Ecology

Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chung, M. G. & Liu, J. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00499-7 (2022).Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
A complex prairie ecosystem. National Park Service https://www.nps.gov/tapr/learn/nature/a-complex-prairie-ecosystem.htm (2022)Davalos, L. M. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1219–1227 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. PLoS ONE 11, e0159668 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. Consumption patterns and biodiversity. The Royal Society https://go.nature.com/3M19vup (2020).Xu, Z. et al. Nat. Sustain. 3, 964–971 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dou, Y., da Silva, R. F. B., Yang, H. & Liu, J. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1715–1732 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Schindler, D. W. Lakes as sentinels and integrators for the effects of climate change on watersheds, airsheds, and landscapes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 2349–2358 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J. & McNeill, J. R. The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 36, 614–621 (2007).Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration. Anthropoc. Rev. 2, 81–98 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, D. et al. Transparency, geomorphology and mixing regime explain variability in trends in lake temperature and stratification across Northeastern North America (1975–2014). Water 9, 442 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jane, S. F. et al. Widespread deoxygenation of temperate lakes. Nature 594, 66–70 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adrian, R. et al. Lakes as sentinels of climate change. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 2283–2297 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smol, J. P. Pollution of lakes and rivers: a paleoenvironmental perspective. (Blackwell Pub, 2008).Bennion, H., Simpson, G. L. & Goldsmith, B. J. Assessing degradation and recovery pathways in lakes impacted by eutrophication using the sediment record. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, (2015).Arseneau, K. M. A., Driscoll, C. T., Cummings, C. M., Pope, G. & Cumming, B. F. Adirondack (NY, USA) reference lakes show a pronounced shift in chrysophyte species composition since ca. 1900. J. Paleolimnol. 56, 349–364 (2016).Ellegaard, M. et al. Dead or alive: sediment DNA archives as tools for tracking aquatic evolution and adaptation. Commun. Biol. 3, 169 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coolen, M. J. L. et al. Evolution of the plankton paleome in the Black Sea from the Deglacial to Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 8609–8614 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo, E., Domaizon, I., Maier, D., Debroas, D. & Bigler, C. To what extent is the DNA of microbial eukaryotes modified during burying into lake sediments? A repeat-coring approach on annually laminated sediments. J. Paleolimnol. 58, 479–495 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo, E. et al. Tracking a century of changes in microbial eukaryotic diversity in lakes driven by nutrient enrichment and climate warming: Long-term dynamics of microbial eukaryotes. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 2873–2892 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo, E. et al. Lake sedimentary DNA research on past terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity: Overview and recommendations. Quaternary 4, 6 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domaizon, I., Winegardner, A., Capo, E., Gauthier, J. & Gregory-Eaves, I. DNA-based methods in paleolimnology: New opportunities for investigating long-term dynamics of lacustrine biodiversity. J. Paleolimnol. 58, 1–21 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domaizon, I. et al. DNA from lake sediments reveals the long-term dynamics and diversity of Synechococcus assemblages. Biogeosciences 10, 3817–3838 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H. et al. Climate and nutrient-driven regime shifts of cyanobacterial communities in low-latitude plateau lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 3408–3418 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keck, F. et al. Assessing the response of micro-eukaryotic diversity to the Great acceleration using lake sedimentary DNA. Nat. Commun. 11, 3831 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cockrell, C. The value of microorganisms. Environ. Ethics 27, 375–390 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sagova-Mareckova, M. et al. Expanding ecological assessment by integrating microorganisms into routine freshwater biomonitoring. Water Res. 191, 116767 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Likens, G. Plankton of Inland Waters a derivative of Encyclopedia of Inland Waters. in (Elsevier Science & Technology Books, 2010).Weisse, T. Functional diversity of aquatic ciliates. Eur. J. Protistol. 61, 331–358 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Finlay, B. J. & Esteban, G. F. Freshwater protozoa: Biodiversity and ecological function. Biodivers. Conserv. 7, 1163–1186 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker, D. K. & Lavrentyev, P. J. Mixotrophic plankton in the polar seas: A pan-arctic review. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 292 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bick, H. Ciliated protozoa : an illustrated guide to the species used as biological indicators in freshwater biology. (World Health Organisation, 1972).Curds, C. R. An illustrated key to the British Freshwater Ciliated Protozoa commonly found in activated sludge. (Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1969).Pitsch, G. et al. Seasonality of planktonic freshwater ciliates: Are analyses based on V9 regions of the 18S rRNA gene correlated with morphospecies counts?. Front. Microbiol. 10, 248 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynn, D. H. The Ciliated Protozoa. (Springer, 2010).Adl, S. M. et al. The new higher level classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52, 399–451 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibrahim, A. et al. Anthropogenic impact on the historical phytoplankton community of Lake Constance reconstructed by multimarker analysis of sediment-core environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 30, 3040–3056 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mosher, J. J. & Findlay, R. H. Direct and indirect influence of parental bedrock on streambed microbial community structure in forested streams. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 7681–7688 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennion, H., Monteith, D. & Appleby, P. Temporal and geographical variation in lake trophic status in the English Lake District: evidence from (sub)fossil diatoms and aquatic macrophytes. Freshw. Biol. 45, 394–412 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hornung, M. et al. The sensitivity of surface waters of Great Britain to acidification predicted from catchment characteristics. Environ. Pollut. 87, 207–214 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gámez-Virués, S. et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 6, 8568 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, T. F., Sand-Jensen, K., Dornelas, M. & Bruun, H. H. More is less: Net gain in species richness, but biotic homogenization over 140 years. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1650–1657 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E., Dornelas, M., Moyes, F., Gotelli, N. J. & McGill, B. Rapid biotic homogenization of marine fish assemblages. Nat. Commun. 6, 8405 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Petsch, D. K. Causes and consequences of biotic homogenization in freshwater ecosystems: Biotic homogenization of freshwater systems. Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol. 101, 113–122 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perga, M.-E. et al. High-resolution paleolimnology opens new management perspectives for lakes adaptation to climate warming. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, (2015).Rioual, P. Limnological characteristics of 25 lakes of the French Massif Central. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Lim. 38, 311–327 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Belle, S. et al. Increase in benthic trophic reliance on methane in 14 French lakes during the Anthropocene. Freshw. Biol. 61, 1105–1118 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Télesphore, S.-N. Population dynamics of autotrophic picoplankton in relation to environmental factors in a productive lake. Aquat. Sci. 57, 91–105 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Esteban, G. F., Fenchel, T. & Finlay, B. J. Mixotrophy in Ciliates. Protist 161, 621–641 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Woelfl, S. & Geller, W. Chlorella-bearing ciliates dominate in an oligotrophic North Patagonian lake (Lake Pirehueico, Chile). Freshw. Biol. 47, 231–242 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berninger, U.-G., Finlay, B. J. & Canter, H. M. The spatial distribution and ecology of Zoochlorellae-bearing ciliates in a productive pond. J. Protozool. 