Ecology

Dungan, M. L., Miller, T. E. & Thomson, D. A. Catastrophic decline of a top carnivore in the Gulf of California rocky intertidal zone. Science 216, 989–991 (1982).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pounds, J. A. et al. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161–167 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nicholls, H. Mysterious die-off sparks race to save saiga antelope. Nature 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17675 (2015).Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A. & Hyatt, A. D. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife – Threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287, 443–449 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, E. C. Diseases of Coral Reef Organisms. in Coral Reefs in the Anthropocene (ed. Birkeland, C.) 147–178 (Springer Netherlands, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7249-5_8.Weil, E. Coral Reef Diseases in the Wider Caribbean. in Coral Health and Disease (eds. Rosenberg, E. & Loya, Y.) 35–68 (Springer, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06414-6_2.Harvell, C. D. et al. Coral diseases, Environmental drivers and the balance between corals and microbial associates. Oceanography 20, 172–195 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lessios, H. A., Robertson, D. R. & Cubit, J. D. Spread of Diadema mass mortality through the Caribbean. Science 226, 335–337 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Changing geo-ecological functions of coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Funct. Ecol. 33, 976–988 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Aronson, R. B. & Precht, W. F. White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. in. Hydrobiologia 460, 25–38 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Gill, J. a, Côté, I. M. & Watkinson, A. R. Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: region-wide declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 276, 3019–3025 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0339 (2009).Estrada-Saldívar, N., Jordán-Dahlgren, E., Rodriguez-Martinez, R. E., Perry, C. T. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Functional consequences of the long-term decline of reef-building corals in the Caribbean: evidence of across-reef functional convergence. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 1–15 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cramer, K. L. et al. Widespread loss of Caribbean acroporid corals was underway before coral bleaching and disease outbreaks. Sci. Adv. 6 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax9395 (2020).Bruno, J. F. et al. Thermal stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biol. 5, 1220–1227 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vega Thurber, R. et al. Chronic nutrient enrichment increases prevalence and severity of coral disease and bleaching. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 544–554 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wear, S. L. & Thurber, R. V. Sewage pollution: Mitigation is key for coral reef stewardship. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 15–30 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Randall, C. J. & Van Woesik, R. Some coral diseases track climate oscillations in the Caribbean. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–8 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lapointe, B. E., Brewton, R. A., Herren, L. W., Porter, J. W. & Hu, C. Nitrogen enrichment, altered stoichiometry, and coral reef decline at Looe Key, Florida Keys, USA: a 3 ‑ decade study. Marine Biology 166, (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-019-3538-9.Precht, W. F., Gintert, B. E., Robbart, M. L., Fura, R. & van Woesik, R. Unprecedented disease-related coral mortality in Southeastern Florida. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–11 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, P. R., Roth, L. & Lang, J. Map of Coral Cover of Susceptible Coral Species to SCTLD. (2020). Available at: www.agrra.org. ArcGIS Online.Aeby, G. S. et al. Pathogenesis of a tissue loss disease affecting multiple species of corals along the Florida Reef Tract. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Landsberg, J. H. et al. Stony coral tissue loss disease in Florida is associated with disruption of Host–Zooxanthellae Physiology. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–24 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Work, T. M. et al. Viral-like particles are associated with endosymbiont pathology in Florida Corals affected by stony coral tissue loss disease. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–18 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez-Filip, L., Estrada-Saldívar, N., Pérez-Cervantes, E., Molina-Hernández, A. & González-Barrios, F. J. A rapid spread of the Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease outbreak in the Mexican Caribbean. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8069 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gintert, B. E. et al. Regional coral disease outbreak overwhelms impacts from local dredge project. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 1–39 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, E. M., Sartor, C., Alcaraz, N. I. & van Woesik, R. Spatial epidemiology of the stony-coral-tissue-loss disease in Florida. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 11 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Estrada-Saldívar, N., Quiroga-García, B. A., Pérez-Cervantes, E., Rivera-Garibay, O. O. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Effects of the stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak on coral communities and the benthic composition of cozumel reefs. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–13 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neely, K. L., Lewis, C. L., Lunz, K. & Kabay, L. Rapid population decline of the Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus along the Florida Reef Tract. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.656515 (2021).Rippe, J. P., Kriefall, N. G., Davies, S. W. & Castillo, K. D. Differential disease incidence and mortality of inner and outer reef corals of the upper Florida Keys in association with a white syndrome outbreak. Bull. Mar. Sci. 95, 305–316 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharp, W. C., Shea, C. P., Maxwell, K. E., Muller, E. M. & Hunt, J. H. Evaluating the small-scale epidemiology of the stony-coral -tissue-loss-disease in the middle. PLOS ONE 15, 1–25 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Estrada-Saldívar, N. et al. Reef-scale impacts of the stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01949-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
González-Barrios, F. J., Cabral-Tena, R. A. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Recovery disparity between coral cover and the physical functionality of reefs with impaired coral assemblages. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 640–651 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McWilliam, M. et al. Biogeographical disparity in the functional diversity and redundancy of corals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, 3084–3089 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Suchley, A. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Local human activities limit marine protection efficacy on Caribbean coral reefs. Conserv. Lett. 11, 1–9 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-Terrones, L. et al. Groundwater Pollution in a Karstic Region (NE Yucatan): baseline nutrient content and flux to coastal ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 218, 517–528 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cejudo, E., Acosta-González, G., Ortega-Camacho, D. & Ventura-Sanchez, K. Water quality in natural protected areas in Cancun, Mexico: A historic perspective for decision makers. Reg Stud Mar Sci 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2021.102035 (2021).Iwanowicz, D. D. et al. Explor. Stony Coral Tissue Loss Dis. Bact. Pathobiome https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Studivan, M. S. et al. Reef sediments can act as a stony coral tissue loss disease vector. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–15 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruno, J. F., Petes, L. E., Harvell, C. D. & Hettinger, A. Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of coral diseases. Ecol. Lett. 6, 1056–1061 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aeby, G. S. et al. Changing stony coral tissue loss disease dynamics through time in Montastraea cavernosa. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–13 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. et al. Regional-scale dominance of non-framework building corals on Caribbean reefs affects carbonate production and future reef growth. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1153–1164 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toth, L. T. et al. The unprecedented loss of Florida’s reef‐building corals and the emergence of a novel coral‐reef assemblage. Ecology e02781. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2781 (2019).Alves, C. et al. Twenty years of change in benthic communities across the Belizean Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 17, 1–36 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bruno, J. F. Implications for reef restoration efforts. Science 345, 879–880 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Martínez, R. E., Banaszak, A. T., McField, M. D., Beltrán-Torres, A. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Assessment of Acropora palmata in the mesoamerican reef system. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Mudge, L., Alves, C., Figueroa-Zavala, B. & Bruno, J. F. Assessment of Elkhorn coral populations and associated herbivores in Akumal, Mexico. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 1–12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baums, I. B., Miller, M. W. & Hellberg, M. E. Regionally isolated populations of an imperiled Caribbean coral, Acropora palmata. Mol. Ecol. 14, 1377–1390 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. et al. Changing dynamics of Caribbean reef carbonate budgets: emergence of reef bioeroders as critical controls on present and future reef growth potential. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 281, 20142018–20142018 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Molina-Hernández, A., González-Barrios, F. J., Perry, C. T. & Álvarez-Filip, L. Two decades of carbonate budget change on shifted coral reef assemblages: Are these reefs being locked into low net budget states?: Caribbean reefs carbonate budget trends. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 287. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2305rspb20202305 (2020).Perry, C. T. et al. Loss of coral reef growth capacity to track future increases in sea level. Nature 558, 396–400 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Enochs, I. C. et al. Ocean acidification enhances the bioerosion of a common coral reef sponge: Implications for the persistence of the Florida Reef Tract. Bull. Mar. Sci. 91, 271–290 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veron, J., Stafford-Smith, M., DeVantier, L. & Turak, E. Overview of distribution patterns of zooxanthellate Scleractinia. Front. Mar. Sci. 2, 1–19 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Miller, M. W., Lohr, K. E., Cameron, C. M., Williams, D. E. & Peters, E. C. Disease dynamics and potential mitigation among restored and wild staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis. PeerJ 2014, 1–30 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hughes, A. R. & Stachowicz, J. J. Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8998–9002 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokolow, S. H. Effects of a changing climate on the dynamics of coral infectious disease: A review of the evidence. Dis. Aquat. Org. 87, 5–18 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R. et al. Coral reef conservation in the Anthropocene: Confronting spatial mismatches and prioritizing functions. Biol. Conserv. 236, 604–615 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grosso-Becerra, M. V., Mendoza-Quiroz, S., Maldonado, E. & Banaszak, A. T. Cryopreservation of sperm from the brain coral Diploria labyrinthiformis as a strategy to face the loss of corals in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 40, 937–950 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Long-term dynamics of coral reefs in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 21, 357–367 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vermeij, M. J. A. Early life-history dynamics of Caribbean coral species on artificial substratum: The importance of competition, growth and variation in life-history strategy. Coral Reefs 25, 59–71 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Webster, F. J., Babcock, R. C., Van Keulen, M. & Loneragan, N. R. Macroalgae inhibits larval settlement and increases recruit mortality at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. PLoS ONE 10, 1–14 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suchley, A., McField, M. D. & Alvarez-Filip, L. Rapidly increasing macroalgal cover not related to herbivorous fishes on Mesoamerican reefs. PeerJ 4, e2084 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Contreras-Silva, A. et al. A meta-analysis to assess long-term spatiotemporal changes of benthic coral and macroalgae cover in the Mexican caribbean. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65801-8 (2020).Meiling, S. S., Muller, E. M., Smith, T. B. & Brandt, M. E. 3D photogrammetry reveals dynamics of stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) Lesion progression across a thermal stress event. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–12 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Espinosa-Andrade, N., Suchley, A., Reyes-Bonilla, H. & Alvarez-Filip, L. The no-take zone network of the Mexican Caribbean: assessing design and management for the protection of coral reef fish communities. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01966-y (2020).Lang, J. C., Marks, K. W., Kramer, P. R., Kramer, P. A. & Ginsburg, R. N. AGRRA Protocols. Version 5.5. The Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Program. (2012).Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. & Perry, A. Reefs risk. Natl Geographic https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(79)90136-9 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chollett, I., Müller-Karger, F. E., Heron, S. F., Skirving, W. & Mumby, P. J. Seasonal and spatial heterogeneity of recent sea surface temperature trends in the Caribbean Sea and southeast Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 956–965 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, C., Valdivia, A., McField, M., Castillo, K. & Bruno, J. F. Establishment of marine protected areas alone does not restore coral reef communities in Belize. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 563, 65–79 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Core Team, R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2020).Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359, 80–83 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Riddle, D. Coral reproduction, part one: A natural coral spawning in Hawaii, The cauliflower coral (Pocillopora meandrina). Adv. Aquarist’s Online Mag. 7, 10–16 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Madin, J. S. et al. The Coral Trait Database, a curated database of trait information for coral species from the global oceans. Sci. Data 3, 160017 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McWilliam, M., Pratchett, M. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Hughes, T. P. Deficits in functional trait diversity following recovery on coral reefs. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 287. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2628 (2020).Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. Vegan: community ecology package version 1.8-6. http://cran.r-project.org (2007).Maechler, M. et al. Cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster (2022).CLARKE, K. R. Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R. & Warwick, R. M. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd edition. Primer-E, Plymouth. Plymouth, United Kingsom: PRIMER-E 172 (2001).Lavorel, S. et al. Assessing functional diversity in the field – Methodology matters! Funct. Ecol. 22, 134–147 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Ricotta, C. & Moretti, M. CWM and Rao’s quadratic diversity: A unified framework for functional ecology. Oecologia 167, 181–188 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Denis, V., Ribas-Deulofeu, L., Sturaro, N., Kuo, C. Y. & Chen, C. A. A functional approach to the structural complexity of coral assemblages based on colony morphological features. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–11 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixidó, N. et al. Functional biodiversity loss along natural CO2 gradients. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–9 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laliberté, E. et al. FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0-12. (2014).González-Barrios, F. J. & Alvarez-Filip, L. A framework for measuring coral species-specific contribution to reef functioning in the Caribbean. Ecol. Indic. 95, 877–886 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patterson, K. L. et al. The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 99, 8725–8730 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. & Elahi, R. The demographics of a 15-year decline in covers of the Caribbean reef coral Montastraea annularis. Ecol. Monogr. 77, 3–18 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M. et al. Caribbean corals in crisis: Record thermal stress, bleaching, and mortality in 2005. PLoS ONE 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013969 (2010). More

Broadcasted social calls attracted hoary bats during both the spring and fall migration. Broadcasting conspecific social calls increased hoary bat capture rates at netting sites intentionally removed from normal capture locations. We had very low capture rates during control periods, because we intentionally placed nets in locations removed from flyways to reduce incidental captures. Moreover, capture rates of hoary bats tend to be low even in many locations where they are known to occur24,25, and capture rates of approximately one bat per hour in a single mist net suggest a very strong attraction response to broadcasted calls.Hoary bat activity, as measured by acoustic monitoring was not associated with increased capture rates in response to call broadcasting. However, subsequent research has shown that hoary bats periodically use higher frequency, inconspicuous calls, or do not constantly echolocate during the fall, which may mean acoustic monitoring did not effectively measure hoary bat activity in the vicinity of our trials26,27. We recorded substantially higher acoustic activity during the spring migration, which could represent either more hoary bats and/or bat activity, or a seasonal difference in echolocation or flight behavior such as differences in flight altitude27. It remains unknown if hoary bats use inconspicuous calls or fly in silence during spring migration or other times of year other than the fall when these inconspicuous echolocation behaviors were observed, and seasonally variable behavior could affect detectability or exposure to our playback trials in ways not captured by our acoustic activity covariate. In addition, while we did audibly hear social calls of hoary bats during the fall, we did not record any during fieldwork for this study, which may be an artifact or due to differences in social behavior, context, or number of hoary bats present in the area during our trials.We only captured one female during trials in New Mexico, and were unable to locate any females during the fall migration in coastal regions of California, despite high concentrations of males in the area during what is presumably the mating season. In New Mexico, during spring migration, females migrate through the study area before males28, with very little temporal overlap. As a result, we were unable to determine sex specific responses to call playback, however we have subsequently captured several female hoary bats and Ope’ape’a (Hawaiian hoary bat, L. semotus) using call playback during capture and radio-tracking studies (GAR, pers. obs.).It is difficult to elucidate the meaning of social calls based on the behaviors observed in the field. In bats, social call complexity often reflects social behavior complexity, with a range of uses including but not limited to attracting mates, locating pups within colonies, defending roosting or foraging territory, and attracting bats to roosts10. Attraction to conspecific call broadcasting could indicate positive social interactions (e.g., maintaining group cohesion or investigation) or agonistic behavior (e.g., hoary bats approaching to chase conspecific bats), as has been observed in other bat species29 and in hoary bats during the maternity season30. We did not observe any obvious instances of aggressive hoary bat interactions, and the social calls differ from hisses and clicks that hoary bats use defensively (Fig. 2). We would also audibly hear pairs of hoary bats calling in close proximity to each other, with no indication of aggressive or territorial responses, and these calls being low frequency and audible to humans means that they attenuate at greater distances than hoary bat echolocation calls.Aggressive or territorial interactions in many taxa are often driven by seasonally variable contexts, such as mating, defending food resources, or rearing of young. It may be unlikely that migrating hoary bats would expend energy defending territory during migration when they are utilizing roosts or foraging habitat for such limited periods of time (i.e., a few hours to a day). During active migration birds are often not territorial even when foraging at stopover sites31, and there may be benefits to maintaining group cohesion during migration including navigation and identification of favorable habitat. It is unknown if hoary bats utilize stopover sites for refueling during migration. However the silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans was found to utilize a migration stopover site in Long Point, Canada, where they opportunistically foraged for short periods of time (1 to 2 days32). Tracking studies would be required to determine temporal patterns of site usage by individual bats to examine stopover behavior.As we had recorded most of our initial social calls during late summer and early fall when hoary bats mate21, we had originally hypothesized that these social calls were associated with mating behavior, which would have been consistent with observations in this study had we found both increased attraction