maximum percentage of missing NDVI data allowed at the pixel level (20%, 50% and 80%); the threshold on the minimum percentage of FC allowed at the pixel level (5%, 50% and 90%); and the pixel spatial resolution used for the analyses (0.05°, 0.25° and 1°). In addition, we tested the sensitivity of the trend in total TAC signal on the moving temporal window length used to calculate autocorrelation at lag 1. Results obtained for the different configurations were compared in terms of frequency distributions, separately for climate regions (Extended Data Fig. 4), and further explored in the climate space (Extended Data Figs. 5 and 6). Outcomes of the sensitivity analysis are discussed in Supplementary Discussion 2.Interplay between GPP and CSDResilience and GPP interact with each other through mutual causal links. On one hand, a reduction in forest resilience makes the system more sensitive to perturbations with potential consequent losses in GPP (ref. 26). On the other hand, a reduction in GPP may lead to a decline in resilience according to the carbon starvation hypothesis, and may be associated with increasing hydraulic failure46. To explore the link between forest resilience and primary productivity, we quantified the correlation between TAC and GPP. Estimates of GPP were derived from the FluxCom Model Tree Ensemble for the 2001–2019 period at 8-daily temporal resolution and 0.0833° spatial resolution and generated using ecosystem GPP fluxes from the FLUXNET network and MODIS remote sensing data as predictor variables36 (http://www.fluxcom.org/). Annual maps of GPP were quantified and resampled to 0.05° to match the temporal and spatial resolution of TAC time series. The Spearman rank correlation (ρ) was then computed between annual GPP and TAC over a 1° spatial moving window to better sample the empirical distribution of the two variables (Fig. 2d). The significance of ρ(GPP,TAC) was assessed over the climate space separately for each bin (Fig. 2e), similarly to the approach used to test the significance of δTAC. Furthermore, we explored the relationships between the trend in GPP (δGPP) and the trend in TAC (δTAC) by clustering the globe according to the directions of the long-term trajectories of the above-mentioned variables (Fig. 2f).Disentangling the impact of forest managementTo characterize TAC on different forest types and disentangle the potential effects originating from forest management, results were separately analysed for intact forests and managed forests. Intact forests were considered those forest pixels constituting the Intact Forest Landscapes57 dataset (https://intactforests.org/). Intact Forest Landscapes identifies the forest extents with no sign of significant human activity over the period 2000–2016 based on Landsat time series. The remaining forests pixels—not labelled as intact—were considered as managed forests (Extended Data Fig. 8). The resulting forest type map is consistent with those used for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting58, although with more conservative estimates of intact forests in the boreal zone due to the masking based on FC and percentage of missing data applied in this study.We analysed the differences in long-term TAC (computed for the whole 2000–2020 period) between managed and intact forests by masking out the potential effect of climate background. To this aim, we compared the climate spaces generated separately for managed and intact forests by extracting only those bins that are covered by both forest classes. The resulting distributions—one for each forest class—have the same sample size, and each pair of elements shares the same climate background. Potential confounding environmental effects on average recovery rates are, therefore, minimized. We then applied a two-sided t-test for analysing the significance of the difference in the sampled means (Fig. 2a). An analogous approach was used to test the differences in δTAC and ρ(GPP,TAC) between managed and intact forests (Fig. 2b,c).Early-warning signals of abrupt forest declinesWhen forest ecosystems are subject to an extended and progressive degradation, the loss of resilience can lead to an AD (refs. 3,4,5). Such abrupt changes can trigger a regime shift (tipping point) depending on the capacity of the system to recover from the perturbations (Supplementary Methods 1 and 2). We investigated the potential of changes in TAC as early-warning signals of ADs in intact forests over the 2010–2020 period. To this aim, we quantified at the pixel level ADs as the events occurring on a certain year when the corresponding growing-season average kNDVI was more than n-times local standard deviation below the local mean. Local mean and standard deviation (σ) were computed over the 10-year antecedent temporal window (undisturbed) period and n varies between 1 and 6 with higher values reflecting more severe changes in the state of the system. For each pixel and for each fixed n value, we recorded only the first AD occurrence, thus imposing a univocal record for each abrupt change in the state of the system.We then explored whether the retrieved ADs were statistically associated with antecedent high values of δTAC. To avoid confusion with the attribution of causality, for each AD that occurred at