33, 557–563 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haraguchi, L., Jakobsen, H. H., Lundholm, N. & Carstensen, J. Phytoplankton community dynamic: A driver for ciliate trophic strategies. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 272 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staehr, P. A., Testa, J. & Carstensen, J. Decadal changes in water quality and net productivity of a shallow danish estuary following significant nutrient reductions. Estuaries Coasts 40, 63–79 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeppesen, E., Pierson, D. & Jennings, E. Effect of extreme climate events on lake ecosystems. Water 13, 282 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonntag, B., Strüder-Kypke, M. C. & Summerer, M. Uroleptus willii nov. sp., a euplanktonic freshwater ciliate (Dorsomarginalia, Spirotrichea, Ciliophora) with algal symbionts: morphological description including phylogenetic data of the small subunit rRNA gene sequence and ecological notes. Denisia 23, 279–288 (2008).Mitra, A. et al. The role of mixotrophic protists in the biological carbon pump. Biogeosciences 11, 995–1005 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munawar, M., Niblock, H., Fitzpatrick, M. & Lorimer, J. Ciliate ecology in the eutrophic Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario: Community structure and feeding characteristics. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage. 23, 35–44 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrick, H. J. An under-appreciated component of biodiversity in plankton communities: The role of protozoa in Lake Michigan (a case study). Hydrobiologia 551, 17–32 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beaver, J. R. & Crisman, T. L. The role of ciliated protozoa in pelagic freshwater ecosystems. Microb. Ecol. 17, 111–136 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrias, J.-F., Thouvenot, A., Amblard, C. & Sime-Ngando, T. Dynamics and growth estimates of planktonic protists during early spring in Lake Pavin France. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 24, 163–174 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sherr, E. B. & Sherr, B. F. Significance of predation by protists in aquatic microbial food webs. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 81, 293–308 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Wichelen, J. et al. Planktonic ciliate community structure in shallow lakes of lowland Western Europe. Eur. J. Protistol. 49, 538–551 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Posch, T. et al. Network of interactions between ciliates and phytoplankton during spring. Front. Microbiol. 6, (2015).DeNicola, D. M. & Kelly, M. Role of periphyton in ecological assessment of lakes. Freshw. Sci. 33, 619–638 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, B. et al. Warming effects on periphyton community and abundance in different seasons are influenced by nutrient state and plant type: A shallow lake mesocosm study. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 404 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schindler, D. E. Warmer climate squeezes aquatic predators out of their preferred habitat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9764–9765 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Millet, L. et al. Diagnostic fonctionnel des systèmes lacustres de Gérardmer, Longemer et RetournemerUne approche combinée limnologie/paléolimnologie. 38 (2015).Sabart, M. Projet DIVERSITOX (DIVERSIté des cyanoTOXines dans différents milieux aquatiques ligériens et relation avec la biodiversité microbienne). 28 (2018).Jenny, J.-P. et al. A spatiotemporal investigation of varved sediments highlights the dynamics of hypolimnetic hypoxia in a large hard-water lake over the last 150 years. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 1395–1408 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nogués-Bravo, D., Araújo, M. B., Romdal, T. & Rahbek, C. Scale effects and human impact on the elevational species richness gradients. Nature 453, 216–219 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hayden, C. J. & Beman, J. M. Microbial diversity and community structure along a lake elevation gradient in Yosemite National Park, California, USA: Lake microbial ecology along an elevation gradient. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1782–1791 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Catalan, J. et al. Global change revealed by palaeolimnological records from remote lakes: A review. J. Paleolimnol. 49, 513–535 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Novotny, A., Zamora-Terol, S. & Winder, M. DNA metabarcoding reveals trophic niche diversity of micro and mesozooplankton species. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288, 20210908 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lei, Y., Stumm, K., Wickham, S. A. & Berninger, U. Distributions and biomass of benthic ciliates, foraminifera and amoeboid protists in marine, brackish, and freshwater sediments. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 61, 493–508 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Foissner, W. & Berger, H. A user-friendly guide to the ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) commonly used by hydrobiologists as bioindicators in rivers, lakes, and waste waters, with notes on their ecology. Freshw. Biol. 35, 375–482 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Posch, T. et al. Size selective feeding in Cyclidium glaucoma (Ciliophora, Scuticociliatida) and its effects on bacterial community structure: A study from a continuous cultivation system. Microb. Ecol. 42, 217–227 (2001).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pawlowski, J. et al. The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 637–638, 1295–1310 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ogram, Andrew., Sayler, G. S., Gustin, Denise. & Lewis, R. J. DNA adsorption to soils and sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22, 982–984 (1988).Parducci, L. et al. Shotgun environmental DNA, pollen, and macrofossil analysis of lateglacial lake sediments from southern Sweden. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 189 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pedersen, M. W. et al. Ancient and modern environmental DNA. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20130383 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Epp, L. S. A global perspective for biodiversity history with ancient environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 28, 2456–2458 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Puitika, T., Kasahara, Y., Miyoshi, N., Sato, Y. & Shimano, S. A taxon-specific oligonucleotide primer set for PCR-based detection of soil ciliate. Microb. Environ. 22, 78–81 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dopheide, A., Lear, G., Stott, R. & Lewis, G. Molecular characterization of ciliate diversity in stream biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 1740–1747 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mangot, J.-F. et al. Short-term dynamics of diversity patterns: evidence of continual reassembly within lacustrine small eukaryotes. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 1745–1758 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. AEM 75, 7537–7541 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaulot, D. pr2database/pr2database: PR2 version 4.12.0. (Zenodo, 2019). 10.5281/ZENODO.3362765.Stoeck, T. et al. A morphogenetic survey on ciliate plankton from a mountain lake pinpoints the necessity of lineage-specific barcode markers in microbial ecology. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 430–444 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, F. et al. The all-data-based evolutionary hypothesis of ciliated protists with a revised classification of the Phylum Ciliophora (Eukaryota, Alveolata). Sci. Rep. 6, 24874 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Foissner, W., Chao, A. & Katz, L. A. Diversity and geographic distribution of ciliates (Protista: Ciliophora). Biodivers Conserv 17, 345–363 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology PackageJari. (2020).Therneau, T. & Atkinson, B. rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees. (2019).Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk, M. B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591–611 (1965).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E. & Johnson, M. M. A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data. Technometrics 23, 351–361 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 48, 907–911 (1952).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. (PRIMER-E, 2006).QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. (QGIS Association, 2021).Wickham, H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for dada analysis. (Springer-Verlag, 2016).Pedersen, T. L. & Crameri, F. scico: colour palettes based on the scientific colour-maps. (2020).Crameri, F., Shephard, G. E. & Heron, P. J. The misuse of colour in science communication. Nat. Commun. 