Ecology

Testing H1 and H2 at community composition levelAs noted above, the simple fact that fungi grow more slowly than bacteria is the basis of the hypotheses that (H1) fungal communities should be more resistant than bacterial communities to drought stress, and (H2) that fungal communities should be less resilient than bacterial communities when the stress is relieved by rewetting18. In addition to growth rate, these two hypotheses may be related to differences in the form of growth between fungi and bacteria. For example, multicellular hyphal growth versus unicellular division or the greater thickness of fungal cell walls as compared to those of bacteria47,48. We tested H1 and H2 at the community composition level by blending the fungal and bacterial datasets generated from the same leaf, root, rhizosphere and soil samples collected from field-grown sorghum that had been either irrigated as a control, or subjected to preflowering drought followed by regular wetting beginning at flowering10,11.We followed the approach of Shade et al.17 to detect resistance and resilience, which had been developed for univariate variables, e.g., richness. For multivariate data, e.g., community composition, we modified it by calculating pairwise community dissimilarity for two groups: within-group (control-control pairs, drought-drought pairs, or rewetting-rewetting pairs), and between-group (control-drought pairs, or control-rewetting pairs). Ecological resistance to drought stress is detected by comparing compositional dissimilarity of between-group pairs (control-drought pairs) against within-group pairs (control-control pairs and drought-drought pairs) for each of the droughted weeks (weeks 3–8). Ecological resilience to rewetting is detected by assessing, from before to after rewetting, the change in the difference of compositional dissimilarity between within-group pairs and between-group pairs. Here, the point just before rewetting was week 8 and the points after rewetting were weeks 9–17. A t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the differences in resistance or resilience between bacterial and fungal communities at each time point for each compartment.To account for the different resolutions of ITS and 16 S, we compared bacterial 16 S OTUs against both fungal ITS, species-level OTUs as well the fungal family level (Supplementary Fig. 1). The results of analyses using either fungal families or OTUs are consistent. Out of 36 comparisons (15 roots, 15 rhizospheres and 6 soils), different family and OTUs results were detected in four instances. In two of these, significances detected by OTUs were not detected by family (root, weeks 4 and 17) and, in the other two cases, significances detected by family were not detected by OTUs (rhizosphere, weeks 7 and 8). (Fig. 1). We report only results that are consistent at both the species and family levels (Fig. 1).In line with our first hypothesis, H1, we found that the resistance to drought stress for fungal mycobiomes was consistently stronger than that for bacterial microbiomes for weeks 5 in root, weeks 4–6 in rhizosphere, and weeks 4 and 6–8 in soil (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2). In support of our second hypothesis, H2, when the stress of pre-flowering drought was relieved by rewetting, we found that the resilience of the bacterial communities was consistently higher than that for the fungi in weeks 9–16 in root, and weeks 11–17 in rhizosphere (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2).Surprisingly, we found that resilience was stronger for fungal than bacterial communities in the first week (week 9) of rewetting in the rhizosphere (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2). This high resilience of fungi may be associated with the quick growth of sorghum roots when rewetted. The rhizosphere zone around these newly formed roots may be quickly colonized by soil fungi, a community that was weakly affected by drought. This result suggests that re-assembly of the rhizosphere microbial community is more complex than previously expected.The finding that fungal community composition in the soil is not shaped by drought prevented us from further detecting resilience (Fig. 1). Note fungal community in early leaves was excluded from analysis due to the high proportion of non-fungal reads in sequencing11.Testing H1 and H2 at all-correlation levelNext, we moved from the comparison of whole communities to correlation among individual bacterial and fungal taxa to test the hypotheses about resistance, H1, and resilience, H2. As noted above, previous research provided the foundation for the stress gradient hypothesis, which predicts an increase in positive associations in stress32,33,34,35,36,37. Further, ecological modeling predicts that negative associations promote stability40. Concerning specific associations, studies of Arabidopsis and associated microbes reported that positive associations are favored within kingdoms, i.e., within bacteria or within fungi, while negative associations predominate between kingdoms38,39. Given these foundations, concerning H1, we expected an increase in the proportion of positive correlation by drought stress that would be strongest for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F; for H2 we expected rewetting to cause a decrease in the proportion of positive correlation, again most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F.Overall, at the all-correlation level, we found no consistent support for the differences postulated for bacterial and fungal responses in H1. For example, strong increases in the proportion of positive correlations under drought could be found in all microbial pairings for some compartments (B-B in leaf and root, F-F in rhizosphere and soil, and B-F in root and rhizosphere) (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Neither did we find consistent support for the differences ascribed to bacteria and fungi in H2 as the strongest decreases in the proportion of positive correlations during rewetting occurred at F-F in rhizosphere and soil, and B-B in leaf and root (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).Fig. 2: Correlations of microbes in drought stress and drought relief.Estimates of combined correlations (row a) show an increase in positive correlations under drought stress across the four compartments (root, black; rhizosphere, blue; soil, red; leaf, green). Data points underlying the lines in the figure are provided in the alternative version in Supplementary Fig. 2. This result is in line with the stress gradient hypothesis which posits that stressful environments favor positive associations because competition will be less intense than in benign environments32,33,36,37. Note that positive trends in combined correlations can arise in two ways. First, from an increase of positive correlations (row b) that exceeds the rise in negative correlations (row c), e.g., Leaf bacterial-bacterial (Bac-Bac) correlations or rhizosphere fungal-fungal (Fun-Fun) correlations in the drought period (Negative correlations in row C values are multiplied by −1 to facilitate comparison). Second, from a decrease in negative correlations that exceeds a decrease in positive correlations, e.g., root bacterial-bacterial correlations or root bacterial-fungal (Bac-Fun) correlations in drought. Combined (a), positive (b) and negative (c) estimates of correlation (Spearman’s rho, ρ) are given for four compartments (root, rhizosphere, soil and leaf), and three types of correlations (Bacterium-Bacterium, Fungus-Fungus, Bacterium-Fungus). T-tests (two sided) were carried out for linear mixed effect modelling that incorporates link type and compartments as random factors. Detailed distribution densities of correlations are presented in Supplementary Fig. 3. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageWe found support for the stress gradient hypothesis because drought increased the relative frequency of positive correlations among microbial taxa (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). The increases were due, largely, to B-B correlations in leaf and F-F correlations in the rhizosphere during drought, when the relative frequency of positive correlations was increased (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3) and the frequencies of negative correlations were decreased or weakly increased (Fig. 2c, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Less obvious increases in the relative frequency of positive correlations (such as B-B in root, F-F in soil, and B-F in root and rhizosphere) occurred where drought reduced both positive and negative correlations, but the losses of negative correlations exceeded those of positive correlations (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).In support of the expectation that correlations would be more negative between taxonomic groups than within taxonomic groups, we found that the relative frequency of positive correlations was generally lower for B-F than B-B and F-F correlations (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3). Moreover, as ecological modeling has indicated that negative associations should promote stability of communities40, we hypothesize that B-F correlations would be more stable than B-B and F-F networks in response to drought stress. However, we found no support for this hypothesis, as B-F correlations (for example in root) did not always show the least response to drought stress (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 2, 3).Testing H1 and H2 at species co-occurrence levelFor our final test of H1 (resistance) and H2 (resilience) we focused on co-occurrence networks based on significant, positive correlations. These networks have been reported to be destabilized for bacteria but not for fungi in mesocosms subject to drought stress19, and shown to be disrupted for bacteria in natural vegetation studied over gradients of increasing aridity41,42. Using these results as guides, for H1 we expected that drought stress should disrupt co-occurrence networks most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F. For H2 we expected that relief of stress by rewetting should strengthen microbial co-occurrence networks most strongly for B-B, followed by F-F, and lastly by B-F.For this test we constructed microbial co-occurrence networks using significant positive pairwise correlations between microbial taxa, B-B, F-F and B-F, and compared the network complexity between fully irrigated control and drought, and between control and rewetting following drought. In general, we found no consistent support for the difference between bacteria and fungi inherent in H1. Rhizosphere was the one compartment where B-B vertices dropped and F-F vertices rose in response to drought, as expected, but this result was offset in root and soil, where vertices dropped in all networks, B-B, F-F and B-F (Figs. 3, 4; Supplementary Figs. 4, 5). Analysis by co-occurrence networks highlighted the differences between plant compartments. In root drought strongly disrupted networks of B-B, B-F and F-F, but in the other three compartments, network disruption was weaker, and networks were even enhanced by drought for F-F in rhizosphere and B-B in leaf (Figs. 3, 4).Fig. 3: Networks of significant positive cross-taxonomic group correlations (bacteria and fungi).a Fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) (blue) and bacterial OTUs (black) are graphed as nodes. Significant positive Spearman correlations are graphed as edges (ρ  > 0.6, false discovery rate adjusted P  More

Population genetic data collection from primary data sourcesFigure 4 describes the overall data collection workflow for the four datasets that comprise CaliPopGen. We first identified literature potentially containing population genetic data for California by querying the Web of Science Core Collection (https://webofknowledge.com/) for relevant literature from 1900 to 2020 with the terms: topic = (California*) AND topic = (genetic* OR genomic*) AND topic = (species OR taxa* OR population*). We included only empirical peer-reviewed literature and excluded unreviewed preprints. In using these search terms, our goal was to broadly identify genetic papers focused on California with population or species-level analyses, while avoiding purely phylogenetic studies or those focused on agricultural or model species. This resulted in 4,942 unique records.Fig. 4Flow chart of the data collection process that generated the CaliPopGen databases.Full size imageWe next screened titles and abstracts to retain articles that: (1) provided data on populations of species which are self-sustaining without anthropogenic involvement; (2) included at least some eukaryote species; (3) included population(s) sampled within California; (4) mentioned measures of genetic diversity or differentiation; and (5) were not reviews (thus restricting our search to only primary literature). We retained 1869 studies after this first pass of literature screening (see Technical Validation for estimate of inter- and intra-screener bias).Our second, more in-depth screening pass involved reading the full text of these 1869 studies. We had two goals. First, we confirmed that retained papers fully met all five of our inclusion criteria (the first screen was very liberal with respect to these criteria, and many papers failed to meet at least one criterion after close reading). Second, we eliminated papers where the data were not presented in a way that allowed us to extract population-level information. For example, many of the more systematics-focused studies pooled samples from large, somewhat ill-defined regions (“Sierra Nevada” or “Southern California”); if such regions were larger than 50 km in a linear dimension, we deemed them unusable for making geographically-informative inferences. Other studies presented summaries of population data, often in the form of phylogenetic networks or trees, but did not include information