during the fall, and less attraction to calls during the spring. However, social calls attracted hoary bats effectively during both the spring and fall migration. In addition, from acoustic recordings and capture observations in the field, hoary bats produced many social calls during the spring migration when only males were present. There is a possibility, due to our lack of understanding of the mating systems of hoary bats that some mating may continue into the spring. However the majority of taxonomic, physiological, and observational data suggests mating behavior ends by the spring migration19,33, and the majority of females are already pregnant when travelling through New Mexico28. While hoary bats may or may not use social calls as a component of mating behavior, social calls recorded during the spring likely serve purposes not associated with mating.Previous studies describe the hoary bat as solitary throughout most of the year, which would imply only brief social interactions limited to mating or association with offspring, and the many historical accounts of aggregations of hoary bats are thought to be related to mating behavior20,33,34. However the use of, and attraction to, social calls during both spring and fall migration supports that these calls are used for social interactions beyond mating behavior. Further research may determine if hoary bats use these social calls to maintain group cohesion during migration, and what, if any, relationships exist between individual hoary bats that appear to be migrating together. Baerwald and Barclay35 found that geographic and genetic relationships of hoary bats and silver-haired bat carcasses collected at wind turbines were not more closely related than expected by chance, which provides some evidence that groups of migrating hoary bats may not form based on kinship.Many studies hoping to elucidate the causes of fatalities at wind energy facilities have focused only on the fall migration period when bats are most often killed13,20,36. However hoary bats migrate during the spring as well, when they do not suffer high fatality rates. Investigating the spring migration presents a valuable baseline to compare behavioral changes and other factors that may place hoary bats or other impacted species at risk. If social behavior makes a major contribution to the risk of fatalities at wind energy developments, then social behavior should differ between spring and fall migration. We did not find a large difference in response to social calls between seasons. While this represents just an initial study into the social calling behavior of hoary bats during migration, it provides some conclusions to guide subsequent investigations: (1) detecting hoary bat social calls does not necessarily indicate mating behavior, and (2) researchers should be cautious in interpreting evidence of social interactions during the fall at wind energy sites as evidence of mating behavior as in the mating landmarks hypothesis22,37. Because it can separate out mating from other behavioral components, comparing spring and fall migration can benefit the investigation of social and other behaviors in hoary bats and other migratory species. Comparing flight behavior, diet, roost selection, hormonal and physiological changes, and further studies of social interactions including scent and, between the spring and fall migration will allow researchers to elucidate which behaviors change seasonally and which may underlie seasonal patterns of wind turbine fatalities. Additionally, exploring social attraction to audible sounds produced by turbines or other potential signals that could seasonally elicit social attraction could lead to additional insights.Hoary bats have proven challenging to capture and study in many locations across their range24, driven by their solitary tree roosting behavior and as they often fly out of the reach of mist nets or ground-based acoustic monitoring stations36,38. Using call broadcasting to increase capture rates can be a useful research tool, especially in locations where the habitat does not provide any ideal capture locations. Using this technique we have captured hoary bats on coastal sand dunes, in large open fields, and in groves of Eucalyptus trees adjacent to wind energy sites, all of which would normally yield low bat capture success without the use of lures. The ability to capture hoary bats more reliably is a great asset for research and conservation throughout the range of hoary bats.Our study tested the use of social call playback as a methodology to study the social behavior of hoary bats during migration, and the utility of using call playback as a research tool and acoustic lure for hoary bats. Increasing capture rates from conspecific social call playback during mating and non-mating season indicates social interactions during both migratory periods, despite the solitary roosting behavior of this species. Future studies to elucidate the behavioral function of these calls, and response during non-migratory seasons could refine our understanding of social behaviors of this elusive bat species. More

Pace, N. R. The small things can matter. PLoS Biol. 16(8), e3000009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000009 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoshino, T. et al. Global diversity of microbial communities in marine sediment. PNAS 117, 27587–27597 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, B. J., Appler, K. E. & Gong, X. New microbial biodiversity in marine sediments. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-032020-014552 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zinger, L. et al. Global patterns of bacterial beta-diversity in seafloor and seawater ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6, e24570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024570 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jiao, N. et al. Microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter: Long-term carbon storage in the global ocean. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 593–599 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, N. D. et al. Representing the function and sensitivity of coastal interfaces in earth system models. Nat. Commun. 11, 2458 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, R., & Auster, P. J. Developing alternatives for optimal representation of seafloor habitats and associated communities in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-06–02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD (2006).Wauchope, H. S. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.11.001 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) Condition Report. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. doi:https://doi.org/10.25923/48ZK-BB07. pp. 1–263. (2020).Grieve, C., Brady, D. C. & Polet, H. Best practices for managing, measuring and mitigating the benthic impacts of fishing—Part 1. Mar. Stewardship Council Sci. Ser. 2, 18–88 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Watling, L. & Norse, E. A. Disturbance of the seafloor by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clear cutting. Conserv. Biol. 12, 1180–1197 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snelgrove, P. V. R. et al. The importance of marine sediment biodiversity in ecosystem processes. Ambio 26, 578–583 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Grassle, J. F. & Maciolek, N. J. Deep-sea species richness: Regional and local diversity estimates from quantitative bottom samples. Am. Nat. 139, 313–341 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polinski, J. M., Bucci, J. P., Gasser, M. & Bodnar, A. G. Targeted metagenomic assessment of biodiversity across prokaryotic and eukaryotic taxa in sediments from the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Sci. Rep. 9, 14820 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petro, C. et al. Microbial community assembly in marine sediments. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 79, 177–195 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, R. et al. The substantial first impact of bottom fishing on rare biodiversity hotspots: A dilemma for evidence-based conservation. PLoS ONE 8, e69904 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grabowski, J. H. et al. Assessing the vulnerability of marine benthos to fishing gear impacts. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquacult. 22, 142–155 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, T. L. State of the science report: An addendum to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2020 Condition Report 1–20 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H. et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1533–1542 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bech, P. K. et al. Marine sediments hold an untapped potential for novel taxonomic and bioactive bacterial diversity. MSystems 5, e00782-e820 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Newman, D. J. & Cragg, G. M. Natural products as sources of new drugs from 1981 to 2014. J. Nat. Prod. 79, 629–661 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hou, Z. Geochemical and microbial community attributes in relation to hyporheic zone geological facies. Sci. Rep. 7, 12006 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hugenholtz, P., Goebel, B. M. & Pace, N. R. Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. J. Bacteriol. 180, 4765–4774 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Durazzi, F. et al. Comparison between 16S rRNA and shotgun sequencing data for the taxonomic characterization of the gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 11, 3030 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Asnicar, F. et al. Precise phylogenetic analysis of microbial isolates and genomes from metagenomes using PhyloPhlAn 3.0. Nat. Commun. 11, 2500 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dance, A. The search for microbial dark matter. Nature 582, 301–303. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01684-z (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fishing Restrictions. Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) (16 U.S.C. Part 1801 et seq.) (1990).Begon, M., Harper, J. L. & Townsend, C. R. Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and Communities 3rd edn. (Blackwell Science Ltd., 1996).Book 

Google Scholar 