11, 5444 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Cockroach strainsAll cockroaches were maintained on rodent diet (Purina 5001, PMI Nutrition International, St. Louis, MO) and distilled water at 27 °C, ~40% RH, and a 12:12 h L:D cycle. The WT colony (Orlando Normal) was collected in Florida in 1947 and has served as a standard insecticide-susceptible strain. The GA colony (T-164) was collected in 1989, also in Florida, and shown to be aversive to glucose; continued artificial selection with glucose-containing toxic bait fixed the homozygous GA trait in this population (approximately 150 generations as of 2020).Generating recombinant lines and life history dataTo homogenize the genetic backgrounds of the WT and GA strains, two recombinant colonies were initiated in 2013 by crossing 10 pairs of WT♂ × GA♀ and 10 pairs of GA♂ × WT♀ (Fig. 3a). At the F8 generation (free bulk mating without selection), 400 cockroaches were tested in two-choice feeding assays (see below) that assessed their initial response to tastants, as described in previous studies11,26. The cockroaches were separated into glucose-accepting and glucose-rejecting groups by the rapid Acceptance-Rejection assay (described in Feeding Bioassays). These colonies were bred for three more generations, and 200 cockroaches from each group were assayed in the F11 generation and backcrossed to obtain homozygous glucose-accepting (aa) and glucose-averse (AA) lines. Similar results were obtained in both directions of the cross, confirming previous findings of no sex linkage of the GA trait27. These two lines were defined as WT_aa (homozygotes, glucose-accepting) and GA_AA (homozygotes, glucose-averse). To obtain heterozygous GA cockroaches, GA_Aa, a single intercross group was generated from crosses of 10 pairs of WT_aa♂ × GA_AA♀ and 10 pairs of GA_AA♂ × WT_aa♀.The GA trait follows Mendelian inheritance. Therefore, we used backcrosses, guided by two-choice feeding assays and feeding responses in Acceptance-rejection assays, to determine the homozygosity of WT and GA cockroaches. The cross of WT♂ × WT♀ produced homozygous F1 cockroaches showing maximal glucose-acceptance. The cross of GA♂ × GA♀ produced homozygous F1 cockroaches showing maximal glucose-aversion. The cross of WT × GA produced F1 heterozygotes with intermediate glucose-aversion. When the F1 heterozygotes were backcrossed with WT cockroaches, they produced F2 cockroaches with a 1:1 ratio of WT and GA phenotypes.The two-choice feeding assay assessed whether cockroaches accepted or rejected glucose (binary: yes-no). Insects were held for 24 h without water, or starved without food and water. Either 10 adults or 2 day-old first instar siblings (30–40) were placed in a Petri dish (either 90 mm or 60 mm diameter × 15 mm height). Each Petri dish contained two agar discs: one disc contained 1% agar and 1 mmol l−1 red food dye (Allura Red AC), and the second disc contained 1% agar, 0.5 mmol l−1 blue food dye (Erioglaucine disodium salt) and either 1000 mmol l−1 or 3000 mmol l−1 glucose. The assay duration was 2 h during the dark phase of the insects’ L:D cycle. After each assay, the color of the abdomen of each cockroach was visually inspected under a microscope to infer the genotype.We assessed whether the recombinant colonies had different traits from the parental WT and GA lines. We paired single newly eclosed females (day 0) with single 10–12 days-old males of the same line in a Petri dish (90 mm diameter, 15 mm height) with fresh distilled water in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube and a pellet of rodent food, and monitored when they mated. When females formed egg cases, each gravid female was placed individually in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with food and water until the eggs hatched. After removing the female, her offspring were monitored until adult emergence. We recorded the time to egg hatch, first appearance of each nymphal stage, first appearance of adults and the end of adult emergence. The first instar nymphs and adults in each cohort were counted to obtain measures of survivorship. Although there were significant differences in some of these parameters across all four strains, we found no significant differences between the two recombinant lines, except mating success, which was significantly lower in GA_AA♀ than WT_aa♀ (Supplementary Table 11).Mating bioassaysAll mating sequences were recorded using an infra-red-sensitive camera (Polestar II EQ610, Everfocus Electronics, New Taipei City, Taiwan) coupled to a data acquisition board and analyzed by searchable and frame-by-frame capable software (NV3000, AverMedia Information) at 27 °C, ~40% RH and a 12:12 h L:D cycle. For behavioral analysis, tested pairs were classified into two groups: mated (successful courtship) and not-mated (failed courtship). Four distinct behavioral events (Fig. 1c, Contact, Wing raising, Nuptial feeding, and Copulation) were analyzed using seven behavioral parameters as shown in Supplementary Table 2.We extracted behavioral data from successful courtship sequences, defined as courtship that led to Copulation. For failed courtship sequences, we extracted the behavioral data from the first courtship of both mated and not-mated groups, because most pairs in both groups failed to copulate in their first encounter, and there were no significant differences in behavioral parameters between the two groups.To assay female choice, we conducted two-choice mating assays (Fig. 1a). A single focal WT♀ or GA♀ and two males, one WT and one GA, were placed in a Petri dish (90 mm diameter, 15 mm height) with fresh distilled water in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube and a pellet of rodent food (n = 25 WT♀ and 27 GA♀). To assay male choice, a single focal WT♂ or GA♂ was given a choice of two females, one WT♀ and one GA♀ (n = 27 WT♂ and 18 GA♂). Experiments were started using 0 day-old sexually unreceptive females and 10–12 days-old sexually mature males. Newly emerged (0 day-old) females were used to avoid the disruption of introducing a sexually mature female into the bioassay. B. germanica females become sexually receptive at 5–7 days of age, so the mating behavior of the focal insect was video-recorded for several days until they mated. Fertility of mated females was evaluated by the number of offspring produced. We assessed the gustatory phenotype of nymphs (either WT-type or GA-type) to determine which of the two adult cockroaches mated with the focal insect. Each gravid female was maintained individually in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with food and water until the eggs hatched. Two day-old first instar nymphs were starved for one day without water and food, and then they were tested in Two-choice feeding assays using 1000 mmol l−1 glucose-containing agar with 0.5 mmol l−1 blue food dye vs. plain sugar-free agar with 1 mmol l−1 red food dye. If all the nymphs chose the glucose-containing agar, their parents were considered WT♂ and WT♀. When all the nymphs showed glucose-aversion, they were raised to the adult stage. Newly emerged adults were backcrossed with WT cockroaches, and their offspring were tested in the Two-choice assay. When the parents were both GA, 100% of the offspring exhibited glucose-aversion. When the parents were WT and GA, the offspring showed a 1:1 ratio of glucose-accepting and glucose-aversive behavior. Mate choice, mating success ratio and the number of offspring were analyzed statistically.We conducted no-choice mating assay using the WT and GA strains (Fig. 1b, d). A female and a male were placed in a Petri dish with fresh water and a piece of rodent food and video-recorded for 24 h. The females were 5–7 days-old and males were 10–12 days-old. Four treatment pairs were tested: WT♂ × WT♀ (n = 20, 18 and 14 pairs for 5, 6 and 7 day-old females, respectively); GA♂ × GA♀ (n = 23, 22 and 35 pairs); GA♂ × WT♀ (n = 21, 14 and 17 pairs); and WT♂ × GA♀ (n = 33, 19 and 15 pairs).To confirm that gustatory stimuli guide nuptial feeding, we artificially augmented the male nuptial secretion and assessed whether the duration of nuptial feeding and mating success of GA♀ were affected (Fig. 2c). Before starting the mating assay with 5 day-old GA♀, 10–12 days-old WT♂ were separated into three groups: A control group did not receive any augmentation; A water control group received distilled water with 1 mmol l−1 blue dye (+Blue); A fructose group received 3000 mmol l−1 fructose solution with blue dye (+Blue+Fru). Approximately 50 nl of the test solution was placed into the tergal gland reservoirs using a glass microcapillary. No-choice mating assays were carried out for 24 h. n = 20–25 pairs for each treatment.We evaluated the association of short nuptial feeding (Fig. 1c) and the GA trait we conducted no-choice mating assays using females from the recombinant lines (Fig. 3c). Before starting each mating assay with 4 day-old females from the WT, GA and recombinant lines (WT_aa, GA_AA and GA_Aa), the EC50 for glucose was obtained by the instantaneous Acceptance-Rejection assay using 0, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000 and 3000 mmol l−1 glucose (WT♀ and WT_aa♀, non-starved; GA♀, GA_AA♀ and GA_Aa♀, 1-day starved). After the Acceptance-Rejection assay, GA_Aa♀ were separated into two groups according to their sensitivity for rejecting glucose; the GA_Aa_high sensitivity group rejected glucose at 100 and 300 mmol l−1, whereas the GA_Aa_low sensitivity group rejected glucose at 1000 and 3000 mmol l−1. We paired these females with 10–12 days-old WT♂ (n = 15 WT_aa♀, n = 20 GA_AA♀, n = 20 