time t (over the 2010–2020 period), we derived the δTAC over the temporal window 2000 − (t − 1). The resulting trend in δTAC is therefore antecedent and independent of the changes in vegetation associated with the AD. Then, for each pixel with an AD at time t, we also extracted randomly one of the undisturbed (with no AD) adjacent pixels and retrieved δTAC over the same temporal window. This analysis produced two distributions of δTAC associated with pixels with and without ADs (AD and no AD, respectively). The two distributions have the same size and each pair of elements shares similar background climate. We calculated the probability of occurrence of AD conditional on the trend in δTAC (({rm{AD}}| delta {rm{TAC}})) as the frequency of ADs for which (delta {rm{TAC}}left(mathrm{AD}right)| > delta {rm{TAC}}left(mathrm{no; AD}right)), and the significance of the difference in the two sampled means (AD and no AD) was evaluated through a two-sided t-test. Probability and significance were assessed for different climate regions and severity of ADs (Fig. 3a). High statistically significant probabilities suggest that the AD is following the drifting towards a critical resilience threshold plausibly associated with changes in environmental drivers.We complemented the aforementioned analyses by retrieving the tolerance and proximity to AD, hereafter determined for a 3σ severity. We first quantified the TAC that proceeded the occurrence of an AD and followed a progressive loss of resilience as captured by positive δTAC. This value, hereafter referred to as abrupt decline temporal autocorrelation (TACAD), reflects the TAC threshold over which we observed an abrupt change in the forest state (Fig. 3b). The tolerance to AD was quantified as the difference between the local TACAD and the TAC value averaged over the 2000–2009 period to characterize the pre-disturbance conditions. The tolerance metric was explored across a gradient of aridity index59 (Fig. 3c).TACAD can be directly retrieved only on those forest pixels that have already experienced an AD. As a considerable fraction of undisturbed forests could potentially be close to their critical TAC threshold, or even have already passed it, it is important to determine their TACAD. To this aim, we developed an RF regression model that expresses the TACAD as a function of the set X of environmental variables used in model f (equation (2)) but excluding the autocorrelation in climate drivers (Xreduced) already disentangled in the TAC signal. The general formulation is as follows:$${{rm{TAC}}}_{{rm{AD}}}=gleft({X}_{text{reduced}}right)+{varepsilon }_{{rm{g}}}$$
(4)
in which g is the RF regression model, Xreduced are the environmental predictors and εg are the residuals. Implementation, calibration and validation of g follow the same rationale described before for the f model. We found that the RF model explains 50% of the variance (R2) of the observed TACAD, with a mean squared error of 0.019 and an average underestimation of 0.86 (PBIAS).The RF model was then used to predict the TACAD over the whole domain of intact forests and served as input to quantify the proximity to AD of undisturbed forest pixels at the end of the observational period (year 2020). Here we defined the proximity metric as the difference between the value of TAC in 2020 and TACAD. Proximity takes negative or zero values when TACAD has already been reached (({{{rm{TAC}}}^{2020}ge {rm{TAC}}}_{{rm{AD}}})) and positive values when there are still margins before reaching the critical threshold (({{{rm{TAC}}}^{2020} < {rm{TAC}}}_{{rm{AD}}})). Together (delta {rm{TAC}} > 0) and ({{{rm{TAC}}}^{2020}ge {rm{TAC}}}_{{rm{AD}}}) therefore represent the most critical conditions, as they indicate that the critical resilience threshold for AD has already been reached and the ecosystem is continuing to lose its capacity to respond to external perturbations. We finally quantified the amount of GPP potentially exposed to such critical conditions by linearly extrapolating the GPP for the year 2020 (available GPP data stop in 2019) and overlaying it on the map of critical conditions (proximity to ({rm{AD}} < 0) and (delta {rm{TAC}} > 0)).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper. More

Darwin, C. On the various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and on the good effects of Intercrossing. (John Murray, 1862).Darwin, C. The various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects. Second edition, revised., (D. Appleton and Company, 1877).Sprengel, C. K. Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. (Vieweg, 1793).Müller, H. Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten (Verlag Von Wilhelm Englemann, 1873).Book 

Google Scholar 
Riley, C. V. The yucca moth and yucca pollination. Rep. Missouri Botan. Garden 3, 99–159 (1892).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faegri, K. & Van Der Pijl, L. Principles of Pollination Ecology 3rd edn. (Pergamon, Berlin, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Fenster, C. B., Armbruster, W. S., Wilson, P., Dudash, M. R. & Thomson, J. D. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Inouye, D. W. In The Biology of Nectaries (eds Elias, T. S. & Bentley, B. L.) 153–173 (Columbia University Press, 1983).