on actual population genetic parameters and therefore were not relevant to our database. We retained 528 publications after this second pass.From this set of papers, we extracted species, locality, and genetic data for each California population or sampling locality described in each study (Fig. 3A). This included Latin binomial/trinomial, English common name, population identifiers, and geographic coordinates of sampling sites. We also noted population/sampling localities that were interpreted as comprised of interspecific hybrids, and listed both parental species. We collected population genetic diversity and differentiation statistics for each unique genetic marker for each population/sampling locality; as a result, a sampling locality may have multiple entry rows, one for each locus or marker type. Parameters extracted for each population/marker combination include sample size, genetic marker type, gene targets, number of loci, years of sampling, and reported values for effective population size (Ne), expected (HE) and observed (HO,) heterozygosity, nucleotide diversity (π, pi), alleles-per-locus (APL), allelic richness (AR), percent polymorphic loci (PPL), haplotype diversity (HDIV), inbreeding coefficient (e.g. FIS, FIT, GIS), and pairwise population genetic comparison parameters (FST, GST, DST, Nei’s D, Jost’s D, or phi). We note that while there are technical differences between allelic richness and alleles-per-locus, source literature often used the terms interchangeably, and we include the parameters and their values as named in the source. We define marker type as the general category of genetic marker used (e.g., “microsatellite” or “nuclear”), while gene targets are the specific locus/loci (e.g., “COI”). We present these data in two separate datasets, one containing all population-level genetic summary statistics (Dataset 121, see Fig. 3C and detailed description in Table 1) and a second for estimates of pairwise genetic differentiation (Dataset 221, see Fig. 3D and detailed description in Table 2).Table 1 Description of the population genetic data in Dataset 121.Full size tableTable 2 Description of the pairwise genetic distance data in Dataset 221.Full size tableAll genetic data were extracted directly from the source literature. However, we also updated or added to the metadata for these population genetic values in several ways. We included kingdom, phylum, and a lower-level taxonomic grouping for each species (usually class), and updated scientific and common names based on the currently accepted taxonomy of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility22. When geographic coordinates were not provided for a sampling locality, as was frequently the case in the older literature, we used Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps) to georeference localities based on either in-text descriptions or embedded figure maps guided by permanent landmarks like a bend in a river or administrative boundaries. Because this can only yield approximate coordinates, we recorded estimated accuracy as the radius of our best estimate of possible error in kilometers. If coordinates were provided in degree/minute/seconds, we used Google Maps to translate them to decimal degrees. In cases where coordinates were not provided and locality descriptions were too vague to determine coordinates with less than 50 km estimated coordinate error, we did not attempt to extract coordinates but still provide the genetic data. All coordinates are provided in the web Mercator projection (EPSG:3857). We excluded studies that reported genetic parameter values only for samples aggregated regionally (“Southern California” or “Sierra Nevada”). If marker type was not explicitly included, we classified marker type based on the gene targets reported, if provided.Life history trait data collectionTo increase the utility of CaliPopGen, we also assembled data on life history traits for all animal (Dataset 321) and plant (Dataset 421) species contained in Datasets 121 and 221. We assembled trait data that have previously been shown to correlate with genetic diversity, including those related to reproduction, life cycle, and body size, as well as conservation status (e.g.23,24,25,26,). Life history data were compiled by first referencing large online repositories, often specific to taxonomic groups, like the TRY plant trait database27, and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Seed Information Database28. If trait data for species of interest were unavailable from these compilations, we conducted keyword literature searches for each combination of species and life history trait, and extracted data from the primary literature. When data were not available for the subspecies or species for which we had genetic data, we report values for the next closest taxonomic level, up to and including family, as available in the literature.For both animals and plants, we defined habitat types as marine, freshwater, diadromous, amphibious, or terrestrial. Marine species include those that are found in brackish or wetland-marine habitats, as well as bird species that primarily reside in marine habitats. Freshwater species include those that are found in wetland-freshwater habitats, as well as species that primarily reside in freshwater. The diadromous category includes fish species that are catadromous or anadromous. We considered species to be amphibious if they have an obligatory aquatic stage in their life cycle, but also spend a significant portion of their life cycle on land. Terrestrial species were defined as those that spend most of their life cycle on land and are not aquatic for any portion of their life cycle. In a few cases (e.g., waterbirds that are both freshwater and marine, semi-aquatic reptiles), a species could reasonably be placed in more than one category, and we did our best to identify the primary life history category for such taxa. If the taxonomic identity of an entry was hybrid between species or subspecies, this was noted in the speciesID column and no life history data were reported.The CaliPopGen Animal Life History Traits Dataset 321 (description of dataset in Table 3) includes habitat type, lifespan, fecundity, lifetime reproductive success, age at sexual maturity, number of breeding events per year, mode of reproduction, adult length and mass, California native status, listing status under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), listing status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and status as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). For some traits, value ranges were recorded–for example, minimum to maximum lifespan. In other cases, we recorded single values and, when available, a definition of this single value, (for example, minimum, average, or maximum lifespan). We report either the range of the age of sexual maturity (minimum to maximum), or a single value, depending on the available literature. For sexually dimorphic species, we report female adult length and weight when available, because female body size often correlates with fecundity. Across animal taxonomic groups, different measures of body size and length measurements are often used, reflecting community consensus on how to measure size. Given this variation, we report the type of length measurement, if available, as Standard Length (SL), Fork Length (FL), Total Length (TL), Snout-to-Vent Length (SVL), Straight-Line Carapace (SLC), or Wingspan (WS).Table 3 Description of the animal life-history data in Dataset 321.Full size tableThe CaliPopGen Plant Life History Traits Dataset 421 (description of dataset in Table 4) includes habitat type, lifespan, life cycle, adult height, self-compatibility, monoecious or dioecious, mode of reproduction, pollination and seed dispersal modes, mass per seed, California native status, NatureServe29 element ranks (global and state ranks, see Table 5 for definitions), listing status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and listing status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In contrast to most animal species, plant lifespan was typically reported as a single value. We define life cycles as the following: Annual: completes full life cycle in one year; Biennial: completes full life cycle in two years; Perennial: completes full life cycle in more than two years; Perennial-Evergreen: perennial and retains functional leaves throughout the year; Perennial-Deciduous: perennial and loses all leaves synchronously for part of the year. Some species are variable (for example, have annual and biennial individuals), and in those cases we attempted to characterize the most common modality.Table 4 Description of the plant life-history data in Dataset 421.Full size tableTable 5 Description of the Conservation status (Heritage Rank) from California Natural Diversity Database29.Full size tableBecause of the paucity of data available for chromists and fungi, we did not extract life history trait data for the relatively few species in these taxonomic groups.Data visualization and summaryWe used the R-package raster (v3.1–5) to visualize the spatial extent of the data in CaliPopGen in Fig. 3. Panel (A) shows a summary plot of all unique populations of both the Population Genetic Diversity in Dataset 121 and the Pairwise Population Differentiation in Dataset 221. Panel (B) shows the total number of unique populations in each California terrestrial ecoregion. Panel (C) depicts all data entries of Population Genetic Diversity Dataset 121, summed for each 20×20 km grid cell. Panel (D) shows the density of pairwise straight lines drawn between pairs of localities in the Pairwise Population Differentiation Dataset 221, depicted as the total number of lines per 20×20 km grid cell. The number of populations and species of both Datasets 121 & 221 are summarized for each marine and terrestrial ecoregion in Table 6.Table 6 Summary of total numbers of populations and species per California ecoregion, separately for population genetic and pairwise datasets.Full size table More

Systematic reviewA systematic review (PROSPERO Registered: CRD42020165355) of all cluster-randomised control trials currently published on ITNs [including conventional nets (CTNs), pyrethroid-only long-lasting nets (pyrethroid-nets), and pyrethroid-piperonyl butoxide synergist nets (pyrethroid-PBO ITNs)], IRS or a combination of both interventions was completed to validate an established transmission model for Plasmodium falciparum malaria parameterised using entomological assessment of the interventions. Three search platforms, Web of Knowledge, PubMed and Google Scholar were used and further studies were included from three recent Cochrane reviews that have focused on individual- or cluster- randomised control trials testing either ITNs, IRS or both26,27,28. Our search criteria focused on studies within Africa, and those reporting an epidemiological outcome such as parasite prevalence or clinical incidence in a defined age-cohort. A total of 138 studies were initially identified for further assessment (Supplementary Fig. S2).Those papers identified through the systematic review went through another round of screening to ensure they fell within the scope of the work and were compatible with existing modelling parameterisation. These criteria included (i) the intervention falls within an existing World Health Organization recommendation (so trials, or arms of trials, investigating pyrethroid-pyriproxyfen ITNs29 or insecticide-treated curtains30 were excluded), (ii) the entomological impact of the product had been previously statistically characterised as part of the modelling framework (trials investigating DDT31 or propoxur IRS32 were excluded), (iii) the study was within the Africa continent, (iv) the study randomised interventions in the intervention arm across the community (i.e., interventions were not targeted to individuals or risk groups within the community)33,34,35, and (v) the study was not reporting a cluster-randomised design36. A full description of why studies and arms were excluded is provided in Data S1.1.RCTs can assess the public health impact of interventions using different epidemiological endpoints. The two most common metrics used in malaria RCTs is infection prevalence (generally assessing parasitemia in a particular age group using microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests) or clinical incidence (typically assessed using active case detection in a cohort, which had previously been cleared of infection). These metrics are both equally valid though may give different results. For example, it may be harder to change malaria parasite prevalence with a partially effective intervention in a high-transmission setting (where people have a high chance of being reinfected) compared to a low-transmission setting (where reinfection is less common). Similarly, estimates of clinical incidence will vary depending on the study design and regularity of follow-up. For example, there are practical constraints on the number of times people within an active cohort can be tested. In areas of higher transmission incidence estimates will be greater the more regularly the cohort is tested as people infected multiple times between screening will be less common. This information on the regularity of screening is not always reported making it difficult to adjust models accordingly. It is also important to account for cluster-level effects when interpreting trial results, and this cluster-level data is also mostly unavailable37. The systematic review identified more studies that evaluated interventions in their ability to change malaria prevalence, with 13 out of 14 RCTs showing how the intervention changed parasite prevalence between the study arms compared with 8 RCTs, which reported changes in clinical incidence. Therefore, we focus on prevalence as our metric for epidemiology impact in this framework though note this should be repeated with clinical incidence