GA_Aa_high♀ and n = 17 GA_Aa_low♀).Feeding bioassayWe conducted two feeding assays: Acceptance-Rejection assay and Consumption assay. The Acceptance-Rejection assay assessed the instantaneous initial responses (binary: yes-no) of cockroaches to tastants, as previously described7,22,27. Briefly, acceptance means that the cockroach started drinking. Rejection means that the cockroach never initiated drinking. The percentage of positive responders was defined as the Number of insects accepting tastants/Total number of insects tested. The effective concentration (EC50) for each tastant was obtained from dose-response curves using this assay. The Consumption assay was previously described27. Briefly, we quantified the amount of test solution females ingested after they started drinking. Females were observed until they stopped drinking, and we considered this a single feeding bout.We used the Acceptance-Rejection assay and Consumption assay, respectively, to assess the sensitivity of 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ for accepting and consuming the WT♂ nuptial secretion (Fig. 2a, b). The secretion was diluted with HPLC-grade water to 0.001, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3 and 1 male-equivalents/µl (n = 20 non-starved females each). The amount of nuptial secretion consumed was tested at 0.1 male-equivalents/µl in the Consumption assay (n = 10 each).The Acceptance-Rejection assay was used to calculate the effective concentration (EC50) of glucose for females in the WT, GA and recombinant lines (Fig. 3a, b). A glucose concentration series of 0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 mmol l−1 was tested with one-day starved 4-day old females (n = 65 GA_Aa♀, n = 50 GA_AA♀ and n = 50 GA♀) and non-starved females (n = 50 WT_aa♀ and n = 16 WT♀).The effects of female saliva on feeding responses of 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ were tested using the Acceptance-Rejection assay (Fig. 4a). Freshly collected saliva of WT♀ and GA♀ was immediately used in experiments. Assays were prepared as follows: 3 µl of 200 mmol l−1 maltose or maltotriose were mixed with 3 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva of WT♀ or GA♀. The final concentration of each sugar was 100 mmol l−1 in a total volume of 6 µl. This concentration represented approximately the acceptance EC70 for WT♀ and GA♀27. Nuptial secretion (1 µl representing 10 male-equivalents) was mixed with 1 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva from WT♀ or GA♀, and 8 µl of HPLC-grade water was added to the mix. The final concentration of the nuptial secretion was 1 male-equivalent/µl in a total volume of 10 µl. This concentration also represented approximately the acceptance EC70 for WT♀ and GA♀ (Fig. 2a). The mix of saliva and either sugar or nuptial secretion was incubated for 300 s at 25 °C. Additionally, we tested the effect of only saliva in the Acceptance-Rejection assay. Either 1-day starved or non-starved females were tested with water only and then a 1:1 mixture of saliva and water. Saliva alone did not affect acceptance or rejection of stimuli. n = 20–33 females from each strain.To evaluate whether salivary enzymes are involved in the hydrolysis of oligosaccharides, the contribution of salivary glucosidases was tested using the glucosidase inhibitor acarbose in the Acceptance-Rejection assay (Fig. 4b), as previously described27. We first confirmed that the range of 0–125 mmol l−1 acarbose in HPLC-grade water did not disrupt the acceptance and rejection of tastants. Test solutions were prepared as follows: 2 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva of GA♀ was mixed with 1 µl of either 250 µmol l−1 of acarbose or HPLC-grade water, then the mixture was added to 1 µl of 400 mmol l−1 of either maltose or maltotriose solution. The total volume was 4 µl, with the final concentration of sugar being 100 mmol l−1. For assays with nuptial secretion, 1 µl of either HPLC-grade water or saliva from 5 day-old GA♀ was mixed with 0.5 µl of either 250 µmol l−1 of acarbose or HPLC-grade water. This mixture was added to 0.5 µl of 10 male-equivalents of nuptial secretion (i.e., 20 male-equivalents/µl). HPLC-grade water was added for a total volume of 10 µl and a final concentration of 1 male-equivalent/µl. The mix of saliva and either sugars or nuptial secretion was incubated for 5 min at 25 °C. All test solutions contained blue food dye. Test subjects were 5 day-old GA♀ and 20–25 females were tested in each assay.Nuptial secretion and saliva collectionsThe nuptial secretion of WT♂ was collected by the following method: Five 10–12 days-old males were placed in a container (95 × 95 × 80 mm) with 5 day-old GA♀. After the males displayed wing-raising courtship behavior toward the females, individual males were immediately decapitated and the nuptial secretion in their tergal gland reservoirs was drawn into a calibrated borosilicate glass capillary (76 × 1.5 mm) under the microscope. The nuptial secretions from 30 males were pooled in a capillary and stored at −20 °C until use. Saliva from 5 day-old WT♀ and GA♀ was collected by the following method: individual females were briefly anesthetized with carbon dioxide under the microscope and the side of the thorax was gently squeezed. A droplet of saliva that accumulated on the mouthparts was then collected into a microcapillary (10 µl, Kimble Glass). Fresh saliva was immediately used in experiments.GC-MS procedures for analysis of sugarsStandards of D-( + )-glucose (Sigma-Aldrich), D-( + )-maltose (Fisher Scientific) and maltotriose (Sigma-Aldrich) were diluted in HPLC-grade water (Fisher Scientific) at 10, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 ng/µl to generate calibration curves. Samples were vortexed for 20 s and a 10 μl aliquot of each sample was transferred to a Pyrex reaction vial containing a 10 μl solution of 5 ng/μl sorbitol (≥98%) in HPLC-grade water as internal standard and dried under a gentle flow of N2 for 20 min.Samples containing degradation products from nuptial secretions were prepared by adding 15 μl of HPLC-water to each sample in a 1.5 ml Eppendorf tube, vortexed for 30 s and centrifuged at 8000 rpm (5223 RCF) for 5 min to separate lipids from the water layer. The water phase was transferred to a reaction vial using a glass capillary. This procedure was repeated with the remaining lipid layer and the water layers were combined in the same reaction vial containing 10 μl of a solution of 5 ng/μl sorbitol and dried under N2 for 20 min.For derivatization of sugars and samples, each reaction vial received 12 μl of anhydrous pyridine under a constant N2 flow, then vortexed and incubated at 90 °C for 5 min. Three μl of N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA; Sigma-Aldrich) was added to each reaction vial and centrifuged at 1000 rpm (118 RCF) for 2 min. Vials were incubated in a heat block at 90 °C for 1.5 hr and vortexed every 10 min for the first 30 min of incubation.The total volume of sample was ~10 μl, and 1 μl was injected into the GC-MS (6890 GC coupled to a 5975 MS, Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA). The inlet was operated in splitless mode (17.5 psi) at 290 °C. The GC was equipped with a DB-5 column (30 m, 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm, Agilent), and helium was used as the carrier gas at an average velocity of 50 cm/s. The oven temperature program started at 80 °C for 1 min, increased at 10 °C/min to 180 °C, then increased at 5 °C/min to 300 °C, and held for 10 min. The transfer line was set at 250 °C for 24 min, ramped at 5 °C/min to 300 °C and held until the end of program. The ion source operated at 70 eV and 230 °C, while the MS quadrupole was maintained at 200 °C. The MSD was operated in scan mode, starting after 9 min (solvent delay time) with a mass range of 33–650 AMU.For GC-MS data analysis, the sorbitol peak area was obtained from the extracted ion chromatograms with m/z = 205, the sorbitol base peak. The area of peaks of glucose, maltose and maltotriose were obtained from the extracted ion chromatograms using m/z = 204, the base peak of the three sugars. The most abundant peaks of each sugar were selected for quantification36, and these peaks did not coelute with other peaks. Then, the peak areas of the three sugars were divided by the area of the respective sorbitol peak in each sample to normalize the data and to correct technical variability during sample processing. This procedure was performed to obtain the calibration curves and quantification of sugars in our experiments.The results of sugar analysis using GC-MS are reported in Supplementary Figs. 1–4.Analysis of nuptial secretionsWe focused the GC-MS analysis on glucose, maltose and maltotriose in WT♂ nuptial secretion (Fig. 4c). To quantify the time-course of saliva-catalyzed hydrolysis of WT♂ nuptial secretion to glucose, 1 µl of GA♀ saliva was mixed with 1 µl of 10 male-equivalents/µl. We incubated the mixtures for 0, 5, 10 and 300 s at 25 °C, and added 4 µl of methanol to stop the enzyme activity (n = 5 each treatment). Each sample contained the nuptial secretions of 5 males to obtain enough detectable amount of sugars. For the statistical analysis, the amounts of sugars were divided by 5 to obtain the amount of sugars in 1 male (1 male-equivalent). These amounts were also used for generating Fig. 4c and Supplementary