Uritskiy, G. V., DiRuggiero, J. & Taylor, J. MetaWRAP—a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome 6, 158 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andrews, S. Babraham bioinformatics-FastQC a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc (2010).Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet Next Gen. Sequencing Data Anal. 17, 1 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Bankevich, A. et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 19, 455–477 (2012).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N. & Tesler, G. QUAST: Quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29, 1072–1075 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, J., Breitwieser, F. P., Thielen, P. & Salzberg, S. L. Bracken: estimating species abundance in metagenomics data. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2, e104 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2. WIREs Comput. Stat. 3, 180–185 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Breitwieser, F. P. & Salzberg, S. L. Pavian: Interactive analysis of metagenomics data for microbiome studies and pathogen identification. Bioinformatics 36, 1303–1304 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Y. W. et al. MaxBin 2.0: An automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32, 605–607 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alneberg, J. et al. CONCOCT: Clustering cONtigs on COverage and ComposiTion. ArXiv 1312, 4038 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kang, D. et al. MetaBAT 2: An adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7, e7359 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H. et al. CheckM: Assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ondov, B. D., Bergman, N. H. & Phillippy, A. M. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a web browser. BMC Bioinform. 12, 385 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seemann, T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blin, K. et al. antiSMASH 6.0: Improving cluster detection and comparison capabilities. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W29–W35 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978–3–319–24277–4. (2016).Moon, K. W. Interactive Plot. In Learn ggplot2 Using Shiny App (ed. Moon, K.-W.) 295–347 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J., et al. Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version 2, 1-295 (2013).Wilkinson, L. SYSTAT. In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, Multidimensional Scaling (eds Wegman, E. & Said, Y. H.) (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Dexter, E., Rollwagen-Bollens, G. & Bollens, M. The trouble with stress: A flexible method for the evaluation of nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 16, 434–443 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Longford, N. T. Longitudinal and time-series analysis. In Studying Human Populations. Springer Texts in Statistics (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73251-0_11.Chapter 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. Speed-filtered vessel monitoring system (VMS) data from Greater. Atlantic VMS Program (2019).Palmer, M. C., & Wigley, S. E. Validating the stock apportionment of commercial fisheries landings using positional data from vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 07–22. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. (2007).Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems Buoy (NERACOOS) Monitoring Program. Portsmouth, NH. www.neracoos.org (2021).Stroup, W. Generalized Linear Mixed Models: Modern Concepts (Methods and Applications. Taylor & Francis Group, 2013).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Ridout, M. S., Hinde, J. P., & Demétrio, C. G. B. “Models for Count Data with Many Zeros,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Biometric Conference, 179–192, Cape Town. (1998).Barnhardt, W. A., Kelley, J. T., Dickson, S. M. & Belknap, D. F. Mapping the Gulf of maine with side-scan sonar: A new bottom-type classification for complex seafloors. J. Coast. Res. 14, 646–659 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Carrier-Belleau, C. et al. Environmental stressors, complex interactions and marine benthic communities’ responses. Sci. Rep. 11, 4194. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83533-1 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Auster, P., Joy, K. & Valentine, P. C. Fish species and community distributions as proxies for seafloor habitat distributions: the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary example (Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Maine). Environ. Biol. Fishes 60, 331–346 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Solan, M., Raffaelli, D. G., Paterson, D. M., White, P. C. L. & Pierce, G. J. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function: Empirical approaches and future research needs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 311, 175–178 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dyksma, S. et al. Ubiquitous Gammaproteobacteria dominate dark carbon fixation in coastal sediments. ISME J. 10, 1939–1953 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuttle, R. N. et al. Detection of natural products and their producers in ocean sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e02830-e2918 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Heinrichs, L., Aytur, S. A. & Bucci, J. P. Whole metagenomic sequencing to characterize the sediment microbial community within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and preliminary biosynthetic gene cluster screening of Streptomyces scabrisporus. Mar. Genom. 50, 100718 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Belknap, K. C. et al. Genome mining of biosynthetic and chemotherapeutic gene clusters in Streptomyces bacteria. Sci. Rep. 10, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58904-9 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Soto Jiménez, M. F., Cerqueda-García, D., Montero-Muñoz, J. L., Aguirre-Macedo, M. L. & García-Maldonado, J. Q. Assessment of the bacterial community structure in shallow and deep sediments of the Perdido Fold Belt region in the Gulf of Mexico. PeerJ 6, e5583. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pershing, A. J. et al. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 62, 809–812 (2015).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pittman, S. J. Relevance of the Northeast Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2007–2018) Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Science Series ONMS-19–08. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. (2019).Bucci, J. P., Szempruch, A. J., Caldwell, J. M., Ellis, C. & Levine, J. F. Seasonal changes in microbial community structure in freshwater stream sediment in a North Carolina River Basin. Diversity 6, 18–32 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Won, N. I., Kim, K. H., Kang, J. H., Park, S. R. & Lee, H. J. Exploring the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance on seawater and sediment microbial communities in korean coastal waters using metagenomics analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 130 (2017).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zinger, L. et al. Global patterns of bacterial beta-diversity in seafloor and seawater ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6(9), e24570 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auster, P., Lindholm, J., Cramer, A., Nenandovic, M., Prindle, C., & Tamsett, A. The seafloor habitat recovery monitoring project (SHRMP) at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Final Project Report. (2013b).UN General Assembly, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October, A/RES/70/1, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html. (2015).Malve, H. Exploring the ocean for new drug developments: Marine pharmacology. J. Pharm. Bioall. Sci. 8, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.171700 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Here we provide an overview of the key elements of our framework including describing the contact function that links economic activities to contacts, the SIRD (Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered-Dead) model, the dynamic economic model governing choices, and calibration. The core of our approach is a dynamic optimization model of individual behavior coupled with an SIRD model of infectious disease spread. Additional details are found in the SI.Contact functionWe model daily contacts as a function of economic activities (labor supply, measured in hours, and consumption demand, measured in dollars) creating a detailed mapping between contacts and economic activities. For example, all else equal, if a susceptible individual reduces their labor supply from 8 to 4 h, they reduce their daily contacts at work from 7.5 to 3.75. Epidemiological data is central to calibrating this mapping between epidemiology and economic behavior. Intuitively, the calibration involves calculating the mean number of disease-transmitting contacts occurring at the start of the epidemic and linking it to the number of dollars spent on consumption and hours of labor supplied before the recession begins.We use an SIRD transmission framework to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission for a population of 331 million interacting agents. This is supported by several studies (e.g.,77,78) that identify infectiousness prior to symptom onset. We consider three health types m ∈ {S, I, R} for individuals, corresponding to epidemiological compartments of susceptible (S), infectious (I), and recovered (R). Individuals of health type m engage in various economic activities ({A}_{i}^{m}), with i denoting the activities modeled. One of the ({A}_{i}^{m}) is assumed to represent unavoidable other non-economic activities, such as sleeping and commuting, which occur during the hours of the day not used for economic activities (see SI 2.3.1). Disease dynamics are driven by contacts between susceptible and infectious types, where the number of susceptible-infectious contacts per person is given by the following linear equation:$${{{{{{{{mathscr{C}}}}}}}}}^{SI}({{{{{{{bf{A}}}}}}}})=mathop{sum}limits_{i}{rho }_{i}{A}_{i}^{S}{A}_{i}^{I}$$
(1)
while similar in several respects to prior epi-econ models15,16,74, a methodological contribution is that ρi converts hours worked and dollars spent into contacts. For example, ρc has units of contacts per squared dollar spent at consumption activities, while ρl has units of contacts per squared hour worked.We also consider robustness to different functional forms in Fig. 6F, G as a reduced-form way to consider multiple consumption and labor activities with heterogeneous contact rates. Formally:$${{{{{{{{mathscr{C}}}}}}}}}^{SI}({{{{{{{bf{A}}}}}}}})=mathop{sum}limits_{i}{rho }_{i}{({A}_{i}^{S}{A}_{i}^{I})}^{alpha },$$
(2)
where α  > 1 (convex) corresponds to a contact function where higher-contact activities are easiest to reduce or individuals with more contacts are easier to isolate. α  More