estimates should more data become available. The final dataset had 73 cross-sectional surveys of prevalence in a defined age-cohort, 37 trial arms from 13 different RCTs.Characterising the entomological impact of ITNs and IRSExperimental hut trials (EHTs) measure the outcome of wild, free-flying, mosquito attempting to feed on volunteers resting indoors in the presence of an indoor intervention38. This includes (i) whether or not a mosquito is deterred away from a hut, which has the intervention (calculated by the number of mosquitoes found in the control hut relative to the intervention hut), (ii) whether the mosquito exits without feeding (repellence, measured as the percentage of alive unfed mosquitoes inside the intervention hut), (iii) the percentage entering the hut that successfully blood-feed, or (iv) the percentage of mosquitoes which die. Intervention efficacy is typically summarised for the intervention huts relative to a no-intervention (or untreated net) control huts, be it induced mortality (the increase in the percentage of mosquitoes dying over a 24-h period) or blood-feeding inhibition (the reduction in the percentage of mosquitoes receiving a blood-meal).EHTs use specially built structures that follow a defined floor-plan and set of specifications. There are multiple designs of experimental hut as they were originally intended to replicate the predominant type of housing found in the local area. We recently conducted a systematic review to capture the average behaviours of mosquitoes across different hut designs19. The two most used huts in Africa are the West African design and East Africa hut39 (a third hut—the Ifakara hut—is not considered here39). The meta-analyses showed that the associations describing the probable outcome of a mosquito feeding attempt (deterrence, repellence, successful feeding, or death) varies according to hut design. It is unclear that hut design best predicts epidemiological impact.Meta-analyses of EHT data have shown how the entomological efficacy of pyrethroid-nets has diminished over time, probably due to the rise of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes16,19,40, though there may be some manufacturing changes41. EHTs are conducted throughout Africa but are limited to the sites where the huts are built and cannot directly inform estimates of ITN efficacy outside of these areas. The most widely used quantitative measure for approximating the phenotypic level of resistance in the local mosquito population is the discriminating-dose bioassay. There are two main types of discriminating assays, the WHO susceptibility bioassay and the CDC bottle bioassay42,43. Both these assays measure the proportion of local Anopheline mosquitoes that survive 24-h following exposure to a discriminatory dose of pyrethroid for 60 min. Results from these bioassays are highly variable44 though collating data from multiple tests has shown clear trends over time45. The relationship between the level of resistance in the local mosquito population (as measured in a discriminating-dose bioassay) and the mortality induced by ITNs in EHTs can be used to extrapolate the results from hut trials to other geographical regions16.Modelling rationaleThe two main metrics recorded in EHTs do not capture all entomological impacts of ITNs and IRS. Though useful, induced mortality does not consider the sub-lethal impact of interventions whilst blood-feeding inhibition fails to differentiate between preventing blood-meals and killing mosquitoes, which are likely to have very different epidemiological impacts. Killing mosquitoes reduces the force of infection for users and non-users (through a community effect) so the overall effectiveness of treated nets and IRS will vary according to how abundantly and regularly they are used by the local human population. In addition, the impact of ITNs and IRS is likely to vary between sites because of factors such as the disease endemicity itself driven by societal behaviours, seasonality of transmission and the use of other malaria control interventions, amongst others. This means that raw EHT data is unlikely to directly correlate with the results of RCTs.EHTs are widely used to parameterise malaria transmission dynamics mathematical models46,47,48. These models rigorously quantify the outcome of each mosquito feeding attempt and, by making a limited number of assumptions, can estimate an overall entomological efficacy by combining the impact of the level of personal protection elicited by the intervention to the user and the indirect community effect provided to both users and non-users. Transmission dynamics mathematical models are designed to mechanistically capture the underlying processes governing malaria transmission and so can account for known non-linear processes such as the acquisition of human immunity49,50,51. This enables these models to translate the entomological efficacy quantified in an EHT into predictions of epidemiological impact given the characteristics of the site. Unfortunately, to date, there are no published EHTs that have been conducted alongside RCT evaluation of ITNs or IRS products (and therefore evaluated against the same mosquito population). To overcome this issue we parameterise the models using a meta-analyses of 136 EHT results16,19 collated from across Africa, which quantifies how mosquito deterrence, repellence, successful feeding, or death varies with time since the intervention is deployed and according to the level of pyrethroid resistance in the local mosquito population (as measured by the discriminating-dose bioassay). This approach has been able to recreate the epidemiological impact observed in RCTs evaluating a small number of ITNs15 or IRS products9, but this is the first attempt at using this method to validate the modelling framework against all trials evaluating nets and IRS.There is considerable uncertainty in how the entomological efficacy of treated ITNs varies with the level of resistance in the local population. This is a key relationship determining how field discriminating-dose bioassay data should be interpreted yet it is highly uncertain, with a recent meta-analyses indicating that it is equally well explained by two different functional forms (the logistic or log-logistic functions)19. Similarly, it is unclear whether the epidemiological impact of ITNs or IRS is best captured by all experimental hut data combined (Supplementary Fig. S14C, D)19 or if the meta-analyses should be restricted to just West or East African hut design data alone. To rigorously differentiate between these options six different models are run for each trial arm (n = 37), varying both the relationship between discriminating-dose bioassay and EHT mosquito mortality (either the logistic or log-logistic function) and the data used in the EHT meta-analyses (all data, East or West African design huts). The ability of these models to recreate the observed results is statistically compared and the most accurate selected for the main analyses.Transmission dynamics modelThe malaria transmission model that we use here incorporates the transmission dynamics of Plasmodium falciparum between human hosts and Anopheles mosquito vectors. The differential equations and associated assumptions of the original transmission model52 have been comprehensively reported in the Supplementary Material from Griffin et al.53, Walker et al.54 and Winskill et al.55. The model has been extensively fitted to data on the relationship between vector density, entomological inoculation rate, parasite prevalence, uncomplicated malaria, severe disease and death49,52,53,56,57. Model equations and assumptions are provided in the Supplementary Methods and https://github.com/jamiegriffin/Malaria_simulation. Unless stated (Supplementary Data S1), default parameters are taken from these papers.Data requirements for model simulationThe transmission model can be parameterised to describe the specific ecology of each RCT location using data on the mosquito bionomics, seasonal transmission patterns, historic use of various interventions—principally insecticide-treated ITNs or the residual spraying of insecticides (IRS)—and baseline endemicity. These data are recorded within the research articles reporting the trials at the trial arm level (Supplementary Data S1.2 notes where data are available and which resources were used; Supplementary Data S1.3 lists the key data identified for model parameterisation) and Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a diagram of how they are combined to inform the model.Briefly, the Anopheles mosquito species composition at baseline is used to determine the proportion of mosquitoes with bespoke behaviours that could alter exposure risk to mosquito bites and thus transmission risk. Species-specific mosquito behaviours are parameterised from systematic reviews on anthropophagy, using the human blood index47,58,59, and the proportion of mosquito bites that are received indoors or in bed because this impacts the efficacy estimate for indoor interventions60.Other information that are specific to each trial also help interpret our success at predicting, or not, the observed results of an intervention tested in an RCT; the diagnostic used to measure prevalence or incidence is useful because different tests have different sensitivities61, which can be included in the model framework54. The baseline burden of infection is particularly important to enable the model to be calibrated to the endemicity of the study site by varying the number of mosquitoes per person (the human:mosquito ratio). This is determined by a cross-sectional estimate of parasite prevalence in a defined age-cohort at a particular time of year of the baseline survey.For any location, the current level of endemicity is determined by the historic interventions already operating at the site. Therefore, wherever possible, ITN use and the historic use of sprayed insecticides, as well as the estimated proportion of clinical cases that are drug-treated, are included as baseline parameters.In addition to the waning potency of insecticide active ingredient outlined above, the impact of nets can also wane because of changes in the proportion of people using them. This can be driven by the quality of the product, seasonal patterns in humidity or other social patterns of use62,63,64. Where data are available, this waning adherence to net use is captured by fitting an exponential decay function to the proportion of people using nets measured at cross-sectional surveys throughout the trials:$${{{{{{{mathrm{U}}}}}}{{{{{mathrm{sage}}}}}}}}_{i}={e}^{-{sigma }_{i}t}$$
(1)
where σ is a parameter determining how rapidly people stop using nets in an intervention arm i of the trial and t is time in years. Parameter estimates for pyrethroid-only and pyrethroid-PBO ITNs are provided for different levels of resistance for the 6 potential methods of associating bioassays and using data (Supplementary Data S1.4).The IRS product used is equally important as the entomological impact of different products vary, particularly for pyrethroid-based IRS in the presence of resistant mosquitoes9. Supplementary Data S1.5 show the parameter estimates for products included in the analysis.The seasonality of transmission has been defined previously for each RCT site (at the administration subunit 1 level) using normalised rainfall patterns obtained from the US Climate Prediction Center65. The daily time series are aggregated to 64 points per year for years 2002 to 2009. A Fourier function is fitted to these data to capture seasonality by reconstructing annual rainfall patterns54,66. We deliberately do not match rainfall data from the respective RCTs, which would likely improve the model estimates because we are ultimately testing whether this framework has predictive power across future years or alternative ecologies, where we will not know how rainfall will exactly impact mosquito densities and hence malaria transmission.Statistical analysisThe mean simulated malaria prevalence (matching the age-cohort of the trial) is recorded for all RCT surveys timepoints. This equates to a total of 73 cross-sectional surveys post-implementation. The process was repeated using the 6 different entomological parameter sets (the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality and the hut design used to summarise treated net entomological impact). An illustration of the different models and their fit to data is demonstrated in Supplementary Fig. S17 for a recent study trialling pyrethroid-only nets, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs alone or in combination with a long-lasting IRS product in Tanzania5. The difference between the observed and predicted prevalence at each timepoint is shown for all RCTs in Supplementary Fig. S18. A simple linear regression is conducted comparing observed and predicted results are summarised in Supplementary Table 3. Let Xi denote the malaria prevalence predicted by the model at timepoint i while Yi is the observed prevalence. The regression,$${Y}_{i}=m{X}_{i}$$
(2)
for i = 1,…,c + n, where m is the gradient between the observed and predicted result (consistent across studies), c is the number of post-intervention datapoints in the control arms and n is the number of post-intervention datapoints in the intervention arms (c + n = 73 for analyses of all RCTs). Better fitting models have a higher adjusted R2 (adjusted R2 values of one indicate the model is perfectly predicting the trial result) whilst the gradient of the regression m indicates any bias (with value of one reporting the model can predict prevalence equally well across the endemicity range). Results are presented for all ITNs and IRS RCTs and separately for RCTs of different types of (pyrethroid-only ITNs, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs and IRS, Supplementary Table 3). The log-logistic model (results 4–6 in Supplementary Table 3) describing the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality consistently fits the data better, with models fit using either all hut trial data or East African design huts having a similar accuracy (adjusted R2 = 0.95). This parameter combination also had the least bias, with the best fit regression line being closer to one.The average efficacy of the different ITNs and IRS combinations was calculated by comparing malaria prevalence for the different trial arms to the respective control arms at matched timepoints following the introduction of interventions. Let ({E}_{{jk}}^{l}) be the relative reduction in the malaria prevalence between the control (k = 0) to intervention (k = 1) arms at matched timepoint j in the same trial for either the predicted (l = Xjk) or observed (l = Yjk) malaria prevalence,$${E}_{j}^{X}=({{X}_{j0}-{X}}_{j1})/{X}_{j0},{{{{{rm{ and }}}}}},{E}_{j}^{Y}=({Y}_{j0}-{Y}_{j1})/{Y}_{j0}$$