Table 9. In calculations of the concentration of the three sugars (mmol l−1), the mass and volume of the nuptial secretion were measured using 70–130 male-equivalents of undiluted secretion of each strain (n = 3). The mass and volume of the nuptial secretion/male, including both lipid and aqueous layers, were approximately 30–50 µg and 40–50 nl. Because it was difficult to separate the lipid layer from the water layer at this small scale, we roughly estimated that the tergal reservoirs of the four cockroach lines had 30 nl of aqueous layer that contained sugars.To quantify the time-course of saliva-catalyzed hydrolysis of maltose and maltotriose to glucose, 1 µl of GA♀ saliva was mixed with 1 µl of 200 mmol l−1 of either maltose or maltotriose (Fig. 4d, e). Incubation time points were 0, 5, 10 and 300 s at 25 °C and methanol was used to stop the enzyme activity. Controls without saliva were also prepared using HPLC-grade water instead of saliva and 300 s incubations. n = 5 for each treatment.PhotomicroscopyThe photographs of the tergal glands and mouthparts (Fig. 5) were obtained using an Olympus Digital camera attached to an Olympus CX41 microscope (Olympus America, Center Valley, PA).Statistics and reproducibilityThe sample size and number of replicates for each experiment are noted in the respective section describing the experimental details. In summary, the samples sizes were: Mating bioassays, n = 18–80; Feeding assays, n = 16–65; Sugar analysis, n = 5; Life history parameters, n  > 14. All statistical analyses were conducted in R Statistical Software (v4.1.0; R Core Team 2021) and JMP Pro 15.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Carey, NC). For bioassay data and sugar analysis data, we calculated the means and standard errors, and we used the Chi-square test with Holm’s method for post hoc comparisons, t-test, and ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test (all α = 0.05), as noted in each section describing the experimental details, results, and in Supplementary Tables 1–11.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015); https://sustainabledevelopment.un.orgNilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M. & Stevance, A.-S. Policy: five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 520, 432–433 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Z. et al. Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z (2020).Xu, Z. et al. Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 577, 74–78 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. An integrated framework for achieving Sustainable Development Goals around the world. Ecol. Econ. Soc. 1, 11–17 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, Z. et al. Synergies and tradeoffs among Sustainable Development Goals across boundaries in a metacoupled world. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141749 (2020).Liu, J. in The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology (eds Richardson, D. et al.) 1–8 (John Wiley & Sons, 2020).Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carole, D. & Ignacio, R.-I. Environmental impacts of food trade via resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035012 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Crist, E., Mora, C. & Engelman, R. The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science 356, 260–264 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Delzeit, R., Zabel, F., Meyer, C. & Václavík, T. Addressing future trade-offs between biodiversity and cropland expansion to improve food security. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1429–1441 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Marques, A. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Porkka, M., Kummu, M., Siebert, S. & Varis, O. From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. PLoS ONE 8, e82714 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. A., Smith, M. R., Fanzo, J., Remans, R. & DeFries, R. S. Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nat. Sustain. 1, 34–37 (2018).
Google Scholar 
MacDonald, G. K. et al. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization. Bioscience 65, 275–289 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M. & Hansen, M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 3, 178–181 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moran, D. & Kanemoto, K. Identifying species threat hotspots from global supply chains. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0023 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob. Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Green, J. M. H. et al. Linking global drivers of agricultural trade to on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905618116 (2019).Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman, M., Koenig, K., Bunting, G., Costanza, J. & Williams, K. J. Biodiversity hotspots (version 2016.1). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3261807 (2016).World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2020); https://data.worldbank.orgLiu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hull, V. & Liu, J. Telecoupling: a new frontier for global sustainability. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10494-230441 (2018).Kapsar, K. E. et al. Telecoupling research: the first five years. Sustainability 11, 1033 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Richards, D. R. & Friess, D. A. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 344–349 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chung, M. G., Kapsar, K., Frank, K. A. & Liu, J. The spatial and temporal dynamics of global meat trade networks. Sci. Rep. 10, 16657 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Soterroni, A. C. et al. Expanding the soy moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav7336 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R. E. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bardgett, R. D. et al. Combatting global grassland degradation. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 720–735 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dengler, J., Janišová, M., Török, P. & Wellstein, C. Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: a synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182, 1–14 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Wimberly, M. C., Narem, D. M., Bauman, P. J., Carlson, B. T. & Ahlering, M. A. Grassland connectivity in fragmented agricultural landscapes of the north-central United States. Biol. Conserv. 217, 121–130 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Wu, W. et al. Global cropping intensity gaps: increasing food production without cropland expansion. Land Use Policy 76, 515–525 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dou, Y., da Silva, R. F. B., Yang, H. & Liu, J. Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1715–1732 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Sun, J. et al. Importing food damages domestic environment: evidence from global soybean trade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718153115 (2018).Liu, J. et al. Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 33, 58–69 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Discussion Paper Adopted by the Conference of the Parties CBD/POST2020/PREP/1/1 (UNEP, 2019); https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/d0f3/aca0/d42fa469029f5a4d69f4da8e/post2020-prep-01-01-en.pdfEhrlich, P. R. & Harte, J. Food security requires a new revolution. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 72, 908–920 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Redford, K. H. et al. Mainstreaming biodiversity: conservation for the twenty-first century. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 137 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Pe’er, G. et al. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344, 1090–1092 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. Consumption Patterns and Biodiversity (Biodiversity Programme of the Royal Society, 2020); https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/consumption-patterns-and-biodiversityLiu, J., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R. & Luck, G. W. Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421, 530–533 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
World Population Prospects (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division, 2019); https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/FAOSTAT Statistics Database (UN FAO, 2020); https://www.fao.org/faostatR Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021); https://www.r-project.orgKastner, T., Kastner, M. & Nonhebel, S. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Liu, J. Forest sustainability in China and implications for a telecoupled world. Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 1, 230–250 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Torres-Reyna, O. Getting Started in Fixed/Random Effects Models Using R (Data & Statistical Services, Princeton Univ., 2010).Chung, M. G., Dietz, T. & Liu, J. Global relationships between biodiversity and nature-based tourism in protected areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 34, 11–23 (2018).
Google Scholar 
O’Brien, R. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 673–690 (2007).