Google Scholar 
Irwin, R. E., Bronstein, J. L., Manson, J. S. & Richardson, L. Nectar robbing: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Irwin, R. E. & Maloof, J. E. Variation in nectar robbing over time, space, and species. Oecologia 133, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1060-z (2002).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maloof, J. E. & Inouye, D. W. Are nectar robbers cheaters or mutualists?. Ecology 81, 2651–2661. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2651:ANRCOM]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Inouye, D. W. The terminology of floral larceny. Ecology 61, 1251–1253. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936841 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyon, D. L. & Chadek, C. Exploitation of nectar resources by hummingbirds, bees (Bombus), and Diglossa baritula and Its role in the evolution of Penstemon kunthii. Condor 73, 246–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/1365847 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colwell, R. K., Betts, B. J., Bunnell, P., Carpenter, F. L. & Feinsinger, P. Competition for the nectar of Centropogon valerii by the hummingbird Colibri thalassinus and the flower-piercer Diglossa plumbea, and Its evolutionary implications. Condor 76, 447–452. https://doi.org/10.2307/1365817 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arizmendi, M. C., Dominguez, C. A. & Dirzo, R. The role of an avian nectar robber and of hummingbird pollinators in the reproduction of two plant species. Funct. Ecol. 10, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390270 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arizmendi, M. C. Multiple ecological interactions: Nectar robbers and hummingbirds in a highland forest in Mexico. Can. J. Zool. 79, 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-066 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Navarro, L. Pollination ecology and effect of nectar removal in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae)1. Biotropica 31, 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.1999.tb00410.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Traveset, A., Willson, M. F. & Sabag, C. Effect of nectar-robbing birds on fruit set of Fuchsia magellanica in Tierra Del Fuego: A disrupted mutualism. Funct. Ecol. 12, 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00212.x (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skutch, A. F. Life histories of Central American birds. Families Fringillidae, Thraupidae Parulidae and Coerebidae. Pacific Coast Avifauna 31, 1–448 (1954).
Google Scholar 
Vuilleumier, F. Systematics and evolution in Diglossa (Aves, Coerebidae). Am. Mus. Novit. 2381, 1–44 (1969).
Google Scholar 
Graves, G. R. Pollination of a Tristerix mistletoe (Loranthaceae) by Diglossa (Aves: Thraupidae). Biotropica 14, 315–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388094 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernández, H. M. & Toledo, V. M. The role of nectar robbers and pollinators in the reproduction of Erythrina leptorhiza. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 66, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.2307/2398843 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neill, D. A. Trapliners in the trees: Hummingbird pollination of Erythrina Sect Erythrina (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae). Ann. Missouri Botan. Garden 74, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2399259 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hazlehurst, J. A. & Karubian, J. O. Nectar robbing impacts pollinator behavior but not plant reproduction. Oikos 125, 1668–1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03195 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuta-Pineda, J. A., Arias-Sosa, L. A. & Pelayo, R. C. The flowerpiercers interactions with a community of high Andean plants. Avian Res. 12, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-021-00256-7 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Askins, R. A., Karen, M. E. & Jeffrey, D. W. Flower destruction and nectar depletion by avian nectar robbers on a tropical tree, Cordia sebestena. J. Field Ornithol. 58, 345–349 (1987).
Google Scholar 
McDade, L. A. & Kinsman, S. The impact of floral parasitism in two Neotropical hummingbird-pollinated plant species. Evolution 34, 944–958. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408000 (1980).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ingels, J. Observations of the hummingbirds Orthorhynchus cristatus and Eulampis jugularis of Martinique (West Indies). Gerfaut 66, 129–132 (1976).