(3)
for j = 1,…,n. The goodness of fit for the efficacy estimates is calculated in a similar manner to the prevalence estimates by substituting in ({E}_{j}^{X}) and ({E}_{j}^{Y}) into Xi and Yi in E2, respectively. Models are on average able to estimate the efficacy of the interventions at different timepoints (Supplementary Table 3). Estimates for some timepoints diverge substantially (for example, the study testing conventional nets in the Gambia relative to untreated nets67 measured negative effect in one setting; the treated net arm having more infected children whereas the model predicted a 12.5% reduction due to the CTN (with parameters derived from all EHT data and the log-logistic function, 4 in Supplementary Table 3), Supplementary Data S1.8), but in most studies the trial average (averaged across all timepoints) is remarkably consistent. Accuracy is lower than estimates of absolute prevalence, in part because the difference between the percentage of people slide positive in low-endemicity settings may be relatively modest in absolute terms but might represent a substantial difference as a percentage. It is also important to note that when the models do systematically miss some timepoints, this is consistent across the control and treated arms. For example, in the Protopopoff et al. study in Tanzania5 (Figs. S14 and S17) efficacy is over-estimated in all arms 18 months after the start of the trial, but the relative difference between the arms (in terms of ordering, and the efficacy estimate) is relatively consistent. This indicates that unmeasured factors, such as differences in the timing and duration of the rainy season, may have occurred across all trial arms. As previously, the log-logistic functional form describing the relationship between bioassay and hut trial mortality consistently fits the data better (Supplementary Table 3, options 4 to 6). The models fit describing the entomological efficacy of any net using all EHT data predicts efficacy data better with East African design hut data providing similar accuracy (adjusted R2 = 0.64 vs. 0.62, respectively). Following this we select the log-logistic functional form to describe the relationship between mortality in the discriminating-dose bioassay and EHT and characterise the entomological efficacy of treated ITNs using data from both East and West African design huts for the main analyses (Fig. 2B, C).The ability of the best-performing model (Supplementary Table 3, column 4: log-logistic function and all EHT data) to capture the relative drop in prevalence over time compared to the baseline (pre-intervention) estimate is shown in Supplementary Fig. S19. This value is denoted as ({dot{E}}_{t}^{l}) and is calculated as,$${dot{E}}_{t}^{X}=({X}_{0}-{X}_{t}),{{{{{rm{and}}}}}},{dot{E}}_{t}^{Y}=({X}_{0}-{Y}_{t})$$
(4)
where ({X}_{0}) is the malaria prevalence at baseline (prior to intervention deployment with the exception of Chaccour et al.68) observed from the RCT and the model is calibrated to this endemicity. Xt is then the subsequent cross-sectional survey observed for each study, and RCTs have different numbers of surveys ranging from 1 to 4 in the published literature. The corresponding model estimate is represented by Yt. Estimates are calculated for all post-intervention timepoints in both control and intervention arms and are shown in Fig. S19A. The difference between ({dot{E}}_{t}^{X}) and ({dot{E}}_{t}^{Y}) can be used to explore how closely the model is able to predict this absolute difference observed in the trials (a value of 0 indicates exact match, high predictive ability). The model overestimates the performance of IRS only, deployed in 1995 using the pyrethroid IRS ICON CS 10% (Syngenta), but otherwise there is no difference in the models’ ability to estimate different ITN interventions or combination net and IRS interventions, be it the absence of an intervention, conventional dipped-nets, pyrethroid-only nets, pyrethroid-PBO ITNs with or without IRS (Fig. S19B). All code is available69.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Sampling of coastal communitiesHere, we integrated data from five different projects that had surveyed coastal communities across five countries47,48,49,50. Between 2009 and 2015, we conducted socioeconomic surveys in 72 sites from Indonesia (n = 25), Madagascar (n = 6), Papua New Guinea (n = 10), the Philippines (n = 25), and Tanzania (Zanzibar) (n = 6). Site selection was for broadly similar purposes- to evaluate the effects of various coastal resource management initiatives (collaborative management, integrated conservation and development projects, recreational fishing projects) on people’s livelihoods in rural and peri-urban villages. Within each project, sites were purposively selected to be representative of the broad range of socioeconomic conditions (e.g., population size, levels of development, integration to markets) experienced within the region. We did not survey strictly urban locations (i.e., major cities). Because our sampling was not strictly random, care should be taken when attempting to make inferences beyond our specific study sites.We surveyed between 13 and 150 households per site, depending on the population of the communities and the available time to conduct interviews per site. All projects employed a comparable sampling design: households were either systematically (e.g., every third house), randomly sampled, or in the case of three villages, every household was surveyed (a census) (see Supplementary Data file). Respondents were generally the household head, but could have been other household members if the household head was not available during the study period (i.e. was away). In the Philippines, sampling protocol meant that each village had an even number of male and female respondents. Respondents gave verbal consent to be interviewed.The following standard methodology was employed to assess material style of life, a metric of material assets-based wealth48,51. Interviewers recorded the presence or absence of 16 material items in the household (e.g., electricity, type of walls, type of ceiling, type of floor). We used a Principal Component Analysis on these items and kept the first axis (which explained 34.2% of the variance) as a material wealth score. Thus, each community received a mean material style of life score, based on the degree to which surveyed households had these material items, which we then scaled from 0 to 1. We also conducted an exploratory analysis of how material style of life has changed in two sites in Papua New Guinea (Muluk and Ahus villages) over fifteen and sixteen-year time span across four and five-time periods (2001, 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2002, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018), respectively, that have been surveyed since 2001/200252. These surveys were semi-panel data (i.e. the community was surveyed repeatedly, but we did not track individuals over each sampling interval) and sometimes occurred in different seasons. For illustrative purposes, we plotted how these villages changed over time along the first two principal components.SensitivityWe asked each respondent to list all livelihood activities that bring in food or income to the household and rank them in order of importance. Occupations were grouped into the following categories: farming, cash crop, fishing, mariculture, gleaning, fish trading, salaried employment, informal, tourism, and other. We considered fishing, mariculture, gleaning, fish trading together as the ‘fisheries’ sector, farming and cash crop as the ‘agriculture’ sector and all other categories into an ‘off-sector’.We then developed three distinct metrics of sensitivity based on the level of dependence on agriculture, fisheries, and both sectors together. Each metric incorporates the proportion of households engaged in a given sector (e.g., fisheries), whether these households also engage in occupations outside of this sector (agriculture and salaried/formal employment; referred to as ‘linkages’ between sectors), and the directionality of these linkages (e.g., whether respondents ranked fisheries as more important than other agriculture and salaried/formal employment) (Eqs. 1–3)$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NA}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NA}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{na}}}}}}}+1}$$
(1)
$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NF}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NF}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{nf}}}}}}}+1}$$
(2)
$${{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NAF}}}}}}},times ,frac{{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{NAF}}}}}}},times ,frac{left(frac{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}}{2}right),+,1}{{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{naf}}}}}}}+1}$$
(3)
where ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}) are a community’s sensitivity in the context of agriculture, fisheries and both sectors, respectively. A, F and AF are the number of households relying on agriculture-related occupations within that community, fishery-related and agriculture- and fisheries-related occupations within the community, respectively. NA, NF and NAF are the number of households relying on non-agriculture-related, non-fisheries-related, and non-agriculture-or-fisheries-related occupations within the community, respectively. N is the number of households within the community. ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{a}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{f}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{af}}}}}}}) are the number of times agriculture-related, fisheries-related and agriculture-and-fisheries-related occupations were ranked higher than their counterpart, respectively. ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{na}}}}}}}), ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{nf}}}}}}}) and ({{{{{{rm{r}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{naf}}}}}}}) are the number of times non-agriculture, non-fisheries, and non-agriculture-and-fisheries-related occupations were ranked higher than their counterparts. As with the material style of life, we also conducted an exploratory analysis of how joint agriculture-fisheries sensitivity has changed over time in a subset of sites (Muluk and Ahus villages in Papua New Guinea) that have been sampled since 2001/200252. Although our survey methodology has the potential for bias (e.g. people might provide different rankings based on the season, or there might be gendered differences in how people rank the importance of different occupations53), our time-series analysis suggest that seasonal and potential respondent variation do not dramatically alter our community-scale sensitivity metric.ExposureTo evaluate the exposure of communities to the impact of future climates on their agriculture and fisheries sectors, we used projections of production potential from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) Fast Track phase 3 experiment dataset of global simulations. Production potential of agriculture and fisheries for each of the 72 community sites and 4746 randomly selected sites from our study countries with coastal populations >25 people/km2 were projected to the mid-century (2046–2056) under two emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6, and SSP5-8.5) and compared with values from a reference historical period (1983–2013).For fisheries exposure (EF), we considered relative change in simulated total consumer biomass (all modelled vertebrates and invertebrates with a trophic level >1). For each site, the twenty nearest ocean grid cells were determined using the Haversine formula (Supplementary Fig. 5). We selected twenty grid cells after a sensitivity analysis to determine changes in model agreement based on different numbers of cells used (1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100; Supplementary Figs. 6–7), which we balanced off with the degree to which larger numbers of cells would reduce the inter-site variability (Supplementary Fig. 8). We also report 25th and 75th percentiles for the change in marine animal biomass across the model ensemble. Projections of the change in total consumer biomass for the 72 sites were extracted from simulations conducted by the Fisheries and marine ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (FishMIP3,54). FishMIP simulations were conducted under historical, SSP1-2.6 (low emissions) and SSP5-8.5 (high emissions) scenarios forced by two Earth System Models from the most recent generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison project (CMIP6);55 GFDL-ESM456 and IPSL-CM6A-LR57. The historical scenario spanned 1950–2014, and the SSP scenarios spanned 2015–2100. Nine FishMIP models provided simulations: APECOSM58,59, BOATS60,61, DBEM2,62, DBPM63, EcoOcean64,65, EcoTroph66,67, FEISTY68, Macroecological69, and ZooMSS11. Simulations using only IPSL-CM6A-LR were available for APECOSM and DBPM, while the remaining 7 FishMIP