Game, E. T. et al. Pelagic protected areas: The missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 360–369 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641–1255647 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paleczny, M., Hammill, E., Karpouzi, V. & Pauly, D. Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950–2010. PLoS ONE 10, e0129342 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Croxall, J. P. et al. Seabird conservation status and threats: A global assessment of priorities. Bird Conserv. Int. 22, 1–34 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dias, M. P. et al. Threats to seabirds: A global assessment. Biol. Conserv. 237, 525–537 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trathan, P. N. et al. Pollution, habitat loss, fishing, and climate change as critical threats to penguins. Conserv. Biol. 29, 31–41 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boersma, D. et al. Applying science to pressing conservation needs for penguins. Conserv. Biol. 34, 103–112 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ropert-Coudert, Y. et al. Happy feet in a hostile world? The future of penguins depends on proactive management of current and expected threats. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 248 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maestro, M., Pérez-Cayeiro, M. L., Chica-Ruiz, J. A. & Reyes, H. Marine protected areas in the 21st century: Current situation and trends. Ocean Coast. Manag. 171, 28–36 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hays, G. C. et al. Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 463–475 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyd, C. et al. Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species. Conserv. Lett. 1, 37–43 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marra, P. P., Cohen, E. B., Loss, S. R., Rutter, J. E. & Tonra, C. M. A call for full annual cycle research in animal ecology. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150552 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kürten, N. et al. High individual repeatability of the migratory behaviour of a long-distance migratory seabird. Mov. Ecol. 10, 5 (2022).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weimerskirch, H. et al. Lifetime foraging patterns of the wandering albatross: Life on the move!. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 450, 68–78 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trebilco, R., Gales, R., Baker, G. B., Terauds, A. & Sumner, M. D. At sea movement of Macquarie Island giant petrels: Relationships with marine protected areas and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2942–2958 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clay, T. A. et al. A comprehensive large-scale assessment of fisheries bycatch risk to threatened seabird populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1882–1893 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meier, R. E. et al. Tracking, feather moult and stable isotopes reveal foraging behaviour of a critically endangered seabird during the non-breeding season. Divers. Distrib. 23, 130–145 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankish, C. K., Phillips, R. A., Clay, T. A., Somveille, M. & Manica, A. Environmental drivers of movement in a threatened seabird: Insights from a mechanistic model and implications for conservation. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1315–1329 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ratcliffe, N. et al. Changes in prey fields increase the potential for spatial overlap between gentoo penguins and a krill fishery within a marine protected area. Divers. Distrib. 27, 552–563 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grémillet, D. et al. Persisting worldwide seabird-fishery competition despite seabird community decline. Curr. Biol. 28, 4009–4013 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bogdanova, M. I. et al. Multi-colony tracking reveals spatio-temporal variation in carry-over effects between breeding success and winter. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 578, 167–181 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Bemmelen, R. et al. Flexibility in otherwise consistent non-breeding movements of a long-distance migratory seabird, the long-tailed skua. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 578, 197–211 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, W. M. L., Butterworth, D. S. & Plagányi, É. E. Quantifying the projected impact of the South African sardine fishery on the Robben Island penguin colony. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 1882–1883 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. Bottom-up effects of a no-take zone on endangered penguin demographics. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150237 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Studholme, K. R., Hipfner, J. M., Domalik, A. D., Ivrson, S. J. & Crossin, G. T. Year-round tracking reveals multiple migratory tactics in a sentinel North Pacific seabird, Cassin’s auklet. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 619, 169–185 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Salton, M., Saraux, C., Dann, P. & Chiaradia, A. Carry-over body mass effect from winter to breeding in a resident seabird, the little penguin. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140390 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barbraud, C. et al. Density dependence, prey accessibility and prey depletion by fisheries drive Peruvian seabird population dynamics. Ecography 41, 1092–1102 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grémillet, D. et al. Starving seabirds: Unprofitable foraging and its fitness consequences in Cape gannets competing with fisheries in the Benguela upwelling ecosystem. Mar. Biol. 163, 1–11 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, A. S. C. P., Dadam, D., Mitchell, I., Ross-Smith, V. H. & Robinson, R. A. Indicators of seabird reproductive performance demonstrate the impact of commercial fisheries on seabird populations in the North Sea. Ecol. Indic. 38, 1–11 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiebot, J.-B. et al. Adjustment of pre-moult foraging strategies in Macaroni Penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus according to locality, sex and breeding status. Ibis 156, 511–522 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brasso, R. L. et al. Unique pattern of molt leads to low intraindividual variation in feather mercury concentrations in penguins. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32, 2331–2334 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cooper, J. Moult of the black-footed penguin. Int. Zoo Yearb. 18, 22–27 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cherel, Y., Charrassin, J. & Challet, E. Energy and protein requirements for molt in the king penguin Aptenodytes patagonicus. Am. J. Physiol. 266, R1182–R1188 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, C. R. Energetic cost of moult in macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and rockhopper penguins (E. chrysocome). J. Comp. Physiol. B 155, 515–520 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dehnhard, N. et al. Survival of rockhopper penguins in times of global climate change. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 777–789 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Rebstock, G. & Boersma, D. Oceanographic conditions in wintering grounds affect arrival date and body condition in breeding female Magellanic penguins. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 601, 253–267 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L., Woakes, A. J., Warren, N. L. & Butler, P. J. Evaluating the prudence of parents: Daily energy expenditure throughout the annual cycle of a free-ranging bird, the macaroni penguin Eudyptes chrysolophus. J. Avian Biol. 40, 529–538 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, R. J. M., Makhado, A. B., Upfold, L. & Dyer, B. M. Mass on arrival of rockhopper penguins at Marion Island correlated with breeding success. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 30, 185–188 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, R. J. M. et al. Food habits of an endangered seabird indicate recent poor forage fish availability off western South Africa. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76, 1344–1352 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Okes, N. C. et al. Competition for shifting resources in the southern Benguela upwelling: Seabirds versus purse-seine fisheries. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2361–2368 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, K. J. et al. Local forage fish abundance influences foraging effort and offspring condition in an endangered marine predator. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1751–1760 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grémillet, D. et al. Spatial match-mismatch in the Benguela upwelling zone: Should we expect chlorophyll and sea-surface temperature to predict marine predator distributions?. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 610–621 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. Metapopulation tracking juvenile penguins reveals an ecosystem-wide ecological trap. Curr. Biol. 27, 1–6 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. Influence of local and regional prey availability on breeding performance of African penguins Spheniscus demersus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 473, 291–301 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cury, P. M. et al. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—One-third for the birds. Science 334, 1703–1706 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, R. J. M. et al. Collapse of South Africa’s penguins in the early 21st century. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 33, 139–156 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. The conservation status and population decline of the African penguin deconstructed in space and time. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8506–8516 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weller, F. et al. A system dynamics approach to modelling multiple drivers of the African penguin population on Robben Island, South Africa. Ecol. Model. 277, 38–56 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pichegru, L. Increasing breeding success of an Endangered penguin: Artificial nests or culling predatory gulls?. Bird Conserv. Int. 23, 296–308 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weller, F. et al. System dynamics modelling of the Endangered African penguin populations on Robben and Dyer islands, South Africa. Ecol. Model. 327, 44–56 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pichegru, L. et al. Overlap between vulnerable top predators and fisheries in the Benguela upwelling system: Implications for marine protected areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 199–208 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sherley, R. B. et al. Bayesian inference reveals positive but subtle effects of experimental fishery closures on marine predator demographics. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20172443 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pichegru, L., Grémillet, D., Crawford, R. J. M. & Ryan, P. G. Marine no-take zone rapidly benefits endangered penguin. Biol. Lett. 6, 498–501 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weller, F. et al. Penguins’ perilous conservation status calls for complementary approach based on sound ecological principles: Reply to Butterworth et al. (2015). Ecol. Model. 337, 1–3 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butterworth, D. S., Plagányi, E. E., Robinson, W. M. L., Moosa, N. & de Moor, C. L. Penguin modelling approach queried. Ecol. Model. 316, 78–80 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pichegru, L. et al. Sex-specific foraging behaviour and a field sexing technique for Endangered African penguins. Endanger. Species Res. 19, 255–264 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, J. African Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) Distribution During the Non-breeding Season: Preparation for, and Recovery from, a Moulting Fast (University of Cape Town, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Dias, M. P. et al. Identification of marine Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas for penguins around the South Shetland Islands and South Orkney Islands. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10520–10529 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lascelles, B. G. et al. Applying global criteria to tracking data to define important areas for marine conservation. Divers. Distrib. 22, 422–431 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, T. National data and information report for marine spatial planning: Knowledge baseline for marine spatial planning in South Africa. (2021).Kirkman, S. P. et al. Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 43, 389–412 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, L. R. et al. Practical marine spatial management of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas: Emerging lessons from evidence-based planning and implementation in a developing-world context. Front. Mar. Sci. 9, 831678 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitehead, T. O., Kato, A., Ropert-Coudert, Y. & Ryan, P. G. Habitat use and diving behaviour of macaroni Eudyptes chrysolophus and eastern rockhopper E. chrysocome filholi penguins during the critical pre-moult period. Mar. Biol. 163, 19 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warwick-Evans, V., Downie, R., Santos, M. & Trathan, P. N. Habitat preferences of Adélie Pygoscelis adeliae and Chinstrap Penguins Pygoscelis antarctica during pre-moult in the Weddell Sea (Southern Ocean). Polar Biol. 42, 703–714 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, C.-P. et al. The role of allochrony in influencing interspecific differences in foraging distribution during the non-breeding season between two congeneric crested penguin species. PLoS ONE 17, e0262901 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pütz, K., Ingham, R. J. & Smith, J. G. Satellite tracking of the winter migration of Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus breeding in the Falkland Islands. Ibis 142, 614–622 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pütz, K. et al. Post-moult movements of sympatrically breeding Humboldt and Magellanic Penguins in south-central Chile. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 7, 49–58 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pütz, K., Ingham, R. J., Smith, J. G. & Lüthi, B. H. Winter dispersal of rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome from the Falkland Islands and its implications for conservation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 240, 273–284 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thiebot, J.-B., Cherel, Y., Trathan, P. N. & Bost, C. A. Coexistence of oceanic predators on wintering areas explained by population-scale foraging segregation in space or time. Ecology 93, 122–130 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiebot, J.-B., Bost, C.-A., Poupart, T. A., Filippi, D. & Waugh, S. M. Extensive use of the high seas by Vulnerable Fiordland Penguins across non-breeding stages. J. Ornithol. 161, 1033–1043 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mattern, T. et al. Marathon penguins—Reasons and consequences of long-range dispersal in Fiordland penguins/Tawaki during the pre-moult period. PLoS ONE 13, e0198688 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bost, C.-A., Thiebot, J.-B., Pinaud, D., Cherel, Y. & Trathan, P. N. Where do penguins go during the inter-breeding period? Using geolocation to track the winter dispersion of the macaroni penguin. Biol. Lett. 5, 473–476 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baylis, A. M. M., Tierney, M., Orben, R. A., González de la Peña, D. & Brickle, P. Non-breeding movements of gentoo penguins at the Falkland Islands. Ibis 163, 507–518 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orgeret, F. et al. Exploration during early life: Distribution, habitat and orientation preferences in juvenile king penguins. Mov. Ecol. 7, 29 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiebot, J. B., Lescroël, A., Barbraud, C. & Bost, C. A. Three-dimensional use of marine habitats by juvenile emperor penguins Aptenodytes forsteri during post-natal dispersal. Antarct. Sci. 25, 536–544 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pütz, K. et al. Post-fledging dispersal of king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) from two breeding sites in the South Atlantic. PLoS ONE 9, e97164 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Birt, V., Birt, T., Goulet, D., Cairns, D. & Montevecchi, W. Ashmole’s halo: Direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 40, 205–208 (1987).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Furness, R. W. & Birkhead, T. R. Seabird colony distributions suggest competition for food supplies during the breeding season. Nature 311, 655–656 (1984).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter-Kling, T. et al. Foraging in a dynamic environment: Response of four sympatric sub-Antarctic albatross species to interannual environmental variability. Ecol. Evol. 10, 11277–11295 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kowalczyk, N. D., Reina, R. D., Preston, T. J. & Chiaradia, A. Environmental variability drives shifts in the foraging behaviour and reproductive success of an inshore seabird. Oecologia 178, 967–979 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Machovsky-Capuska, G. E. et al. The nutritional nexus: Linking niche, habitat variability and prey composition in a generalist marine predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 1286–1298 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hays, G. C. et al. Translating marine animal tracking data into conservation policy and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 459–473 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kappes, M. A. et al. Hawaiian albatrosses track interannual variability of marine habitats in the North Pacific. Prog. Oceanogr. 86, 246–260 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bost, C. A. et al. Large-scale climatic anomalies affect marine predator foraging behaviour and demography. Nat. Commun. 6, 8220 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, C. J. et al. Effects of climate-driven primary production change on marine food webs: Implications for fisheries and conservation. Glob. Chang. Biol. 16, 1194–1212 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Beever, E. A. et al. Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 299–308 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McInnes, A. M., Ryan, P. G., Lacerda, M. & Pichegru, L. Targeted prey fields determine foraging effort thresholds of a marine diver: Important cues for the sustainable management of fisheries. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2206–2215 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Eeden, R., Reid, T., Ryan, P. G. & Pichegru, L. Fine-scale foraging cues for African penguins in a highly variable marine environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 543, 257–271 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coetzee, J. C., van der Lingen, C. D., Hutchings, L. & Fairweather, T. P. Has the fishery contributed to a major shift in the distribution of South African sardine?. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65, 1676–1688 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blamey, L. K. et al. Ecosystem change in the southern Benguela and the underlying processes. J. Mar. Syst. 144, 9–29 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roy, C., Van Der Lingen, C. D., Coetzee, J. C. & Lutjeharms, J. R. E. Abrupt environmental shift associated with changes in the distribution of Cape anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus spawners in the southern Benguela. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 29, 309–319 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
McInnes, A. M. et al. Small pelagic fish responses to fine-scale oceanographic conditions: Implications for the endangered African penguin. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 569, 187–203 (2017).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barange, M., Hampton, I. & Roel, B. A. Trends in the abundance and distribution of anchovy and sardine on the South African continental shelf in the 1990s, deduced from acoustic surveys. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 21, 367–391 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchings, L. et al. Spawning on the edge: Spawning grounds and nursery areas around the southern African coastline. Mar. Freshw. Res. 53, 307–318 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verheye, H. M., Hutchings, L., Huggett, J. A. & Painting, S. J. Mesozooplankton dynamics in the Benguela ecosystem, with emphasis on the herbivorous copepods. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 12, 561–584 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchings, L., Jarre, A., Lamont, T., van den Berg, M. & Kirkman, S. P. St Helena Bay (southern Benguela) then and now: Muted climate signals, large human impact. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 34, 559–583 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goschen, W. S. & Schumann, E. H. Upwelling and the occurrence of cold water around Cape Recife, Algoa Bay, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 16, 57–67 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchings, L. et al. The Benguela Current: An ecosystem of four components. Prog. Oceanogr. 83, 15–32 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Goschen, W. S., Schumann, E. H., Bernard, K. S., Bailey, S. E. & Deyzel, S. H. P. Upwelling and ocean structures off Algoa Bay and the south-east coast of South Africa. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 34, 525–536 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Lingen, C. D. Diet of sardine Sardinops sagax in the southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 24, 301–316 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Lingen, C. D., Hutchings, L. & Field, J. G. Comparative trophodynamics of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus and sardine Sardinops sagax in the southern Benguela: Are species alternations between small pelagic fish trophodynamically mediated?. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 28, 465–477 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, K. L. B., Pichegru, L. & Ryan, P. G. Penguins are attracted to dimethyl sulphide at sea. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 2509–2511 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hagen, C. et al. Evaluating the state of knowledge on fishing exclusions around major African Penguin colonies. (2014).Fort, J. et al. Multicolony tracking reveals potential threats to little auks wintering in the North Atlantic from marine pollution and shrinking sea ice cover. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1322–1332 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reiertsen, T. K. et al. Prey density in non-breeding areas affects adult survival of black-legged kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 509, 289–302 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fayet, A. L. et al. Ocean-wide drivers of migration strategies and their influence on population breeding performance in a declining seabird. Curr. Biol. 27, 3871–3878 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Desprez, M., Jenouvrier, S., Barbraud, C., Delord, K. & Weimerskirch, H. Linking oceanographic conditions, migratory schedules and foraging behaviour during the non-breeding season to reproductive performance in a long-lived seabird. Funct. Ecol. 32, 2040–2053 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Randall, R. M. & Randall, B. The annual cycle of the Jackass Penguin Spheniscus demersus at St Croix Island, South Africa. In Proc. Symp. Birds Sea Shore 427–450 (1981).Wolfaardt, A. C., Underhill, L. G. & Visagie, J. Breeding and moult phenology of African penguins Spheniscus demersus at Dassen Island. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 31, 119–132 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, R. J. M. et al. Molt of the African penguin, Spheniscus demersus, in relation to its breeding season and food availability. Acta Zool. Sin. 52, 444–447 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Randall, R. M. Biology of the Jackass Penguin Spheniscus demersus (L.) at St Croix, South Africa (Univeristy of Port Elizabeth, 1983).