Google Scholar  More

There are 23 international conventions related to protecting the marine environment and biodiversity, with five of these requiring the implementation of marine protected areas27. Targets for the effective protection of marine habitats that conserve nature and secure nature’s contributions to people are increasingly seen as critical in ensuring progress toward meeting treaty commitments. Aichi Target 11 and the Sustainable Development Goals Target 14.5 aim to conserve at least 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020, reflecting a shift to a more target-driven conservation policy at the international level, although this is hotly debated. Warm-water corals, mangroves, and saltmarshes all have more than 30% of their extent within PCAs, with seagrasses and cold-water corals approaching 30%, which reveals a dedicated effort to their conservation of these critical habitats. However, the protection of the total global ocean area is still at 7.92%, with only 1.18% of ABNJ covered by PCAs, falling short of the 10% of Aichi Target 11 previously set for 202016.Standardized and open source tools and platforms are needed to allow robust monitoring of progress towards international targets. While tools are available to measure advancement in some targets24,25,26, fully replicable workflows that guide the user from data preparation to index calculations have been lacking. The workflow presented here provides one of the first steps to fill this gap. The indexes also give a global context for the conservation of the habitats, highlighting ecological representation and individual jurisdictions’ potential to contribute to future conservation efforts. Combining our indexes with other tools, such as spatial conservation planning, allows policymakers to balance tradeoffs with different priorities, such as climate mitigation and resource extraction (e.g.13).While our indexes do not measure the “equitably managed” component of the Aichi target 11, it is critical that a holistic, human rights-based approach is taken in meeting any targets set and efforts to improve biodiversity outcomes. The consideration of human rights of local communities and indigenous people and inclusion of their voices is absolutely necessary in the decision-making process28.Interpretation and Usefulness of the Workflow and IndexesThe LPHPI and GPHPI are consistent ways of measuring progress in establishing protected areas that have the potential to conserve habitats and biodiversity. Additionally, the completely open access workflow described in Fig. 5 is highly adaptable and can include a wide range of habitats as data become available, or it can be applied to different conservation features like species distributions. The workflow could also be adapted to calculate the amount of key biodiversity areas within PCAs per jurisdiction and globally, or human threats (e.g., pollution or heatwaves) when geospatial data is available. Notably, the workflow can also measure progress towards targets in the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (as of August 2020).Fig. 5A flow chart describing the key steps of the indexes calculations. We also connect each step to the R script available at: https://github.com/jkumagai96/Marine_Habitat_protection where a more detailed explanation on how to replicate the workflow is available.Full size imageSpecifically, the workflow and resulting LPHPI dataset can directly monitor the marine components T2.1 and T2.3 of Target 2 of the draft monitoring framework (reproduced in Table 1 for convenience). The workflow can also be easily adapted to calculate the freshwater and terrestrial aspects of Target 2 – component T2.1 and component T2.2. The Protected Area Representativeness Index and Species Protection Index currently proposed for T2.3 do not account for marine regions or species. We provide more data directly on the other indicator mentioned (Proportion of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecological areas within PCAs) for marine areas in a FAIR workflow. Our workflow and indexes are useful resources that monitor Target 2 of the draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Additionally, the inclusion of ABNJ in the indexes is extremely important given current discussions on a new implementing agreement for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and thus the whole ocean29.Table 1 Subset of the draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework available online (https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-24/post2020-monitoring-en.pdf).Full size tableThe GPHPI is a valuable index that reveals the protection status of habitats distributed globally. The index highlights that not all countries have the same amount of habitat, and international effort is needed to conserve biodiversity worldwide, aspects that the LPHPI does not readily show. It is valuable to understand where habitats are covered by protected areas and where further efforts need to be placed. For example, Norway has a relatively low LPHPI (0.168) and simultaneously a relatively high GPHPI (top 11%) because of the total area of mapped habitats within their jurisdiction and their efforts to conserve them. If they can improve their LPHPI to 0.3 (30%), their GPHPI would also increase since they have a large area of habitats. But even with less than 30% of these habitats in PCAs, the protection Norway has established, or other countries have in a similar situation, substantially contributes to the global effort.Jurisdictions have direct control over their LPHPI. Increasing the protected area coverage of their marine and coastal habitats will directly increase the index score. Small countries and territories with a limited area may see large improvements in their LPHPI through a few additional protected areas, while their GPHPI score will not increase much from this effort. For these jurisdictions, international strategies need to be implemented to promote the conservation of marine and coastal habitats. The GPHPI also reveals that each jurisdiction may physically contribute only a small percentage. However, when combined, these could provide the overall coverage of PCAs distributed around the world that is ecologically advisable to promote overall biodiversity.Within the targeted analysis of the global proportion of habitats protected, any jurisdiction that protects more than 30% of its habitat extent can move from a negative to a positive score; thus, it is relative to each jurisdiction. However, the targeted analysis also reflects the absolute contribution of each jurisdiction. In particular, the targeted analysis can be interpreted to reveal jurisdictions that have the highest opportunity to conserve the most habitat, if they can reach the 30% target. Thus, this informs part of goal D of the post-2020 biodiversity framework, which requires understanding where to prioritize effort. The jurisdictions that rank the lowest in the analysis, currently ABNJ, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria, and Iraq (Fig. 4), represent a great opportunity to further expand PCAs to 30% coverage of marine habitats within their territorial waters and coast, as these would contribute the most added area. The jurisdictions that score highest have the opportunity to monitor and improve the effectiveness of their PCAs to adequately protect these marine habitats and reduce surrounding pressures, especially since they contribute significantly to the total global extent of these habitats.LimitationsOne limitation of our indexes is that they do not distinguish between areas that are readily protected (e.g., due to remoteness) and those that most urgently need protection (e.g., highly threatened biodiverse locations)30,31. Additionally, the analysis presented here is sensitive to the choice of coastal and marine habitats included in the indexes. We selected these six habitats based on the availability of high-quality spatially explicit global data recognized by the scientific community. Each habitat dataset is published in a peer-reviewed journal and available online (https://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets) within the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) website and follows their data standards. The data represent the known and mapped distribution of habitats; thus, there are inherent knowledge gaps between the actual extent and available data. For example, it is likely that significant portions of cold-water corals, particularly in the ABNJ, are still unknown. Over time, the workflow will be updated and improved yearly to strengthen data coverage, and if additional high-quality data on habitats emerge, these will be included ensuring the indexes stay up to date and relevant. The original analysis with the same habitats will also be repeated to ensure a consistent time series of the indexes is provided.An important consideration when using these indexes is that habitat extent that spatially aligns with a PCA does not necessarily mean that a particular habitat is protected. For example, some PCAs enforce regulations on the water area (e.g., fishing exclusion), but do not prevent mangrove deforestation. Additionally, because of the buffering of points within the workflow, some of the habitats that are counted as protected may fall near a PCA but not within it. Nevertheless, our analysis assumes that habitats that fall within a PCA will be better conserved than habitats not within a PCA, as the primary purpose of protected areas is conservation. Similarly, we assume that other effective area-based conservation measures provide some conservation benefit and are often sustainably managed by local communities and indigenous peoples who live on them32,33.The LPHPI and GPHPI indexes report detailed information for policymakers, the scientific community, and stakeholders to understand the state of protection for marine and coastal habitats at both global and local levels. Simple metrics like these indexes that the public and politicians understand help communicate the plight of ocean health and efforts to improve it. The workflow, based on open-source programming and datasets, is reproducible and scalable and was developed to allow other scientists and data providers to calculate the indexes for any areas or habitats of interest and repeat and adapt our analysis for any target. The indexes will be updated annually to ensure continued relevance and the provision of a time series to track how the world is advancing towards the goals defined by global policy, such as aspects of the Sustainable Development Goal 14, therefore bringing to the forefront the importance and status of conserving critical marine and coastal habitats. Ultimately, transparency in protection efforts, effectiveness, and representation must be improved so policymakers can grasp the current conditions, possible scenarios, and make informed decisions to meet international policy commitments34. More

AffiliationsSanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, UKPhysilia Ying Shi ChuaLaboratory of Genomics and Molecular Medicine, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkJacob Agerbo RasmussenCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkJacob Agerbo RasmussenAuthorsPhysilia Ying Shi ChuaJacob Agerbo RasmussenCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
Physilia Ying Shi Chua. More

McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255641 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0412-1 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