models used both Earth System Model forcings. This resulted in 16 potential model runs for our examination of model agreement, albeit with some of these runs being the same model forced with two different ESMs. Thus, the range of model agreement could range from 8 (half model runs indicating one direction of change, and half indicating the other) to 16 (all models agree in direction of change). Model outputs were saved with a standardised 1° spatial grid, at either a monthly or annual temporal resolution.For agriculture exposure (EA), we used crop model projections from the Global Gridded Crop model Intercomparison Project (GGCMI) Phase 314, which also represents the agriculture sector in ISIMIP. We used a window of 11×11 cells centred on the site and removed non-land cells (Supplementary Fig. 5). The crop models use climate inputs from 5 CMIP6 ESMs (GFDL-ESM4, IPSL-CM6A-LR, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MRI-ESM2-0, and UKESM1-0-LL), downscaled and bias-adjusted by ISIMIP and use the same simulation time periods. We considered relative yield change in three rain-fed and locally relevant crops: rice, maize, and cassava, using outputs from 4 global crop models (EPIC-IIASA, LPJmL, pDSSAT, and PEPIC), run at 0.5° resolution. These 4 models with 5 forcings generate 20 potential model runs for our examination of model agreement. Yield simulations for cassava were only available from the LPJmL crop model. All crop model simulations assumed no adaptation in growing season and fertilizer input remained at current levels. Details on model inputs, climate data, and simulation protocol are provided in ref. 14. At each site, and for each crop, we calculated the average change (%) between projected vs. historical yield within 11×11 cell window. We then averaged changes in rice, maize and cassava to obtain a single metric of agriculture exposure (EA).We also obtained a composite metric of exposure (EAF) by calculating each community’s average change in both agriculture and fisheries:$${{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{AF}}}}}}}=,frac{{{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{A}}}}}}}+,{{{{{{rm{E}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{F}}}}}}}}{2}$$
(4)
Potential ImpactWe calculated relative potential impact as the Euclidian distance from the origin (0) of sensitivity and exposure.Sensitivity testTo determine whether our sites displayed a particular exposure bias, we compared the distributions of our sites and 4746 sites that were randomly selected from 47,460 grid cells within 1 km of the coast of the 5 countries we studied which had population densities >25 people/km2, based on the SEDAC gridded populating density of the world dataset (https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-density-rev11/data-download).We used Cohen’s D to determine the size of the difference between our sites and the randomly selected sites.Validating ensemble modelsWe attempted a two-stage validation of the ensemble model projections. First, we reviewed the literature on downscaling of ensemble models to examine whether downscaling validation had been done for the ecoregions containing our study sites.While no fisheries ensemble model downscaling had been done specific to our study regions, most of the models of the ensemble have been independently evaluated against separate datasets aggregated at scales down to Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) (see11). For example, the DBEM was created with the objective of understanding the effects of climate change on exploited marine fish and invertebrate species2,70. This model roughly predicts species’ habitat suitability; and simulates spatial population dynamics of fish stocks to output biomass and maximum catch potential (MCP), a proxy of maximum sustainable yield2,62,71. Compared with spatially-explicit catch data from the Sea Around Us Project (SAUP; www.seaaroundus.org)70 there were strong similarities in the responses to warming extremes for several EEZs in our current paper (Indonesia and Philippines) and weaker for the EEZs of Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, and Tanzania. At the LME level, DBEM MCP simulations explained about 79% of the variation in the SAUP catch data across LMEs72. The four LMEs analyzed in this paper (Agulhas Current; Bay of Bengal; Indonesian Sea; and Sulu-Celebes Sea) fall within the 95% confidence interval of the linear regression relationship62. Another example, BOATS, is a dynamic biomass size-spectrum model parameterised to reproduce historical peak catch at the LME scale and observed catch to biomass ratios estimated from the RAM legacy stock assessment database (in 8 LMEs with sufficient data). It explained about 59% of the variability of SAUP peak catch observation at the LME level with the Agulhas Current, Bay of Bengal, and Indonesian Sea catches reproduced within +/-50% of observations61. The EcoOcean model validation found that all four LMEs included in this study fit very close to the 1:1 line for overserved and predicted catches in 200064,65. DBPM, FEISTY, and APECOSM have also been independently validated by comparing observed and predicted catches. While the models of this ensemble have used different climate forcings when evaluated independently, when taken together the ensemble multi-model mean reproduces global historical trends in relative biomass, that are consistent with the long term trends and year-on-year variation in relative biomass change (R2 of 0.96) and maximum yield estimated from stock assessment models (R2 of 0.44) with and without fishing respectively11.Crop yield estimates simulated by GGCMI crop models have been evaluated against FAOSTAT national yield statistics14,73,74. These studies show that the models, and especially the multi-model mean, capture large parts of the observed inter-annual yield variability across most main producer countries, even though some important management factors that affect observed yield variability (e.g., changes in planting dates, harvest dates, cultivar choices, etc.) are not considered in the models. While GCM-based crop model results are difficult to validate against observations, Jägermeyr et al14. show that the CMIP6-based crop model ensemble reproduces the variability of observed yield anomalies much better than CMIP5-based GGCMI simulations. In an earlier crop model ensemble of GGCMI, Müller et al.74 show that most crop models and the ensemble mean are capable of reproducing the weather-induced yield variability in countries with intensely managed agriculture. In countries where management introduces strong variability to observed data, which cannot be considered by models for lack of management data time series, the weather-induced signal is often low75, but crop models can reproduce large shares of the weather-induced variability, building trust in their capacity to project climate change impacts74.We then attempted to validate the models in our study regions. For the crop models, we examined production-weighted agricultural projections weighted by current yields/production area (Supplementary Fig. 1). We used an observational yield map (SPAM2005) and multiplied it with fractional yield time series simulated by the models to calculate changes in crop production over time, which integrates results in line with observational spatial patterns. The weighted estimates were not significantly different to the unweighted ones (t = 0.17, df = 5, p = 0.87). For the fisheries models, our study regions were data-poor and lacked adequate stock assessment data to extend the observed global agreement of the sensitivity of fish biomass to climate during our reference period (1983-2013). Instead, we provide the degree of model run agreement about the direction of change in the ensemble models to ensure transparency about the uncertainty in this downscaled application.AnalysesTo account for the fact that communities were from five different countries we used linear mixed-effects models (with country as a random effect) for all analyses. All averages reported (i.e. exposure, sensitivity, and model agreement) are estimates from these models. In both our comparison of fisheries and agriculture exposure and test of differences between production-weighted and unweighted agriculture exposure we wanted to maintain the paired nature of the data while also accounting for country. To accomplish this we used the differences between the exposure metrics as the response variable (e.g. fisheries exposure minus agriculture exposure), testing whether these differences are different from zero. We also used linear mixed-effects models to quantify relationships between the material style of life and potential impacts under different mitigation scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and 8.5), estimating standard errors from 1000 bootstrap replications. To further explore whether these relationships between the material style of life and potential impacts were driven by exposure or sensitivity, we conducted an additional analysis to quantify relationships between the material style of life and: 1) joint fisheries and agricultural sensitivity; 2) joint fisheries and agricultural exposure under different mitigation scenarios. We present both the conditional R2 (i.e., variance explained by both fixed and random effects) and the marginal R2 (i.e., variance explained by only the fixed effects) to help readers compare among the material style of life relationships.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Kaya, C., Murillo-Amador, B. & Ashraf, M. Involvement of L-cysteine desulfhydrase and hydrogen sulfide in glutathione-induced tolerance to salinity by accelerating ascorbate-glutathione cycle and glyoxalase system in capsicum. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) 9, 1–29 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Darwesh, O. M., Shalaby, M. G., Abo-Zeid, A. M. & Mahmoud, Y. A. G. Nano-bioremediation of municipal wastewater using myco-synthesized iron nanoparticles. Egypt. J. Chem. 64, 2499–2507 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bimurzayev, N., Sari, H., Kurunc, A., Doganay, K. H. & Asmamaw, M. Effects of different salt sources and salinity levels on emergence and seedling growth of faba bean genotypes. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–17 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, W. et al. A salt tolerance evaluation method for sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) at the seed germination stage. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9 (2020).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hussien, H. A., Salem, H. & Mekki, B. E. D. Ascorbate-glutathione-α-tocopherol triad enhances antioxidant systems in cotton plants grown under drought Stress. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 8, 1463–1472 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hussein, H. A. A., Mekki, B. B., El-Sadek, M. E. A. & El Lateef, E. E. Effect of L-ornithine application on improving drought tolerance in sugar beet plants. Heliyon 5, e02631 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guo, H., Huang, Z., Li, M. & Hou, Z. Growth, ionic homeostasis, and physiological responses of cotton under different salt and alkali stresses. Sci. Rep. 10, 2 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Khataar, M., Mohammadi, M. H., Shabani, F., Mohhamadi, M. H. & Shabani, F. Soil salinity and matric potential interaction on water use, water use efficiency and yield response factor of bean and wheat. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–13 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Hernández, J. A. Salinity tolerance in plants: Trends and perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 2408 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dubey, S., Bhargava, A., Fuentes, F., Shukla, S. & Srivastava, S. Effect of salinity stress on yield and quality parameters in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 48, 954–966 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Devarshi, P., Grant, R., Ikonte, C. & Hazels Mitmesser, S. Maternal omega-3 nutrition, placental transfer and fetal brain development in gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. Nutrients 11, 2 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi, H. Sulfur assimilation in photosynthetic organisms: Molecular functions and regulations of transporters and assimilatory enzymes. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 62, 157–184 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bakhoum, G. S. et al. Improving growth, some biochemical aspects and yield of three cultivars of soybean plant by methionine treatment under sandy soil condition. Int. J. Environ. Res. 13, 35–43 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Adams, E. et al. A novel role for methyl cysteinate, a cysteine derivative, in cesium accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sadak, M. S., Abd El-Hameid, A. R., Zaki, F. S. A., Dawood, M. G. & El-Awadi, M. E. Physiological and biochemical responses of soybean (Glycine max L.) to cysteine application under sea salt stress. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 44, 1–10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wani, S. H. et al. Engineering salinity tolerance in plants: Progress and prospects. Planta 251, 1–29 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Genisel, M., Erdal, S. & Kizilkaya, M. The mitigating effect of cysteine on growth inhibition in salt-stressed barley seeds is related to its own reducing capacity rather than its effects on antioxidant system. Plant Growth Regul. 75, 187–197 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salem, H., Abo-Setta, Y., Aiad, M., Hussein, H.-A. & El-Awady, R. Effect of potassium humate on some metabolic products of wheat plants grown under saline conditions. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 8, 565–569 (2017).
