Ecology

Rundel, P. W., Graham, E. A., Allen, M. F., Fisher, J. C. & Harmon, T. C. New Phytol. 182, 589–607 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibb, R., Browning, E., Glover‐Kapfer, P. & Jones, K. E. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 169–185 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connell, A. F. (ed) Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses. Vol. 271 (Springer, 2011).Hale, R. C., Seeley, M. E., Guardia, M. J. L., Mai, L. & Zeng, E. Y. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 125, e2018JC014719 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M. & Böni, H. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 436–458 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hwang, S.-W. et al. Science 337, 1640–1644 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashammakhi, N. et al. Adv. Funct. Mater. 31, 2104149 (2021).Boutry, C. M. et al. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 47–57 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boutry, C. M. et al. Nat. Electron. 1, 314–321 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hori, K., Inami, A., Kan, T. & Onoe, H. In Proc. 21st International Conference on Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems (Transducers) 863–866 (IEEE, Orlando, 2021).Dincer, C. et al. Adv. Mater. 31, 1806739 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kocer, B. B. et al. In Proc. Aerial Robotic Systems Physically Interacting with the Environment (AIRPHARO) 1–8 (IEEE, Biograd na Moru, 2021).Pandolfi, C. & Izzo, D. Bioinspir. Biomim. 8, 025003 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiesemüller, F., Miriyev, A. & Kovac, M. In Proc. Aerial Robotic Systems Physically Interacting with the Environment (AIRPHARO) 1–6 (IEEE, Biograd na Moru, 2021).Boutry, C. M. et al. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 189, 344–355 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsang, M., Armutlulu, A., Martinez, A. W., Allen, S. A. B. & Allen, M. G. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 1, 15024 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, G. et al. Adv. Energy Mater. 7, 1700157 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagdeviren, C. et al. Small 9, 3398–3404 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sadasivuni, K. K. et al. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 30, 951–974 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Luvisi, A., Panattoni, A. & Materazzi, A. Comput. Electron. Agric. 123, 135–141 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yin, L. et al. Adv. Mater. 26, 3879–3884 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Demetillo, A. T., Japitana, M. V. & Taboada, E. B. Sustain. Environ. Res. 29, 12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvatore, G. A. et al. Adv. Funct. Mater. 27, 1702390 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farinha, A., Zufferey, R., Zheng, P., Armanini, S. F. & Kovac, M. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5, 6623–6630 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miriyev, A. & Kovač, M. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 658–660 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kang, S.-K., Koo, J., Lee, Y. K. & Rogers, J. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 51, 988–998 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goel, V., Luthra, P., Kapur, G. S. & Ramakumar, S. S. V. J. Polym. Environ. 29, 3079–3104 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, H. T. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (IPBES, 2019).Tingley, M. W., Monahan, W. B., Beissinger, S. R. & Moritz, C. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106(Suppl 2), 19637–19643 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8606–8611 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K. & Edwards, D. P. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 623–626 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Viana, D. S. & Chase, J. M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01814-y (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sauer, J. R. et al. Condor 119, 576–593 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowak, L., Schleuning, M., Bender, I. M. A., Kissling, W. D. & Fritz, S. A. Divers. Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13518 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, C. D. et al. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 660–684 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janis, C. M., Damuth, J. & Theodor, J. M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 7899–7904 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stuart-Smith, R. D., Mellin, C., Bates, A. E. & Edgar, G. J. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 656–662 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watanabe, Y. Y. Ecol. Lett. 19, 907–914 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bladon, A. J. et al. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 2440–2450 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Claramunt, S., Hong, M. & Bravo, A. Biotropica https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13109 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zurell, D., Gallien, L., Graham, C. H. & Zimmermann, N. E. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1459–1468 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, D. E., Heldbjerg, H., Fox, A. D., O’Hara, R. B. & Böhning-Gaese, K. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 1034–1045 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Cardillo, M., Rosauer, D. F. & Bolnick, D. I. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 572–580 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez, C., Tenorio, E. A., Montoya, P. & Cadena, C. D. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 283, 20152458 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L. & Sutherland, W. J. Bioscience 66, 393–400 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Howard, C. et al. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1442–1455 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Banks, N. C., Paini, D. R., Bayliss, K. L. & Hodda, M. The role of global trade and transport network topology in the human-mediated dispersal of alien species. Ecol. Lett. 18, 188–199 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Epanchin-Niell, R. et al. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 210–216 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Charles, H. & Dukes, J. S. in Biological Invasions (ed. Nentwig, W.) 217–237 (Springer, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36920-2_13Gallardo, B., Clavero, M., Sánchez, M. & Vilà, M. Global ecological impacts of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 151–163 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592, 571–576 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sardain, A., Sardain, E. & Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat. Sustain. 2, 274–282 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Hastings, A. Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol. Lett. 13, 528–541 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Chades, I. et al. General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8323–8328 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Wilen, J. E. Optimal spatial control of biological invasions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63, 260–270 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Wilen, J. E. Individual and cooperative management of invasive species in human-mediated landscapes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97, 180–198 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Aadland, D., Sims, C. & Finnoff, D. Spatial dynamics of optimal management in bioeconomic systems. Comput. Econ. 45, 545–577 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Baker, C. M. Target the source: optimal spatiotemporal resource allocation for invasive species control. Conserv. Lett. 10, 41–48 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bushaj, S., Büyüktahtakın, İ. E., Yemshanov, D. & Haight, R. G. Optimizing surveillance and management of emerald ash borer in urban environments. Nat. Res. Model. 34, e12267 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Fischer, S. M., Beck, M., Herborg, L.-M. & Lewis, M. A. Managing aquatic invasions: optimal locations and operating times for watercraft inspection stations. J. Environ. Manag. 283, 111923 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Büyüktahtakın, İ. E. & Haight, R. G. A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 271, 357–403 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biol. Invasions 19, 3333–3354 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bodin, Ö. et al. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2, 551–559 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nowzari, C., Precaido, V. M. & Pappas, G. J. Analysis and control of epidemics: a survey of spreading processes on complex networks. IEEE Control Syst. 36, 26–46 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Newman, M. E. J. Spread of epidemic disease on networks. Phys. Rev. E 66, 016128 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J. & Tardos, E. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proc. 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 137–146 (ACM Press, 2003).Pastor-Satorras, R. & Vespignani, A. Immunization of complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 65, 036104 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic processes in complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 925–979 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Holme, P., Kim, B. J., Yoon, C. N. & Han, S. K. Attack vulnerability of complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 65, 056109 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Muirhead, J. R. & Macisaac, H. J. Development of inland lakes as hubs in an invasion network. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 80–90 (2005).
Google Scholar 
de la Fuente, B., Saura, S. & Beck, P. S. Predicting the spread of an invasive tree pest: the pine wood nematode in southern europe. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2374–2385 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Minor, E. S. & Urban, D. L. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 22, 297–307 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Morel-Journel, T., Assa, C. R., Mailleret, L. & Vercken, E. Its all about connections: hubs and invasion in habitat networks. Ecol. Lett. 22, 313–321 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Perry, G. L. W., Moloney, K. A. & Etherington, T. R. Using network connectivity to prioritise sites for the control of invasive species. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1238–1250 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kvistad, J. T., Chadderton, W. L. & Bossenbroek, J. M. Network centrality as a potential method for prioritizing ports for aquatic invasive species surveillance and response in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Manag. Biol. Invasions 10, 403 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Haight, R. G., Kinsley, A. C., Kao, S.-Y., Yemshanov, D. & Phelps, N. B. Optimizing the location of watercraft inspection stations to slow the spread of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Invasions 23, 3907–3919 (2021).
Google Scholar 
McEachran, M. C. et al. Stable isotopes indicate that zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) increase dependence of lake food webs on littoral energy sources. Freshw, Biol. 64, 183–196 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karatayev, A. Y., Burlakova, L. E. & Padilla, D. K. in Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management (eds Leppäkoski, E. et al.) 433–446 (Springer, 2002).Prescott, T. H., Claudi, R. & Prescott, K. L. Impact of Dreissenid mussels on the infrastructure of dams and hydroelectric power plants. In Quagga and Zebra Mussels (eds Nalepa, T. F. & Schloesser, D. W.) 243–258 (CRC Press, 2013).Invasive Species of Aquatic Plants and Wild Animals in Minnesota: Annual Report for 2020 (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2020).Kanankege, K. S., Alkhamis, M. A., Phelps, N. B. & Perez, A. M. A probability co-kriging model to account for reporting bias and recognize areas at high risk for zebra mussels and eurasian watermilfoil invasions in Minnesota. Front. Vet. Sci. 4, 231 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mallez, S. & McCartney, M. Dispersal mechanisms for zebra mussels: population genetics supports clustered invasions over spread from hub lakes in Minnesota. Biol. Invasions 20, 2461–2484 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kao, S.-Y. Z. et al. Network connectivity of Minnesota waterbodies and implications for aquatic invasive species prevention. Biol. Invasions 23, 3231–3242 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kleinberg, J. M. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. In Proc. 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 668–677 (1998).McDonald-Madden, E. et al. Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10245 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bossenbroek, J. M., Kraft, C. E. & Nekola, J. C. Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol. Appl. 11, 1778–1788 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Leung, B., Bossenbroek, J. M. & Lodge, D. M. Boats, pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal potential with gravity models. Biol. Invasions 8, 241–254 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Beger, M. et al. Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives into national policy. Nat. Commun. 6, 8208 (2015).Runting, R. K. et al. Larger gains from improved management over sparing–sharing for tropical forests. Nat. Sustain. 2, 53–61 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kinsley, A. C. et al. AIS Explorer: prioritization for watercraft inspections. A decision-support tool for aquatic invasive species management. J. Environ. Manage. 314, 115037 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Vander Zanden, M. J. & Olden, J. D. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1512–1522 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Kanankege, K. S. et al. Lessons learned from the stakeholder engagement in research: application of spatial analytical tools in one health problems. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 254 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kroetz, K. & Sanchirico, J. The bioeconomics of spatial-dynamic systems in natural resource management. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7, 189–207 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Cade, B. S. & Noon, B. R. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 412–420 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Koenker, R. in Asymptotic Statistics (eds Mandl, P. & Hušková, M.) 349–359 (Springer, 1994).Ashander, J. Analysis code and data for ‘Guiding large-scale management of invasive species using network metrics’. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14402447 (2021). More

Climate and land cover dataOur study of tropical dry season dynamics required climatic variables with high temporal resolution (i.e., daily) and full coverage of tropic regions. To reduce uncertainties associated with the choice of precipitation (P) and evapotranspiration (Ep or E) datasets, we used an ensemble of eight precipitation products, three reanalysis-based products for Ep, and one satellite-based land E product. These precipitation datasets were derived four gauge-based or satellite observation (CHIRPS58, GPCC59, CPC-U60 and PERSIANN-CDR61), three reanalyses (ERA-562, MERRA-263, and PGF64) and a multi-source weighted ensemble product (MSWEP v2.865). The potential evapotranspiration (Ep) was calculated using the FAO Penman–Monteith equation66 (Eqs. (1, 2)), which requires meteorological inputs of wind speed, net radiation, air temperature, specific humidity, and surface pressure. We derived these meteorological variables from the three reanalysis products (ERA-5, MERRA-2, and GLDAS-2.067). Since PGF reanalysis lacked upward short- and long-wave radiation output and thus net radiation, we used available meteorological outputs from GLDAS-2.0 instead, which was forced entirely with the PGF input data.$${Ep}=frac{0.408cdot triangle cdot left({R}_{n}-Gright)+gamma cdot frac{900}{T+273}cdot {u}_{2}cdot left({e}_{s}-{e}_{a}right)}{triangle +{{{{{rm{gamma }}}}}}cdot left(1+0.34cdot {u}_{2}right)}$$
(1)
$${VPD}={e}_{s}-{e}_{a}=0.6108cdot {e}^{frac{17.27cdot T}{T+237.3}}cdot left(1-frac{{RH}}{100}right)$$
(2)
Where Ep is the potential evapotranspiration (mm day−1). Rn is net radiation at the surface (MJ m−2 day−1), T is mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (°C), ({u}_{2}) is wind speed at 2 m height (m s−1), ((,{e}_{s}-{e}_{a})) is the vapor pressure deficit of the air (kPa), ({RH}) is the relative air humidity near surface (%), ∆ is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure-temperature relationship (kPa °C−1), γ is the psychrometric constant (kPa °C−1), G is the soil heat flux (MJ m−2 day−1, is often ignored for daily time steps G ≈ 0).We derived the daily evapotranspiration data from the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM v3.3a68), which is a set of algorithms dedicated to developing terrestrial evaporation and root-zone soil moisture data. GLEAM fully assimilated the satellite-based soil moisture estimates from ESA CCI, microwave L-band vegetation optical depth (VOD), reanalysis-based temperature and radiation, and multi-source precipitation forcings. The direct assimilation of observed soil moisture allowed us to detect true soil moisture dynamic and its impacts on evapotranspiration. Besides, the incorporation of VOD, which is closely linked to vegetation water content69,70, allowed us to detect the effect of water stress, heat stress, and vegetation phenological constraints on evaporation. Other observation-driven ET products from remote-sensing physical estimation and flux-tower are not included due to their low temporal resolution (i.e., monthly)71 or short duration72,73. ET outputs of reanalysis products are not considered in our analysis, because the assimilation systems lack explicit representation of inter-annual variability of vegetation activities and thus may not fully capture hydrological response to vegetation changes62,63,67.We used land cover maps for the year 2001 from the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS, MCD12C1 C574) based on the IGBP classification scheme to exclude water-dominated and sparely-vegetated pixels (like Sahara, Arabian Peninsula). All climate and land cover datasets mentioned above were remapped to a common 0.25° × 0.25° grid and unified to daily resolution. The main characteristics of the datasets mentioned above are summarized in Supplementary Table 1.Outputs of CMIP6 simulationsTo understand how modeled dry season changes compare with observed changes, we analyzed outputs from the “historical” (1983-2014) runs of 34 coupled models participating in the 6th Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project75 (CMIP6, Supplementary Table 3). We used these models because they offered daily outputs of all climatic variables needed for our analysis, including precipitation, latent heat (convert to E), and multiple meteorological variables for Ep (air temperature, surface specific humidity, wind speed, and net radiation). All outputs were remapped to a common 1.0° × 1.0° grid and unified to daily resolution.Defining dry season length and timingFor each grid cell and each dry season definition (P  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