Google Scholar 
Feinsinger, P., Beach, J. H., Linhart, Y. B., Busby, W. H. & Murray, K. G. Disturbance, pollinator predictability, and pollination success among Costa Rican cloud forest plants. Ecology 68, 1294–1305. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939214 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kodric-Brown, A., Brown, J. H., Byers, G. S. & Gori, D. F. Organization of a tropical island community of hummingbirds and flowers. Ecology 65, 1358–1368. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939116 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lara, C. & Ornelas, J. F. Preferential nectar robbing of flowers with long corollas: Experimental studies of two hummingbird species visiting three plant species. Oecologia 128, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100640 (2001).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hazlehurst, J. A. & Karubian, J. O. Impacts of nectar robbing on the foraging ecology of a territorial hummingbird. Behav. Proc. 149, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.01.001 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boehm, M. A. Biting the hand that feeds you: Wedge-billed hummingbird is a nectar robber of a sicklebill-adapted Andean bellflower. Acta Amazon. 48, 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201703932 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Igić, B., Nguyen, I. & Fenberg, P. B. Nectar robbing in the trainbearers (Lesbia, Trochilidae). PeerJ 8, e9561. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9561 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lunardi, V. D. O., Silva, É. E., Silva, S. T. A. & Lunardi, D. G. Handroanthus impetiginosus (Bignoniaceae) as an important floral resource for synanthropic birds in the Brazilian semiarid. Oecol. Austr. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2019.2301.12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Almeida, J. M., Missagia, C. C. C. & Alves, M. A. S. Effects of the availability of floral resources and neighboring plants on nectar robbery in a specialized pollination system. Curr. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoab083 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, M. C. & Valido, A. Opportunistic nectar-feeding birds are effective pollinators of bird-flowers from Canary Islands: experimental evidence from Isoplexis canariensis (Scrophulariaceae). Am. J. Bot. 95, 1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0800055 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lohmann, L. G. Untangling the phylogeny of neotropical lianas (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 93, 304–318. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.2.304 (2006).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Olmstead, R. G., Zjhra, M. L., Lohmann, L. G., Grose, S. O. & Eckert, A. J. A molecular phylogeny and classification of Bignoniaceae. Am. J. Bot. 96, 1731–1743. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900004 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lohmann, L. G. & Taylor, C. M. A new generic classification of tribe Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae). Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 99, 348–489. https://doi.org/10.3417/2003187 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gentry, A. H. Coevolutionary patterns in Central American bignoniaceae. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 61, 728–759. https://doi.org/10.2307/2395026 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. Floral biology, hummingbird pollination and fruit production of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans, Bignoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 69, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.2307/2442837 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. Paternity and fruit production in trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Am. Nat. 119, 694–709. https://doi.org/10.1086/283943 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. & Sullivan, M. Pollen interference and cryptic self-fertility in Campsis radicans. Am. J. Bot. 75, 1140–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1988.tb08827.x (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. Paternal success following mixed pollinations of Campsis radicans. Am. Midl. Nat. 124, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2426088 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. Effects of pollination intensity in Campsis radicans. Am. J. Bot. 77, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1990.tb13544.x (1990).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bertin, R. I. & Peters, P. J. Paternal effects on offspring quality in Campsis radicans. Am. Nat. 140, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1086/285408 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kartesz, J. T. Campsis radicans. Floristic Synthesis of North America, Version 1.0. Biota of North America Program (BONAP) http://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/Campsis%20radicans.png. (2015).Kolodziejska-Degorska, I. & Zych, M. Bees substitute birds in pollination of ornitogamous climber Campsis radicans [L.] Seem in Poland. Acta Soc. Botanicorum Poloniae 75, 79–85 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catesby, M. The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama islands. Volume 1. (Published by the author, 1731).Audubon, J. J. Ornithological Biography Vol. 3, 638 (Adam and Charles Black, 1835).
Google Scholar 
Audubon, J. J. Ruby-throated Hummingbird, plate CCLIII, The Birds of America Vol. 3 (Havell, 1835).
Google Scholar 
Nuttall, T. Manual of the Ornithology of the United States and of Canada. The Land Birds (Hilliard and Brown, 1832).