Google Scholar 
El-Awadi, M. E., Ibrahim, S. K., Sadak, M. S., Abd Elhamid, E. M. & Gamal El-Din, K. M. Impact of cysteine or proline on growth, some biochemical attributes and yield of faba bean. Int. J. PharmTech Res. 9, 100–106 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nasibi, F., Kalantari, K. M., Zanganeh, R., Mohammadinejad, G. & Oloumi, H. Seed priming with cysteine modulates the growth and metabolic activity of wheat plants under salinity and osmotic stresses at early stages of growth. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 21, 279–286 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Romero, I. et al. Transsulfuration is an active pathway for cysteine biosynthesis in Trypanosoma rangeli. Parasit. Vectors 7, 1–11 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guo, H. et al. l-cysteine desulfhydrase-related H2S production is involved in OsSE5-promoted ammonium tolerance in roots of Oryza sativa. Plant Cell Environ. 40, 1777–1790 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Colak, N., Tarkowski, P. & Ayaz, F. A. Effect of N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) on soluble sugar and polyamine content in wheat seedlings exposed to heavy metal stress (Cd, Hg and Pb). Bot. Serbica 44, 191–201 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira, W. F. et al. Foliar and seed application of amino acids affects the antioxidant metabolism of the soybean crop. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 2 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perveen, S. et al. Cysteine-induced alterations in physicochemical parameters of oat (Avena sativa L var Scott and F-411) under drought stress. Biol. Futur. 70, 16–24 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marrez, D. A., Abdelhamid, A. E. & Darwesh, O. M. Eco-friendly cellulose acetate green synthesized silver nano-composite as antibacterial packaging system for food safety. Food Packag. Shelf Life 20, 100302 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Acharya, B. R. et al. Morphological, physiological, biochemical, and transcriptome studies reveal the importance of transporters and stress signaling pathways during salinity stress in Prunus. Sci. Rep. 12, 1274 (2022).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hayat, S. et al. Role of proline under changing environments: A review. Plant Signal. Behav. 7, 2 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Thomas, J., Mandal, A. K. A., Kumar, R. R. & Chordia, A. Role of biologically active amino acid formulations on quality and crop productivity of tea (Camellia sp.). Int. J. Agric. Res. 4, 228–236 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekki, B. E. D. B. & Hussein, H. A. A. Influence of L-ascorbate on yield components, biochemical constituents and fatty acids composition in seeds of some groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars grown in sandy soil. Biosci. Res. 14, 75–83 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cuin, T. A. & Shabala, S. Amino acids regulate salinity-induced potassium efflux in barley root epidermis. Planta 225, 753–761 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hussein, H.-A.A. et al. Grain-priming with L-arginine improves the growth performance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants under drought stress. Plants 11, 1219 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Azarakhsh, M. R., Asrar, Z. & Mansouri, H. Effects of seed and vegetative stage cysteine treatments on oxidative stress response molecules and enzymes in Ocimum basilicum L. under cobalt stress. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 15, 651–662 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Mekki, B. E. D., Hussien, H. A. & Salem, H. Role of glutathione, ascorbic acid and α-tocopherol in alleviation of drought stress in cotton plants. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 8, 1573–1581 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, Y. S. et al. Fermentation affects the antioxidant activity of plant-based food material through the release and production of bioactive components. Antioxidants 10, 2004 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Elsayed, A. A., Ibrahim, A. A. & Dakroury, M. Z. Effect of salinity on growth and genetic diversity of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivars. Alexandria Sci. Exch. J. An Int Q. J. Sci. Agric. Environ. 37, 467–479 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Darwesh, O. M. & Elshahawy, I. E. Silver nanoparticles inactivate sclerotial formation in controlling white rot disease in onion and garlic caused by the soil borne fungus Stromatinia cepivora. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 160, 917–934 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Metzner, H., Rau, H. & Senger, H. Untersuchungen zur Synchronisierbarkeit einzelner Pigmentmangel-Mutanten von Chlorella. Planta 65, 186–194 (1965).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cerning, B. J. A note on sugar determination by the anthrone method. Cereal Chem. 52, 857–860 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Pourmorad, F., Hosseinimehr, S. J. & Shahabimajd, N. Antioxidant activity, phenol and flavonoid contents of some selected Iranian medicinal plants. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 5, 1142–1145 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P. & Teare, I. D. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39, 205–207 (1973).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosen, H. A modified ninhydrin colorimetric analysis for amino acids. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 67, 10–15 (1957).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Darwesh, O. M., Ali, S. S., Matter, I. A., Elsamahy, T. & Mahmoud, Y. A. Enzymes immobilization onto magnetic nanoparticles to improve industrial and environmental applications. In Methods in Enzymology Vol. 630 481–502 (Academic Press, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Kong, F. X., Hu, W., Chao, S. Y., Sang, W. L. & Wang, L. S. Physiological responses of the lichen Xanthoparmelia mexicana to oxidative stress of SO2. Environ. Exp. Bot. 42, 201–209 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Asada, K. Ascorbate peroxidase—a hydrogen peroxide-scavenging enzyme in plants. Physiol. Plant. 85, 235–241 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodges, D. M., DeLong, J. M., Forney, C. F. & Prange, R. K. Improving the thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances assay for estimating lipid peroxidation in plant tissues containing anthocyanin and other interfering compounds. Planta 207, 604–611 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laemmli, U. K. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227, 680–685 (1970).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods (The Iowa State University Press, 1989).MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Riley M, Gordon D. The ecological role of bacteriocins in bacterial competition. Trends Microbiol. 1999;7:129–33.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin A, West S, Buckling A. Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature. 2004;430:1024–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Velicer G, Vos M. Sociobiology of the myxobacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2009;63:599–623.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brockhurst M, Habets M, Libberton B, Buckling A, Gardner A. Ecological drivers of the evolution of public-goods cooperation in bacteria. Ecology. 2010;91:334–40.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drescher K, Nadell CD, Stone HA, Wingreen NS, Bassler BL. Solutions to the public goods dilemma in bacterial biofilms. Curr Biol. 2014;24:50–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Weissing FJ, Kuipers OP, Kovács ÁT. Density of founder cells affects spatial pattern formation and cooperation in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. ISME J. 2014;8:2069–79.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Henrichsen J. Bacterial surface translocation: a survey and a classification. Bacteriol Rev. 1972;36:478–503.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Vlamakis H, Kolter R. From cell differentiation to cell collectives: Bacillus subtilis uses division of labor to migrate. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002141.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hölscher T, Kovács ÁT. Sliding on the surface: bacterial spreading without an active motor. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:2537–45.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearns D. A field guide to bacterial swarming motility. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:634–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nogales J, Bernabéu-Roda L, Cuéllar V, Soto M. ExpR is not required for swarming but promotes sliding in Sinorhizobium meliloti. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:2027–35.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray T, Kazmierczak B. Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibits sliding motility in the absence of type IV pili and flagella. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:2700–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kinsinger R, Shirk M, Fall R. Rapid surface motility in Bacillus subtilis is dependent on extracellular surfactin and potassium ion. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:5627–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grau RR, De Oña P, Kunert M, Leñini C, Gallegos-Monterrosa R, Mhatre E, et al. A duo of potassium-responsive histidine kinases govern the multicellular destiny of Bacillus subtilis. MBio. 2015;6:e00581–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kobayashi K, Iwano M. BslA(YuaB) forms a hydrophobic layer on the surface of Bacillus subtilis biofilms. Mol Microbiol. 2012;85:51–66.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobley L, Ostrowski A, Rao FV, Bromley KM, Porter M, Prescott AR, et al. BslA is a self-assembling bacterial hydrophobin that coats the Bacillus subtilis biofilm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:13600–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seminara A, Angelini T, Wilking J, Vlamakis H, Ebrahim S, Kolter R, et al. Osmotic spreading of Bacillus subtilis biofilms driven by an extracellular matrix. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:1116–21.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kafri M, Metzl-Raz E, Jona G, Barkai N. The cost of protein production. Cell Rep. 2016;14:22–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexton D, Schuster M. Nutrient limitation determines the fitness of cheaters in bacterial siderophore cooperation. Nat Commun. 2017;8:230.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xavier J, Kim W, Foster K. A molecular mechanism that stabilizes cooperative secretions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol. 2011;79:166–79.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tai JSB, Mukherjee S, Nero T, Olson R, Tithof J, Nadell CD, et al. Social evolution of shared biofilm matrix components. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119:e2123469119.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Branda SS, Chu F, Kearns DB, Losick R, Kolter R. A major protein component of the Bacillus subtilis biofilm matrix. Mol Microbiol. 2006;59:1229–38.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin M, Dragoš A, Hölscher T, Maróti G, Bálint B, Westermann M, et al. De novo evolved interference competition promotes the spread of biofilm defectors. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15127.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Kiesewalter H, Martin M, Hsu C-Y, Hartmann R, Wechsler T, et al. Division of labor during biofilm matrix production. Curr Biol. 2018;28:1903–13.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin M, Dragoš A, Schäfer D, Maróti G, Kovács ÁT. Cheaters shape the evolution of phenotypic heterogeneity in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. ISME J. 2020;14:2302–12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Otto SB, Martin M, Schäfer D, Hartmann R, Drescher K, Brix S, et al. Privatization of biofilm matrix in structurally heterogeneous biofilms. mSystems. 2020;5:e00425–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arnaouteli S, Bamford NC, Stanley-Wall NR, Kovács ÁT. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:600–14.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kovács ÁT, Dragoš A. Evolved Biofilm: review on the experimental evolution studies of Bacillus subtilis pellicles. J Mol Biol. 2019;431:4749–59.Dragos A, Lakshmanan N, Martin M, Horvath B, Maroti G, Falcon Garcia C, et al. Evolution of exploitative interactions during diversification in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fix155.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Martin M, Garcia CF, Kricks L, Pausch P, Heimerl T, et al. Collapse of genetic division of labour and evolution of autonomy in pellicle biofilms. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:1451–60.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Bareia T, Tenennbaum B, Dal Co A, Guler P, Aframian N, et al. Short-range quorum sensing controls horizontal gene transfer at micron scale in bacterial communities. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2324.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gore J, Youk H, Van Oudenaarden A. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature. 2009;459:253–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Konkol MA, Blair KM, Kearns DB. Plasmid-encoded comI inhibits competence in the ancestral 3610 strain of Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 2013;195:4085–93.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hölscher T, Dragoš A, Gallegos-Monterrosa R, Martin M, Mhatre E, Richter A, et al. Monitoring spatial segregation in surface colonizing microbial populations. J Vis Exp. 2016;2016:e54752.