IPBES The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (2019).Boyce, D. G., Lewis, M. R. & Worm, B. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 466, 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09268 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Canonico, G. et al. Global observational needs and resources for marine biodiversity. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00367 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller-Karger, F. E. et al. Advancing marine biological observations and data requirements of the complementary essential ocean variables (EOVs) and essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) frameworks. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00211 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehrnsten, E., Norkko, A., Timmermann, K. & Gustafsson, B. G. Benthic-pelagic coupling in coastal seas—Modelling macrofaunal biomass and carbon processing in response to organic matter supply. J. Mar. Sys. 196, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2019.04.003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Centurioni, L. R. et al. Global in situ observations of essential climate and ocean variables at the air-sea interface. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00419 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murphy, S. E. et al. Fifteen years of lessons from the Seascape approach: A framework for improving ocean management at scale. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e423. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.423 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pittman, S. J. et al. Seascape ecology: Identifying research priorities for an emerging ocean sustainability science. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 663, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13661 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Swanborn, D. J., Huvenne, V. A., Pittman, S. J. & Woodall, L. C. Bringing seascape ecology to the deep seabed: A review and framework for its application. Limnol. Oceanogr. 67, 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11976 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flint, L. E. & Flint, A. L. Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine scales for hydrologic and ecological modeling and analysis. Ecol. Process 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-1-2 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fagundes, M. et al. Downscaling global ocean climate models improves estimates of exposure regimes in coastal environments. Sci. Rep. 10, 14227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71169-6 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zacarias, M. A. & Roff, J. C. Use of focal species in marine conservation and management: A review and critique. Aquatic Conser: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 11, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.429 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, S. T. & Sax, D. F. Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: Extinction debt, immigration credit and species turnover. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25(3155), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.001 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. & Tanner, J. E. Recruitment failure, life histories, and long-term decline of Caribbean corals. Ecology 81(8), 2250–2263. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2250:RFLHAL]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samhouri, J. F. et al. Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services. Ecosphere 3(5), 41. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00366.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caley, M. J. et al. Recruitment and the local dynamics of open marine populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.477 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strathmann, R. R. et al. Evolution of local recruitment and its consequences for marine populations. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70(1), 377–396 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Roughgarden, J., Gaines, S. & Iwasa, Y. Recruitment dynamics in complex life cycles. Science 241, 1460–1466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.11538249 (1988).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Gilg, M. R. & Hilbish, T. J. The geography of marine larval dispersal: coupling genetics with fine-scale physical oceanography. Ecology 84(11), 2989–2998. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0498 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Aloia, C. C. et al. Patterns, causes, and consequences of marine larval dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(45), 13940–13945. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1513754112 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fogarty, M. J., Sissenwine, M. P. & Cohen, E. B. Recruitment variability and the dynamics of exploited marine populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6(8), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(91)90069-A (1991).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wahle, R. A. Revealing stock–recruitment relationships in lobsters and crabs:is experimental ecology the key?. Fish. Res. 65, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2003.09.004 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gosselin, L. A. & Qian, P. Y. Early post-settlement mortality of an intertidal barnacle: a critical period for survival. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 135, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps135069 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Penin, L. et al. Early post-settlement mortality and the structure of coral assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 408, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08554 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Broitman, B. R., Mieszkowaska, N., Helmuth, B. & Blanchette, C. A. Climate recruitment of rocky shore intertidal invertebrates in the eastern North Atlantic. Ecology 89(11), S81–S90. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0635.1 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sponaugle, S., Grorud-Colvert, K. & Pinkard, D. Temperature-mediated variation in early life history traits and recruitment success of the coral reef fish Thalassoma bifasciatum in the Florida Keys. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 308, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps308001 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mazzuco, A. C. A., Christofoletti, R. A., Coutinho, R. & Ciotti, A. M. The influence of atmospheric cold fronts on larval supply and settlement of intertidal invertebrates: Case studies in the Cabo Frio coastal upwelling system (SE Brazil). J. Sea Res. 137, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2018.02.010 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morgan, S. G., Fisher, J. L. & Mace, A. J. Larval recruitment in a region of strong, persistent upwelling and recruitment limitation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 394, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08216 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfaff, M. C., Branch, G. M., Wieters, E. A., Branch, R. A. & Broitman, B. R. Upwelling intensity and wave exposure determine recruitment of intertidal mussels and barnacles in the southern Benguela upwelling region. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 425, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09003 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Munday, P. L. et al. Climate change and coral reef connectivity. Coral Reefs 28, 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-008-0461-9 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Groom, S. et al. Satellite ocean colour: Current status and future perspective. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00485 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moltmann, T. et al. A global ocean observing system (GOOS), delivered through enhanced collaboration across regions, communities, and new technologies. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00291 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kavanaugh, M. T. et al. Hierarchical and dynamic seascapes: A quantitative framework for scaling pelagic biogeochemistry and ecology. Prog. Oceanogr. 120, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2013.10.013 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kavanaugh, M. T. et al. Seascapes as a new vernacular for ocean monitoring, management and conservation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73(7), 1839–1850. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw086 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wernberg, T. et al. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1627 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Montes, E. et al. Dynamic satellite seascapes as a biogeographic framework for understanding phytoplankton assemblages in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary United States. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 575. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00575 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mazzuco, A. C. A. et al. Lower diversity of recruits in coastal reef assemblages are associated with higher sea temperatures in the tropical South Atlantic. Mar. Environ. Res. 148, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.05.008 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mazzuco, A. C. A., Stelzer, P. S. & Bernardino, A. F. Substrate rugosity and temperature matters: Patterns of benthic diversity at tropical intertidal reefs in the SW Atlantic. PeerJ Life Environ. 8, e8289. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8289 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stelzer, P. S. et al. Taxonomic and functional diversity of benthic macrofauna associated with rhodolith beds in SE Brazil. PeerJ 9, e11903. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11903 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bernardino, A. F. et al. Predicting ecological changes on benthic estuarine assemblages through decadal climate trends along Brazilian Marine Ecoregions. Estuar. Coast. Shelf S. 166, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.021 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Francini-Filho, R. B. et al. Dynamics of coral reef benthic assemblages of the Abrolhos bank, eastern Brazil: Inferences on natural and anthropogenic drivers. PLoS ONE 8(1), e54260. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054260 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. E. et al. Diversity patterns of reef fish along the Brazilian tropical coast. Mar. Environ. Res. 160, 105038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105038 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fulton, E. A. et al. Modelling marine protected areas: insights and hurdles. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 370(1681), 201. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0278 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carr, M. H. et al. The central importance of ecological spatial connectivity to effective coastal marine protected areas and to meeting the challenges of climate change in the marine environment. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27(S1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2800 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krueck, N. C. et al. Incorporating larval dispersal into MPA design for both conservation and fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 27, 925–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1495 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ekau, W. & Knoppers, B. An introduction to the pelagic system of the Northeast and East Brazilian shelf. Arch. Fish. Mar. Res. 47(2/3), 5–24 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57(7), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vermeij, M. J. A., Fogarty, N. D. & Miller, M. W. Pelagic conditions affect larval behavior, survival, and settlement patterns in the Caribbean coral Montastraea faveolata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 310, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps310119 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gímenez, L. Relationships between habitat conditions, larval traits, and juvenile performance in a marine invertebrate. Ecology 91(5), 1401–1403. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1028.1 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, S. R., Marshall, D. & Fraschetti, S. Settlement and Recruitment. In Marine Hard Bottom Communities. Ecological Studies Analysis and Synthesis (ed. Wahl, M.) (Springer, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/b76710_12.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