Google Scholar 
Stiles, F. G. & Freeman, C. E. Patterns in floral nectar characteristics of some bird-visited plant species from Costa Rica. Biotropica 25, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389183 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stiles, F. G. Ecology, flowering phenology, and hummingbird pollination of some Costa Rican Heliconia species. Ecology 56, 285–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934961 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDade, L. A. & Weeks, J. A. Nectar in hummingbird-pollinated Neotropical plants I: Patterns of production and variability in 12 species. Biotropica 36, 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2004.tb00312.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wunderle, J. M. Jr. Nectar robbing by Orchard Orioles. Chat 44, 107–108 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Tyler, W. M. in Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. Order Passeriformes: Families Ploceidae, Icteridae, and Thraupidae. United States National Museum Bulletin 211 (ed Arthur Cleveland Bent) 247–270 (United States Government Printing Office, 1958).George, F. W. Baltimore Orioles destroying trumpet vine blossoms. Wilson Bull. 46, 64 (1934).
Google Scholar 
Ridgway, R. The birds of North and Middle America, Part 2. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 50, 1–834 (1902).
Google Scholar 
Scharf, W. C. & Kren, J. In Birds of the World (ed. Poole, A. F.) (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Morton, E. S. Effective pollination of Erythrina fusca by the Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius): Coevolved behavioral manipulation?. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 66, 482–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2398840 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dickey, D. R. & van Rossem, A. J. The birds of El Salvador. Field Mus. Publ. Zool. 23, 1–609 (1938).
Google Scholar 
Baumel, J. J., King, A. S., Breazile, J. E., Evans, H. E. & Vanden Berge, J. C. (eds). Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium, Second Edition. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club no. 23 (Nuttall Ornithological Club, 1993).Beecher, W. J. Adaptations for food-getting in the American blackbirds. Auk 68, 411–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/4080840 (1951).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zusi, R. The role of the depressor mandibulae muscle in kinesis of the avian skull. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 123, 1–28 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Remsen, J. V. Jr. & Robinson, S. K. A classification scheme for foraging behavior of birds in terrestrial habitats. Stud. Avian Biol. 13, 144–160 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Skutch, A. F. Orioles, Blackbirds, and Their Kin (University of Arizona Press, 1996).
Google Scholar 
Hansell, M. P. Bird nests and Construction Behaviour 294 (Cambridge University Press, 2000).Book 

Google Scholar 
Bent, A. C. Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. Bull. U.S. Natl. Museum 211, 1–531 (1958).
Google Scholar 
Dennis, J. V. Observations on the orchard oriole in lower Mississippi Delta. Bird-Banding 19, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/4509997 (1948).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wunderle, J. M. & Lodge, D. J. The effect of age and visual cues on floral patch use by bananaquits (Aves: Emberizidae). Anim. Behav. 36, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80248-3 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edge, A. A. Characteristics of nectar production and standing crop in Campsis radicans (Bignoniaceae). MSc thesis. (East Tennessee State University, 2010).Galetto, L. Nectary structure and nectar characteristics in some Bignoniaceae. Plant Syst. Evol. 196, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985338 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elias, T. S. & Gelband, H. Nectar: Its production and functions in trumpet creeper. Science 189, 289–291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.189.4199.289 (1975).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Elias, T. S. & Gelband, H. Morphology and anatomy of floral and extrafloral nectaries in Campsis (Bignoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 63, 1349–1353. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1976.tb13220.x (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hermans, M. & Rasson, J. P. A new Sobolev test for uniformity on the circle. Biometrika 72, 698–702. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336748 (1985).MathSciNet 
Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Landler, L., Ruxton, G. D. & Malkemper, E. P. The Hermans-Rasson test as a powerful alternative to the Rayleigh test for circular statistics in biology. BMC Ecol. 19, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0246-8 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. PBC, Boston, MA http://www.rstudio.com/. (RStudio 2020).Beecher, W. J. Convergent evolution in the American orioles. Wilson Bulletin 62, 50–86 (1950).