Google Scholar 
Harding, C. T. Tracking African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) Outside of the Breeding Season: Regional Effects and Fishing Pressure During the Pre-moult Period (University of Cape Town, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, R. P. The Jackass Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) as a pelagic predator. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 25, 219–227 (1985).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Freitas, C. argosfilter: Argos locations filter. (2012).Worton, B. J. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70, 164–168 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Calenge, C. The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Modell. 197, 516–519 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vander Wal, E. & Rodgers, A. R. An individual-based quantitative approach for delineating core areas of animal space use. Ecol. Model. 224, 48–53 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dinno, A. dunn.test: Dunn’s Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums (2017).Bhattacharyya, A. On a measure of divergence between two multinomial populations. Indian J. Stat. 7, 401–406 (1946).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Beal, M. et al. track2KBA: An R package for identifying important sites for biodiversity from tracking data. Methods Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13713 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Donald, P. F. et al. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): The development and characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for biodiversity. Bird Conserv. 29, 177–198 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Handley, J. M. et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of a large multi-use MPA in protecting Key Biodiversity Areas for marine predators. Divers. Distrib. 26, 715–729 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strimas-Mackey, M. smoothr: Smooth and tidy spatial features. R package version 0.2.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=smoothr (2018).Department of Forestry Fisheries and the Environment, T. South Africa Marine Protected Area Zonations (SAMPAZ_OR_2021_Q3). https://egis.environment.gov.za/data_egis/data_dow (2021).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.r-project.org/ (2021). More

Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More

Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More

Trait modelsOur analysis included 491,001 unique trait measurements across 18 traits, encompassing 13,189 tree species from 2313 genera, reflecting ~21% of all known tree species33 (Fig. 1). Traits were measured at 8683 locations across the globe and 373 distinct eco-regions (Supplementary Tables 1, 2), with georeferenced measurements capturing 15% of known tree species in Eurasia, 13% in South America, 9% in Oceania, and 6% in North America and Africa33. The raw data covered 22% of all trait-by-species combinations (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Fig. 2), nearly identical to other large-scale trait analyses across the entire plant kingdom5,17,30. Yet there was considerable variation in coverage across traits, with traits such as specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen measured on more than 60% of all species, versus traits such as crown diameter and conduit diameter, which captured fewer than 5% of species (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Fig. 2). Across all species, 423 had more than 10 unique traits measured, and two species (Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris) had measurements for all 18 traits. In general, there was highly consistent coverage across taxonomic orders and traits (Supplementary Fig. 1), with gymnosperms being slightly overrepresented (comprising 3.1 ± 6.8% of measurements in the database versus ~1% of all known tree species34,35, Fig. 1a), in part reflecting the wider geographic range of many gymnosperms relative to angiosperms36.To explore relationships in functional traits at the individual level, we used random-forest machine-learning models to estimate missing trait values for each individual tree as a function of its environment and phylogenetic history. We also conducted a second set of analyses where trait expression was estimated using phylogenetic information only, which allowed us to include additional non-georeferenced data (Fig. 1), while also quantifying the relative contribution of environmental information on trait expression (Supplementary Fig. 6). Following standard approaches5,15,29,30, all traits were log-transformed and standardized to allow for statistically robust comparisons. Environmental predictors included ten variables encompassing climate37,38,39,40, soil41, topographic42, and geological43 features. Phylogenetic history was incorporated via the first ten phylogenetic eigenvectors44,45 (see Methods). By including environmental information alongside phylogenetic information, this approach not only allowed us to impute species-level traits which have strong phylogenetic signals and weak environmental signals, as is traditionally done17,30 but also to robustly estimate traits which have a weak phylogenetic signal and are instead strongly sensitive to environmental conditions. Moreover, being a non-parametric approach, the random forest makes no a priori assumptions about how trait expression varies across phylogenetic groups or environments.Across all 18 traits, the best-fitting models explained 54 ± 14% of out-of-fit trait variation (VEcv, see Methods), ranging from 26% for stem diameter to 76% of the variation in leaf area (Supplementary Figs. 6, 7). This accuracy was quantified using buffered leave-one-out cross-validation to account for spatial and phylogenetic autocorrelation46, and thus serves as a conservative lower bound for species which are phylogenetically and environmentally distinct from the observations47. There was no significant relationship between out-of-fit cross-validation accuracy and sample size (R2 = 0.06, p = 0.33), highlighting the relatively broad taxonomic coverage for each trait (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 1).Environmental variables and phylogenetic information had approximately equal explanatory power (relative importance of 0.51 vs 0.49 for environment vs. phylogeny), albeit with substantial variation across traits (Supplementary Fig. 9). The inclusion of environmental variables increased the explanatory power of the models by 35%, on average (Supplementary Fig. 6), with crown diameter, crown height, leaf density, and stem diameter exhibiting the largest relative increases (54%, 45%, 73%, and 26%, respectively), mirroring the fact that these traits have comparatively low phylogenetic signal relative to other traits (assessed via Pagel’s λ on the raw data, Fig. 4c). Seed dry mass was the only trait with a substantial increase in accuracy using the phylogeny-only model (25% improvement; Supplementary Fig. 6), reflecting the fact that seed dry mass had the strongest phylogenetic signal of all traits (Fig. 4c), and also because this trait has a substantial amount of additional non-georeferenced data that was included in the phylogeny-only models (Fig. 1b). Wood density was the only trait with nearly identical predictive power whether or not environmental information was included, whereas all other traits exhibited significantly reduced accuracy when environmental information was excluded (Supplementary Fig. 6).Relationships in tree trait expressionUsing the resulting trait models, we imputed missing trait values for every tree with at least one georeferenced trait measurement. For all traits except seed dry mass, we used the random-forest models accounting for environmental and phylogenetic information; for seed dry mass, we used the phylogeny-only model to estimate expression due to its substantially higher data availability and out-of-fit accuracy. For tree height, stem diameter, crown height, crown width, and root depth, we used quantile random forest48 to estimate the upper 90th percentile value for each species in its given location, thereby minimizing ontogenetic variation across a tree’s lifetime (see Methods). We used the resulting trait data to explore the dominant drivers of trait variation using species-weighted principal component analysis, accounting for an unequal number of observations across species.When considering all traits simultaneously, the first two axes of the resulting principal components (PC) capture 41% of the variation in overall trait expression (Fig. 2a; Supplementary Fig. 10; Supplementary Table 5). The first trait axis correlates most strongly with leaf thickness, specific leaf area, and leaf nitrogen (PC loadings of L = 0.77, 0.74, and 0.73, respectively). By capturing key aspects of the leaf-economic spectrum14, these traits reflect various physiological controls on leaf-level resource processing, tissue turnover and photosynthetic rates49. Thick leaves with low specific leaf area (SLA) can help minimize desiccation, frost damage, and nutrient limitation, but at the cost of reduced photosynthetic potential due to primary investment in structural resistance50. Accordingly, leaf nitrogen—a crucial component of Rubisco for photosynthesis51—trades off strongly with leaf thickness. This first axis thus captures the core distinction between “acquisitive” (fast) and “conservative” (slow) life-history strategies across the plant kingdom7,52, reflecting an organismal-level trade-off between the high photosynthetic potential in optimal conditions versus abiotic tolerance in suboptimal conditions. Nevertheless, leaf density—which is related to SLA and is a key feature of the leaf-economic spectrum—loads relatively weakly on this first trait axis compared to other leaf traits (L = −0.28 for axis 1, vs 0.20 for axis 2; Supplementary Table 5), highlighting important aspects of leaf structure that are not captured by this dominant trait axis53.Fig. 2: The dominant trait axes and relationships.Shown are the first two principal component axes capturing trait relationships across the 18 functional traits. a All tree species (n = 30,146 observations), b angiosperms only (n = 24,658), and c gymnosperms only (n = 5498). In a the three variables that load most strongly on each axis are shown in dark black lines, with the remaining variables shown in light grey. These same six variables are highlighted in b and c illustrating how the same relationships extend to angiosperms and gymnosperms (see Supplementary Figs. 10–12 for the full PCAs with all traits visible, and Supplementary Table 5 for the PC loadings).Full size imageThe second trait axis correlates most strongly with maximum tree height (PC loading of L = 0.77), crown height, (L = 0.75), and crown diameter (L = 0.88), highlighting the overarching importance of competition for light and canopy position in forests7 (Fig. 2a; Supplementary Fig. 10; Supplementary Table 5). Large trees and large crowns are critical for light access and for maximizing light interception down through the canopy54. Nevertheless, tall trees with deep crowns also experience greater susceptibility to disturbance and mechanical damage, primarily due to wind and weight25. Because of the massive carbon and nutrient costs required to create large woody structures55,56, larger trees are less viable in nutrient-limited or colder climates57, and in exposed areas with high winds or extreme weather events58. This second axis thus reflects a fundamental biotic/abiotic trade-off related to overall tree size, which is largely orthogonal to leaf-level nutrient-use and photosynthetic capacity.Despite substantial differences in wood and leaf structures between angiosperms and gymnosperms (e.g. vessels vs. tracheids), the two main relationships hold within, as well as across, angiosperms and gymnosperms (Fig. 2b, c; Supplementary Figs. 11, 12). Indeed, angiosperms and gymnosperms are subject to the same physical, mechanical, and chemical processes that determine the ability to withstand various biotic and abiotic pressures59.Collectively, these two primary trait axes capture two dominant ecological trade-offs that underpin tree survival in any given