von der Meden, C. E. O., Porri, F., Radloff, S. & McQuaid, C. D. Settlement intensification and coastline topography: Understanding the role of habitat availability in the pelagic–benthic transition. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 459, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09762 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gorman, D. et al. Decadal losses of canopy-forming algae along the warm temperate coastline of Brazil. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1446–1457. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14956 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pianca, C., Mazzini, P. L. F. & Siegle, E. Brazilian offshore wave climate based on NWW3 reanalysis. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 58(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-87592010000100006 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muñiz, C., McQuaid, C. D. & Weidberg, N. Seasonality of primary productivity affects coastal species more than its magnitude. Sci. Total Environ. 757, 143740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143740 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. Finding signals in the noise of coral recruitment. Coral Reefs 41, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-021-02204-9 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuercher, R. Pelagic-benthic coupling in kelp forests of central California. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 682, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13937 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Manríquez, P. H. & Castilla, J. C. Significance of marine protected areas in central Chile as seeding grounds for the gastropod Concholepas concholepas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 215, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps215201 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, C. P., Nolasco, R., Dubert, J. & Queiroga, H. Model-derived dispersal pathways from multiple source populations explain variability of invertebrate larval supply. PLoS ONE 7(4), e35794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035794 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nickols, K. J., Miller, S. H., Gaylord, B., Morgan, S. G. & Largier, J. L. Spatial differences in larval abundance within the coastal boundary layer impact supply to shoreline habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 494, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10572 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Le Nohaïc, M. et al. Marine heatwave causes unprecedented regional mass bleaching of thermally resistant corals in northwestern Australia. Sci. Rep. 7, 14999. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14794-y (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21707 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. & Tebaldi, C. More Intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305, 994–997. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098704 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9, 1324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03732-9 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Le, C., Lehrter, J. C., Hu, C. & Obenour, D. R. Satellite-based empirical models linking river plume dynamics with hypoxic area and volume. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2693–2699. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067521 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Runge, J. et al. Inferring causation from time series in earth system sciences. Nat. Commun. 10, 2553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Abbas, M. M., Melesse, A. M., Scinto, L. J. & Rehage, J. S. Satellite estimation of chlorophyll-a using moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor in shallow coastal water bodies: validation and improvement. Water 11, 1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081621 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scrosati, R. A. & Ellrich, J. A. A 12-year record of intertidal barnacle recruitment in Atlantic Canada (2005–2016): relationships with sea surface temperature and phytoplankton abundance. PeerJ Life Environ. 4, e2623. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2623 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miloslavich, P. et al. Essential ocean variables for global sustained observations of biodiversity and ecosystem changes. Glob. Change Biol. 24(6), 2416–2433. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14108 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Muelbert, J. H. et al. ILTER-the International long-term ecological research network as a platform for global coastal and ocean observation. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00527 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pereira, A. F., Belém, A. L., Castro, B. M. & Geremias, R. G. Tide-topography interaction along the eastern Brazilian shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 25, 1521–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2005.04.008 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Longo, P.A.S., Fernandes, M.C., Leite, F.P.P. & Passos, F.D. Gastropoda (Mollusca) associados a bancos de Sargassum sp. no Canal de São Sebastião–São Paulo, Brasil. Biota Neotropica 14(4), e20140115; doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-06032014011514 (2014)Broitman, B. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of invertebrate recruitment along the West coast of the United States. Ecol. Monogr. 78, S81–S90. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1805.1 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Todd, C. D. Larval supply and recruitment of benthic invertebrates: do larvae always disperse as much as we believe?. Hydrobiologia 375, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017007527490 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, S.R., Marshall, D. & Fraschetti, S. Settlement and Recruitment in Marine Hard Bottom Communities Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis) (ed. Wahl, M.), vol 206; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/b76710_12 (Springer, 2009)Shanks, A.L. An Identification Guide to the Larval Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 320 pages. ISBN 0–87071–531–3 (2001).Reynolds, R. W. et al. Daily high-resolution-blended analyses for sea surface temperature. J. Climate 20, 5473–5496. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1824.1 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simons, R.A. ERDDAP. Monterey, CA: NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC/ERD; https://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap . (2020).Anderson, M.J. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA). Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, John Wiley & Sons Ltd; doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07841 (2017).Sokal, R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. (WH Freeman and Company, 2003).Gotelli, N. J. & Colwell, R. K. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colwell, R. K. et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J. Plant Ecol. 5(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, D. J. & Keough, M. J. The evolutionary ecology of offspring size in marine invertebrates. Adv. Mar. Biol. 53, 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2881(07)53001-4 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, M. J. & Willis, T. J. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0511:CAOPCA]2.0.CO;2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quintana, C. O., Bernardino, A. F., Moraes, P. C., Valdemarsen, T. & Sumida, P. Y. G. Effects of coastal upwelling on the structure of macrofaunal communities in SE Brazil. J. Mar. Syst. 143, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.11.003 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Generalized Additive Models. (Chapman and Hall, 1990).Hastie, T. Generalized additive models in Statistical Models (eds. Chambers, J. M., Hastie, T.J.) (Wadsworth & Brooks, 1992).Garcia, L. Escaping the bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies. Oikos 105, 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13046.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verhoeven, J. F., Simonsen, K. L. & McIntyre, L. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108, 643–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13727.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmunk, R. B. Panoply 3.2.1. Available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ tools/panoply (2013).R Core Team 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Sandrini-Neto, L. & Camargo, M.G. GAD: an R package for ANOVA designs from general principles. Available on CRAN (2020).Komsta, L. outliers: Tests for outliers. R package version 0.14. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=outliers (2011).Oksanen J., et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2019).Rossi, J.-P. rich: an R package to analyse species richness. Diversity 3(1), 112–120 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hastie, T. gam: Generalized Additive Models. R package version 1.16.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gam (2019). More

Listen to the latest from the world of science, with Shamini Bundell and Benjamin Thompson.

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Download MP3

In this episode:00:57 Reviving retinas to understand eyesResearch efforts to learn more about diseases of the human eye have been hampered as these organs degrade rapidly after death, and animal eyes are quite different to those from humans. To address this, a team have developed a new method to revive retinas taken from donors shortly after their death. They hope this will provide tissue for new studies looking into the workings of the human eye and nervous system.Research article: Abbas et al.08:05 Research HighlightsA technique that simplifies chocolate making yields fragrant flavours, and 3D imaging reveals some of the largest-known Native American cave art.Research Highlight: How to make a fruitier, more floral chocolateResearch Highlight: Cramped chamber hides some of North America’s biggest cave art10:54 Did life emerge in an ‘RNA world’?How did the earliest biochemical process evolve from Earth’s primordial soup? One popular theory is that life began in an ‘RNA world’ from which proteins and DNA evolved. However, this week a new paper suggests that a world composed of RNA alone is unlikely, and that life is more likely to have begun with molecules that were part RNA and part protein.Research article: Müller et al.News and Views: A possible path towards encoded protein synthesis on ancient Earth17:52 Briefing ChatWe discuss some highlights from the Nature Briefing. This time, the ‘polarised sunglasses’ that helped astronomers identify an ultra-bright pulsar, and how a chemical in sunscreen becomes toxic to coral.Nature: A ‘galaxy’ is unmasked as a pulsar — the brightest outside the Milky WayNature: A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea — anemones suggest whySubscribe to Nature Briefing, an unmissable daily round-up of science news, opinion and analysis free in your inbox every weekday.Never miss an episode: Subscribe to the Nature Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast app. Head here for the Nature Podcast RSS feed. More