Google Scholar 
Wolf, L. L., Hainsworth, F. R. & Stiles, F. G. Energetics of foraging: Rate and efficiency of nectar extraction by hummingbirds. Science 176, 1351–1352. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.176.4041.1351 (1972).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, L. L., Hainsworth, F. R. & Gill, F. B. Foraging efficiencies and time budgets in nectar-feeding birds. Ecology 56, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935304 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alcantara, S. & Lohmann, L. G. Evolution of floral morphology and pollination system in Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 97, 782–796. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900182 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gentry, A. H. Bignoniaceae: Part II (Tribe Tecomeae). Flora Neotrop. 25, 1–370 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Grant, V. Historical development of ornithophily in the western North American flora. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 91, 10407–10411. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.22.10407 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
James, R. L. Some hummingbird flowers east of the Mississippi. Castanea 13, 97–109 (1948).
Google Scholar 
Van Nest, B. N., Edge, A. A., Feathers, M. V., Worley, A. C. & Moore, D. Bees provide pollination service to Campsis radicans (Bignoniaceae), a primarily ornithophilous trumpet flowering vine. Ecol. Entomol. 46, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12947 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Orchard oriole Icterus spurius. BBS summer distribution map, 2011–2015 (relative abundance map). https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ra2015/ra2015_red_v3.shtml (accessed 7 March 2021) (2021). More

Relatively few studies try to understand the value of cultural heritage sites such as Nachi Falls, which is also a pilgrimage route in Japan’s Kii mountain range.Credit: James Fichera/Getty

There are more than 50 ways to value the environment, but most research and policymaking focuses on just a handful of methods. These include counting species and evaluating the cost of replacing a service provided by nature. Yet assessing nature in purely monetary terms can also be harmful to people and the environment, according to the world’s largest assessment of environmental valuation.“Policymaking largely disregards the multiple ways in which nature matters to people,” especially Indigenous people and low-income communities, says the report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).For example, in proposals for hydroelectric dams, the needs of affected communities are often seen as secondary to those of urban consumers — especially if communities are required to be displaced, resulting in people losing livelihoods and being compelled to change their way of life, the report finds.The world’s failure to properly value biodiversity has caused a long-term decline in a variety of services that the environment provides, said Anne Larigauderie, an ecologist who leads the IPBES secretariat, at the report’s launch on 11 July. “The capacity to pollinate crops, or regulate water, has been in decline for 50 years,” she said.There is strong evidence that valuing nature on the basis of market prices is contributing to the present biodiversity crisis, said Unai Pascual, an economist at the Basque Centre for Climate Change in Leioa, Spain, at the launch in Bonn, Germany. “Many other values are ignored in favour of short-term profit and economic growth,” added Pascual, who co-chaired the assessment.A summary for policymakers was approved by 139 governments on 8 July. The full assessment report is expected to be released ahead of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which takes place in Montreal in December. This meeting is expected to agree a new set of targets and indicators for biodiversity conservation.Studies of natureEighty-two researchers from around the world, with areas of expertise spanning the sciences, social sciences and humanities, identified 79,000 studies in environmental valuation, and found that their number has been increasing by 10% a year for four decades. But these studies also rarely lead to policy changes. The researchers selected 1,163 of the studies for in-depth review, and found that only for 5% of these cases were recommendations adopted by decision makers.Half of the studies selected for in-depth review used biophysical indicators, such as numbers of species, or quantity of forest biomass. Another 26% used monetary indicators, such as how much it would cost if pollination needed to be carried out by humans, or the amounts that governments pay farmers to conserve biodiversity on agricultural land.Only one-fifth of the studies valued biodiversity according to sociocultural criteria. Those that did included studies on the importance to people of a sacred site; and research on the value that someone attaches to the place where they grew up. Sociocultural values do not necessarily have a numerical quantity, or price tag. The value of sacred sites does not need to be turned into dollars, or euros, Sander Jacobs, one of the IPBES authors and an ecologist at the Research Institute of Nature and Forests in Brussels, said at the report’s launch.The report’s authors found that most studies do not consider multiple values, even when the evidence shows that doing so leads to better outcomes for the environment. The team found that few scientists consult or involve the people who live and work in regions of high biodiversity. Only 2% of the studies reviewed in depth reported having done so. And just 1% involved people in all the steps from designing a study to publishing it.“We need to build coalitions of scientists from different disciplines. But science needs allies too,” Pascual says. “Scientists need to be humble and invite those who represent other ways of knowing. Such a coalition could provide a solutions-oriented approach to the biodiversity and climate crises.” More