environment: (1) the ability to maximize leaf photosynthetic activity, at the cost of increased risk of leaf desiccation, and (2) the ability to compete for space and maximize light interception, at the cost of increased susceptibility to mechanical damage. By capturing two aspects of conservative-acquisitive life-history strategies, these two relationships closely mirror those seen when considering herbaceous species alongside woody species5,17. However, in line with our expectations, these two axes capture only ~40% of the variation in trait space, versus nearly ~75% of variation when considering only six traits across the entire plant kingdom5. Here, the first seven PC axes are needed to account for 75% of the variation across all 18 traits (Supplementary Table 5). Thus, while this analysis supports the universality of these two primary PC axes, it also demonstrates that the majority of trait variation in trees is unexplained by these two dimensions. As such, quantifying the full dimensionality of trait space by exploring multidimensional trait clusters is needed to better capture the wide breadth of tree form and function.Environmental predictors of trait relationshipsTo examine how environmental variation shapes trait expression across the globe, we next quantified the relationships between environmental conditions and the dominant trait axes. Using Shapley values60, we partitioned the relative influence of each environmental variable on the PC trait axes, controlling for all other variables in the model (see Methods).In line with previous analysis across the plant kingdom61, temperature variables were the strongest drivers of trait relationships (Fig. 3, Supplementary Figs. 17, 18), with annual temperature having the strongest influence both on leaf-economic traits (PC axis 1, Fig. 3c) and on tree-size traits (PC axis 2, Fig. 3d). Leaves face increased frost risk and reduced photosynthetic potential in colder conditions, such that ecological selection should favour thick leaves with low SLA over thin leaves with high SLA and high nutrient-use49. Trees in warm environments are more likely to experience strong biotic interactions, which should increase evolutionary and ecological selection pressures over time62,63, favouring tall species with large crowns that have high competitive ability and efficient light acquisition strategies. Annual temperature thus predominantly reflects the transition from gymnosperm- to angiosperm-dominated ecosystems, with this inflection point occurring at ~15 °C for both axes, demonstrating strong environmental convergence between the dominant axes of trait variation.Fig. 3: The relationship between environmental variables and trait axes.a, b The relative influence of the environmental variables on the two dominant PC axes. The ten variables are sorted by overall variable importance in the models (see Methods). Yellow points are observations which have high values of that environmental variable; blue values are the lowest. Points to the right of zero indicate a positive influence on the PC axis; points to the left indicate a negative influence (see also Supplementary Figs. 17, 18). c–h The relationships between environmental variables and PC axis values for the three variables in a with the strongest influence. Values above zero show a positive influence on PC axis values; values less than zero indicate a negative influence.Full size imageBeyond annual temperature, each trait axis demonstrated different relationships with climate, soil, and topographic variables (Fig. 3a, b, Supplementary Figs. 17, 18). Percent sand content had the second-highest influence on the first trait axis (Fig. 3e), supporting patterns seen across the entire plant kingdom17. Sand content is a strong proxy for soil moisture and soil-available nutrients such as phosphorous, and is therefore closely tied to leaf photosynthetic rates64. In contrast to previous work, however, we find that soil characteristics have correspondingly little effect on the second axis of trait variation (Fig. 3b; Supplementary Fig. 18). Instead, precipitation was the second strongest driver of tree height and crown size (Fig. 3f), with large trees with large crowns becoming consistently more frequent with increasing precipitation. These results highlight that, despite the primary importance of temperature, the main climate stressors to trees (e.g. xylem cavitation and embolism, fire regimes, and leaf desiccation) typically arise via interactions between temperature, soil nutrients, and water availability.For both axes, elevation was the third strongest driver of trait values (Fig. 3g, h), highlighting a critical component of tree functional biogeography that extends beyond climate and soil. Yet the effects of elevation on trait expression differed somewhat across the two axes. For the first axis related to leaf-economic traits, there is little influence at low elevations, followed by a sharp transition at ~2000 m towards gymnosperm-dominated species with thick leaves, low SLA, and low leaf N. For the second trait axis related to tree size, elevation instead has a strong positive influence on tree height and crown size at low elevations, which becomes increasingly less influential past ~500 m. Such results partly reflect the transition from angiosperm to gymnosperm-dominated stands at higher elevations (blue vs. red points, Fig. 3g, h), and potentially the role of environmentally mediated intraspecific variation in traits such as tree height65,66.These results demonstrate close alignment of the dominant trait PC axes across biogeographic regions. Despite the orthogonality of these axes in trait species, environmental conditions place similar constraints on both trait axes, particularly at the environmental extremes (e.g. warm, moist, low elevation vs. cold, dry, high elevation), leading to convergence of the dominant trait axes across environmental gradients.Trait clusters at the global scaleTo better explore the multidimensional nature of trait relationships that are not fully covered by the dominant two axes, we subsequently identified groups of traits that form tightly coupled clusters and which reflect distinct aspects of tree form and function.Our results show that these 18 traits can be grouped into eight trait clusters, each of which reflects a unique aspect of morphology, physiology, or ecology (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 23). The largest trait cluster (Fig. 4a, pink cluster) demonstrates wood/leaf integration of moisture regulation and photosynthetic activity via the inclusion of leaf area, stem conduit diameter, stomatal conductance, and leaf Vcmax (the maximum rate of carboxylation). Distinct from this cluster are the three traits loading most strongly on PC axis 1 (SLA, leaf thickness and leaf N; Fig. 4a, yellow), highlighting complementary aspects of the leaf-economic spectrum indicative of acquisitive vs. conservative resource use15. The role of leaf K and P in leaf nutrient economies are well established7,67, and yet these traits form a distinct cluster from the other leaf-economic traits (Fig. 4a, light blue) due to their relatively high correlation with tree height and crown size, particularly for leaf K, which loads almost equally on both trait axes (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Table 5).Fig. 4: Trait correlations and functional clusters.a Trait clusters with high average intra-group correlation. The upper triangle gives the species-weighted correlations incorporating intraspecific variation. The lower triangle gives the corresponding correlations among phylogenetic independent contrasts, which adjusts for pseudo-replication due to the non-independence of closely related species. The size of the circle denotes the relative strength of the correlation, with solid circles denoting positive correlations and open circles denoting negative correlations (see Supplementary Fig. 19 for the numeric values). b PC loadings for each trait and each of the first two principal component axes, illustrating which functional trait clusters align most strongly with the dominant axes of trait variation (see Supplementary Table 5 for the full set of PC loadings). c The species-level phylogenetic signal of each trait (Pagel’s λ), calculated using only the raw trait values.Full size imageTree height and crown size form their own distinct cluster (Fig. 4a, dark green), further supporting the inference that these traits reflect key aspects of tree form and function independent of the leaf-economic spectrum. Yet leaf area, despite being part of the cluster reflecting moisture regulation and photosynthetic activity, loads almost equally on PC axes 1 and 2 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Table 5), highlighting that it serves as an intermediary between the two key aspects of tree size and leaf economics. It is a critical driver of moisture regulation and photosynthetic capacity, while also playing an important role in the light acquisition, leaf-turnover time, and competitive ability54,68.There are two additional two-trait clusters, both of which load relatively poorly on the two primary PC axes: (1) stem diameter and bark thickness (Fig. 4, dark blue), and (2) wood and leaf density (Fig. 4, light green). Bark thickness increases with tree size not only as a result of bark accumulation as trees age, but also due to the functional/metabolic needs of the plant69,70. From an ecological perspective, thick bark can be critical for defense against fire and pest damage (mainly a thick outer bark region), for storage and photosynthate transportation needs (mainly a thick inner bark region)71,72. Yet such relationships are strongly ecosystem-dependent, with tree size emerging as the dominant driver at the global scale70. In contrast, wood density and leaf density are strongly linked to slow/fast life-history strategies, where denser plant parts reduce growth rate and water transport6,15 but protect against pest damage, desiccation, and mechanical breakage6,50,56. As such, leaf density captures fundamentally unique aspects of leaf form and function relative to other leaf traits such as SLA53 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Table 5), and our results support the inference that these translate into fundamentally different ecological strategies73. Collectively, these two-trait clusters each demonstrate unique and complementary mechanisms that insulate trees against various disturbances and extreme weather events, but at the cost of reduced growth, competitive ability, and productivity under optimal conditions (see Supplementary Notes).Lastly, two traits each comprise their own unique cluster: root depth and seed dry mass (Fig. 4a, purple and orange, respectively). Root growth is subject to a range of belowground processes (e.g. root herbivory, depth to bedrock), and our results confirm previous work demonstrating a clear disconnect between aboveground and belowground traits23,74,75. Root depth accordingly has a relatively weak phylogenetic signal (λ = 0.44, Fig. 4c) but a strong environmental signal (Supplementary Figs. 6, 9), reflecting distinct belowground constraints on trait expression23. In contrast, seed dry mass exhibits the strongest phylogenetic signal (λ = 0.98, Fig. 4c) and weakest environmental signal of any trait (Supplementary Figs. 6, 9), and it accordingly was the only trait where the phylogeny-only model performed substantially better (Supplementary Fig. 6). In line with previous work, seed dry mass has moderate correlations with various other traits underpinning leaf economics and tree size5,28 (e.g. ρ = 0.28, −0.22, and 0.22 for tree height, leaf K, and leaf density, using the raw data), yet it exhibits relatively weak correlation with most other traits, placing it in a distinct functional cluster. Reproductive traits are subject to unique evolutionary pressures26, indicative of different seed dispersal vectors (wind, water, animals) and various ecological stressors that uniquely affect seed viability and germination26. The emergence of root depth and seed dry mass as solo functional clusters thus supports the previous inference that belowground traits74 and reproductive traits26 reflect distinct aspects of tree form and function not fully captured by leaf or wood trait spectrums. More