Google Scholar 
Morris R, Schor M, Gillespie R, Ferreira A, Baldauf L, Earl C, et al. Natural variations in the biofilm-associated protein BslA from the genus Bacillus. Sci Rep. 2017;7:6730.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dogsa I, Brloznik M, Stopar D, Mandic-Mulec I. Exopolymer diversity and the role of levan in Bacillus subtilis biofilms. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62044.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Branda SS, González-Pastor JE, Ben-Yehuda S, Losick R, Kolter R. Fruiting body formation by Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:11621–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenski RE, Rose M, Simpson S, Tadler S. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat. 1991;138:1315–41.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hallatschek O, Hersen P, Ramanathan S, Nelson DR. Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:19926–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Slatkin M, Excoffier L. Serial founder effects during range expansion: a spatial analog of genetic drift. Genetics. 2012;191:171–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
MacLean R, Fuentes-Hernandez A, Greig D, Hurst L, Gudelj I. A mixture of ‘cheats’ and ‘co-operators’ can enable maximal group benefit. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000486.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kearns DB. Division of labour during Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation. Mol Microbiol. 2008;67:229–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiesewalter HT, Lozano-Andrade CN, Wibowo M, Strube ML, Maróti G, Snyder D, et al. Genomic and chemical diversity of Bacillus subtilis secondary metabolites against plant pathogenic fungi. mSystems. 2021;6:e00770–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stefanic P, Mandic-Mulec I. Social interactions and distribution of Bacillus subtilis pherotypes at microscale. J Bacteriol. 2009;191:1756–64.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Even-Tov E, Omer Bendori S, Valastyan J, Ke X, Pollak S, Bareia T, et al. Social evolution selects for redundancy in bacterial quorum sensing. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002386.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalamara M, Spacapan M, Mandic-Mulec I, Stanley-Wall N. Social behaviours by Bacillus subtilis: quorum sensing, kin discrimination and beyond. Mol Microbiol. 2018;110:863–78.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aframian N, Eldar A. A bacterial tower of Babel: Quorum-Sensing signaling diversity and its evolution. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2020;74:587–606.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiesewalter HT, Lozano-Andrade CN, Strube ML, Kovács ÁT. Secondary metabolites of Bacillus subtilis impact the assembly of soil-derived semisynthetic bacterial communities. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2020;16:2983–98.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dragoš A, Kovács ÁT. The peculiar functions of the bacterial extracellular matrix. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:257–66.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kovács ÁT. Impact of spatial distribution on the development of mutualism in microbes. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:649.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang F, Kwan A, Xu A, Süel G. A synthetic quorum sensing system reveals a potential private benefit for public good production in a biofilm. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132948.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bruce J, West S, Griffin A. Functional amyloids promote retention of public goods in bacteria. Proc Biol Sci. 2019;286:20190709.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ma L, Conover M, Lu H, Parsek M, Bayles K, Wozniak D. Assembly and development of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm matrix. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5:e1000354.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hartmann R, Jeckel H, Jelli E, Singh PK, Vaidya S, Bayer M, et al. Quantitative image analysis of microbial communities with BiofilmQ. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:151–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dar D, Dar N, Cai L, Newman DK. Spatial transcriptomics of planktonic and sessile bacterial populations at single-cell resolution. Science. 2021;373:eabi4882.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lozano-Andrade CN, Nogueira CG, Wibowo M, Kovács ÁT. Establishment of a transparent soil system to study Bacillus subtilis chemical ecology. bioRxiv. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.10.475645.Article 

Google Scholar  More

Ristaino, J. B. et al. The persistent threat of emerging plant disease pandemics to global food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022239118 (2021).Blackburn, T. M. et al. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 333–339 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapman, D., Purse, B. V., Roy, H. E. & Bullock, J. M. Global trade networks determine the distribution of invasive non-native species. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 907–917 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liebhold, A. M. et al. Plant diversity drives global patterns of insect invasions. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–5 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, C. J. A. et al. Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–8 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wyckhuys, K. A. G. et al. Biological control of an invasive pest eases pressures on global commodity markets. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 094005 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leung, B., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F. & Lodge, D. Managing invasive species: rules of thumb for rapid assessment. Ecol. Econ. 55, 24–36 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reed, C. et al. Novel framework for assessing epidemiologic effects of influenza epidemics and pandemics. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 85 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Qualls, N. et al. Community mitigation guidelines to prevent pandemic influenza—United States, 2017. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 66, 1 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grarock, K., Lindenmayer, D. B., Wood, J. T. & Tidemann, C. R. Using invasion process theory to enhance the understanding and management of introduced species: a case study reconstructing the invasion sequence of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis). J. Environ. Manag. 129, 398–409 (2013).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Ogden, N. H. et al. Emerging infectious diseases and biological invasions: a call for a one health collaboration in science and management. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181577 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hatcher, M. J., Dick, J. T. A. & Dunn, A. M. Disease emergence and invasions. J. Ecol. 26, 1275–1287 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Bright, C. Invasive species: pathogens of globalization. Foreign Policy 1, 50–64 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simberloff, D., Meyerson, L. & Fefferman, N. Invasive species policy and COVID-19. The Ecological Society of America https://www.esa.org/about/esa-covid-19/invasive-species-policy-and-covid-19/ (2020).Comizzoli, P., Pagenkopp Lohan, K. M., Muletz-Wolz, C., Hassell, J. & Coyle, B. The interconnected health initiative: a Smithsonian framework to extend one health research and education. Front. Vet. Sci. 8, 629410 (2021).Katella, K. Our new COVID-19 vocabulary—what does it all mean? Stories at Yale Medicine. Yale Medicine https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/covid-19-glossary/ (2020).Parra, G., Moylett, H. & Bulluck, R. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Technical working group summary report spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (White, 1845) (2018).Floerl, O., Inglis, G. J., Dey, K. & Smith, A. The importance of transport hubs in stepping-stone invasions. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 37–45 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barringer, L. E., Donovall, L. R., Spichiger, S.-E., Lynch, D. & Henry, D. The first New World record of Lycorma delicatula (Insecta: Hemiptera: Fulgoridae). Entomol. N. 125, 20–23 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, J. M. Perspective: shedding light on spotted lanternfly impacts in the USA. Pest Manag. Sci. 76, 10–17 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nixon, L. J. et al. Survivorship and development of the invasive Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) on wild and cultivated temperate host plants. Environ. Entomol. 51, 222–228 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab137 (2022).Urban, J. M., Calvin, D. & Hills-Stevenson, J. Early response (2018–2020) to the threat of spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in Pennsylvania. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 114, 709–718 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Du, Z. et al. Global phylogeography and invasion history of the spotted lanternfly revealed by mitochondrial phylogenomics. Evol. Appl. 14, 915–930 https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13170 (2020).Lee, J.-E. et al. Feeding behavior of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) and response on feeding stimulants of some plants. Korean. J. Appl. Entomol. 48, 467–477 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, D.-H., Park, Y.-L. & Leskey, T. C. A review of biology and management of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), an emerging global invasive species. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 22, 589–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roush, R. How we can contain the spotted lanternfly—maybe the worst invasive pest in generations | Opinion https://www.inquirer.com (2018).Imbler, S. The dreaded lanternfly, scourge of agriculture, spreads in New Jersey. The New York Times (2020).Morrison, R. Invasive insects: The top 4 ‘most wanted’ list. Entomology Today https://entomologytoday.org/2018/06/21/invasive-insects-the-top-4-most-wanted-list/ (2018).Murman, K. et al. Distribution, survival, and development of spotted lanternfly on host plants found in North America. Environ. Entomol. 49, 1270–1281 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Derstine, N. T. et al. Plant volatiles help mediate host plant selection and attraction of the spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae): a generalist with a preferred host. Environ. Entomol. 49, 1049–1062 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dechaine, A. C. et al. Phenology of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in Virginia, USA. Environ. Entomol. 50, 1267–1275 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab107 (2021).Uyi, O. et al. Spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) can complete development and reproduce without access to the Ppreferred host, Ailanthus altissima. Environ. Entomol. 49, 1185–1190 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaa083 (2020).Park, M., Kim, K.-S. & Lee, J.-H. Genetic structure of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) populations in Korea: Implication for invasion processes in heterogeneous landscapes. Bull. Entomol. Res. 103, 414–424 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dara, S. K., Barringer, L. & Arthurs, S. P. Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae): a new invasive pest in the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 6, 1–6 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leach, H. & Leach, A. Seasonal phenology and activity of spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) in Eastern U.S. vineyards. J. Pest Sci. 93, 1215–1224 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
International Organisation of Vine and Wine. 2019 Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture. 23 (2019).California Department of Food and Agriculture. Pest Detection Advisory No. PD17-2020 Spotted Lanternfly PD/EP Activity Summary 2020. 1–7 (2020).Oak Ridge National Lab. Freight analysis framework version 4. http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/ (2017).U.S. Census Bureau. U.S.A. Trade Online. https://usatrade.census.gov/index.php?do=login (2019).Derived dataset GBIF.org. Filtered export of GBIF occurrence data. https://doi.org/10.15468/DD.KS6ACS (2021).Jung, J.-M., Jung, S., Byeon, D. & Lee, W.-H. Model-based prediction of potential distribution of the invasive insect pest, spotted lanternfly Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), by using CLIMEX. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 10, 532–538 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wakie, T. T., Neven, L. G., Yee, W. L. & Lu, Z. The establishment risk of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in the United States and globally. J. Econ. Entomol. 113, 306–314 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lewkiewicz, S. M., De Bona, S., Helmus, M. R. & Seibold, B. Temperature sensitivity of pest reproductive numbers in age-structured PDE models, with a focus on the invasive spotted lanternfly. Preprint at ArXiv211211448 Q-Bio (2021).Maino, J. L., Schouten, R., Lye, J. C., Umina, P. A. & Reynolds, O. L. Mapping the life-history, development, and survival of spotted lantern fly in occupied and uninvaded ranges. InReview 1–18 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-400798/v1 (2021).FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT statistical database. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (2019).USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. National agricultural statistics service – quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (2019).U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Wine statistics. https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-stats.shtml (2019).Crowe, J. Spotted lanternfly control program in the Mid-Atlantic region environmental assessment. USDA APHIS Rep. 46 (2018).US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA provides $7.1 million to Pennsylvania to support projects that protect agriculture and natural resources. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wcm/connect/APHIS_Content_Library/SA_Newsroom/SA_News/SA_By_Date/SA-2019/pennsylvania-funding?presentationtemplate=APHIS_Design_Library%2FPT_Print_Friendly_News_release (2019).Jones, C. M. et al. Iteratively forecasting biological invasions with PoPS and a little help from our friends. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 411–418 https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2357 (2021).Smyers, E. C. et al. Spatio-temporal model for predicting spring hatch of the spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae). Environ. Entomol. 50, 126–137 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, R. K., Wickert, K. L., Baudoin, A., Kasson, M. T. & Salom, S. Field-inoculated Ailanthus altissima stands reveal the biological control potential of Verticillium nonalfalfae in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Biol. Control 148, 104298 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Bulletin. 49, 2705–2902 (2019).Barringer, L. & Ciafré, C. M. Worldwide feeding host plants of spotted lanternfly, with significant additions from North America. Environ. Entomol. 49, 999–1011 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leach, H., Biddinger, D. J., Krawczyk, G., Smyers, E. & Urban, J. M. Evaluation of insecticides for control of the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), a new pest of fruit in the Northeastern U.S. Crop Prot. 124, 104833 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Francese, J. A. et al. Developing traps for the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae). Environ. Entomol. 49, 269–276 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Penn State Extension. Spotted lanternfly management in vineyards. https://extension.psu.edu/spotted-lanternfly-management-in-vineyards (2021).Nixon, L. J. et al. Development of behaviorally based monitoring and biosurveillance tools for the invasive spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae). Environ. Entomol. 49, 1117–1126 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. & Mottern, J. An old remedy for a new problem? Identification of Ooencyrtus kuvanae (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), an egg parasitoid of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in North America. J. Insect Sci. 17, 1–6 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Z.-Q., Choi, W.-Y., Cao, L.-M., Wang, X.-Y. & Hou, Z.-R. A new species of Anastatus (Hymenoptera: Eulpelmidae) from China, parasitizing eggs of Lycorma delicatula (Homoptera: Fulgoridae). Zool. Syst. 40, 290–302 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Clifton, E. H. et al. Applications of Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae) to control populations of spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), in semi-natural landscapes and on grapevines. Environ. Entomol. 49, 854–864 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hogan, M. J. & Pardi, N. mRNA vaccines in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Annu. Rev. Med. 73, 17–39 (2022).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Whyard, S., Singh, A. D. & Wong, S. Ingested double-stranded RNAs can act as species-specific insecticides. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 39, 824–832 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ordish, G. The Great Wine Blight (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972).About the Council. https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/about-nisc (2016).Invasive Species Advisory Committee Products. https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/isac-resources (2015).Simberloff, D. et al. U.S. action lowers barriers to invasive species. Science 367, 636–636 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Exec. Order No. 14048, A. of J. R. B., Jr. Executive Order on Continuance or Reestablishment of Certain Federal Advisory Committees and Amendments to Other Executive Orders (2021).Zhu, G., Illan, J. G., Looney, C. & Crowder, D. W. Assessing the ecological niche and invasion potential of the Asian giant hornet. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24646–24648 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freitas, A. R. R. et al. Assessing the severity of COVID-19. Epidemiol. E Serviços. Saúde. 29, 1–5 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Prevent Epidemics. COVID-19 Key COVID-19 Metrics Based on the Latest Available Science. https://preventepidemics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID-19-Science-Metrics_2020Sept18.pdf (2020).Lockwood, J. L., Hoopes, M. F. & Marchetti, M. P. Invasion Ecology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).Ehler, L. E. Invasion biology and biological control. Biol. Control 13, 127–133 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ludsin, S. A. & Wolfe, A. D. Biological invasion theory: Darwin’s contributions from The Origin of Species. BioScience 51, 780 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schulz, A. N., Lucardi, R. D. & Marsico, T. D. Strengthening the ties that bind: an evaluation of cross-disciplinary communication between invasion ecologists and biological control researchers in entomology. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 114, 163–174 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lockwood, J. L., Cassey, P. & Blackburn, T. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 223–228 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. Oviposition substrate selection, egg mass characteristics, host preference, and life history of the spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in North America. Environ. Entomol. 48, 1452–1468 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. Seasonal development, cumulative growing degree-days, and population density of spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) on selected hosts and substrates. Environ. Entomol. 49, 1171–1184 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E. & Blair, M. E. Opening the black box: an open‐source release of Maxent. Ecography 40, 887–893 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. & New, M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 42–47 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. et al. Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4858 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weiss, D. J. et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 116 (2011).Sladonja, B., Sušek, M. & Guillermic, J. Review on invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle) conflicting values: assessment of its ecosystem services and potential biological threat. Environ. Manag. 56, 1009–1034 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24, 38–49 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G., Raxworthy, C. J., Nakamura, M. & Peterson, A. T. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34, 102–117 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. P. & Gonzalez, I. Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. Ecol. Model. 222, 2796–2811 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
AVCALC. Density of alcoholic beverage, wine, table, all (food). https://www.aqua-calc.com/page/density-table/substance/alcoholic-blank-beverage-coma-and-blank-wine-coma-and-blank-table-coma-and-blank-all (2019).U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Established AVAs. https://www.ttb.gov/wine/established-avas (2019).Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wine-producing_regions. (2020).Allison, P. D. Multiple Regression: A Primer (Pine Forge Press, 1999).Ponti, L. et al. Biological invasion risk assessment of Tuta absoluta: Mechanistic versus correlative methods. Biol. Invasions 23, 3809–3829 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Briscoe, N. J. et al. Forecasting species range dynamics with process-explicit models: matching methods to applications. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1940–1956 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, C.-J. et al. Risk assessment of insect pest expansion in alpine ecosystems under climate change. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 3165–3178 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keena, M. A. & Nielsen, A. L. Comparison of the hatch of newly laid Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) eggs from the United States after exposure to different temperatures and durations of low temperature. Environ. Entomol. 50, 410–417 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaa177 (2021).Xin, B. et al. Exploratory survey of spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) and its natural enemies in China. Environ. Entomol. 50, 36–45 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leach, A. & Leach, H. Characterizing the spatial distributions of spotted lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in Pennsylvania vineyards. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–9 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Granett, J., Walker, M. A., Kocsis, L. & Omer, A. D. Biology and management of grape phylloxera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46, 387–412 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Wild animals construct various types of structures that are adaptive to their life and reproduction. For example, termites that inhabit the African savanna use soil to construct a huge mound that reaches 10 m in height; they produce hollows and holes in these mounds to allow air ventilation, thereby keeping the internal temperature constant1. In addition, prairie dogs inhabiting the North American prairie dig vertically and horizontally extending burrows in the ground that they use for shelter and rearing offspring; these burrows have multiple entrances, some of which are chimney-shaped to improve ventilation efficiency2. In the field of biomimetics, researchers apply the principles of animal-created structures in applications useful to humans3.The white-spotted pufferfish Torquigener albomaculosus (Pisces: Tetraodontidae) is a relatively small species that grows to ~10 cm in total total length (Fig. 1). Male T. albomaculosus individuals construct an intricate geometric circular structure, known as the “mystery circle,” with a diameter of 2 m in the sand of the seabed;4 the discovery of these structures has fascinated researchers and the general public worldwide. The male pufferfish digs the sand on the seabed with its fins and body while swimming straight ahead toward the centre from different directions, and a circular structure composed of radially aligned peaks and valleys was constructed. Finally, the male creates a maze-like pattern by flapping its anal fin on the bottom of the central zone4. Thus, the male completes the circular structure by himself. Furthermore, we discovered that the earliest stage of the mystery circle is composed of dozens of irregular depressions, which might function as landmarks for the formation of the radial patterns5. By accumulating observations of pufferfish behaviour, we were able to conduct a computer simulation including the swimming trajectory of the pufferfish extracted from video images wherein they constructed the circular structure. This simulation revealed that an elaborate circular geometric pattern is inevitably formed if the pufferfish repeats the digging behavior on the seabed using simple rules6. We also observed the reproductive behaviour of the pufferfish and found that they consistently breed in a semilunar cycle from spring to summer. Each male constructs a mystery circle and spawns with multiple females on the nest, and the male cares for the eggs alone until they hatch. Some of the elements of the circular structure, i.e., its size, symmetry, ornaments, and maze-like pattern, might be important factors in terms of female mate choice4,7.Fig. 1The white-spotted pufferfish Torquigener albomaculosus. Lateral view of a male (a), and male digging behaviour on the seabed while rolling up fine sand particles (b).Full size imageAlthough data on the reproductive ecology and circle-construction behaviour of these pufferfish have been collected, many questions remain. Our interdisciplinary research currently has two themes: (i) theoretical studies on the logic of 3D-structure formation of the circular structure and (ii) ethological studies on the relationship between female mate choice and the features of the structure. To advance these studies, it is essential to collect quantitative data on the circular structure. Thus, we reconstructed 3D models of six completed mystery circles using a “structure from motion” (SfM) algorithm (Fig. 2).Fig. 2“Mystery circle” constructed by a white-spotted pufferfish (Torquigener albomaculosus). 3D model displayed on a computer (a), one of the video frames used to reconstruct the 3D model (b), and a Styrofoam model output in full size created using a 3D printer and the 3D data (c) for a specific mystery circle 20160615_K13.Full size imageOn the other hand, the mystery circle constructed by the pufferfish may have potential applications in biomimetics similar to the structures constructed by termites and prairie dogs. To support the importance of its structural characteristics, it has been observed that the water passing through the valley upstream always gathers in the center of the structure, regardless of the direction of water flow4. Furthermore, particle size analysis of the sand forming the mystery circle has revealed that it has the function of extracting fine-grained sand particles from the valleys arranged radially to the outside and directing them to the center (Kawase, in prep.). The field of computational fluid dynamics, which makes full use of fluid dynamics technology, engineering knowledge, and computers, will logically clarify the characteristics of the 3D structure of the mystery circle we have reconstructed here. Shameem et al. reconstructed a 3D model of a mystery circle to explore the flow features with 2D computational fluid dynamic simulations8. Since our model has already been quantified as 3D data, computational fluid analysis can be immediately performed using this data, and the structural features of the mystery circle are expected to be applied in a wide range of fields, such as architecture and engineering, via biomimetics. More