Ecology

Literature search and study selectionA systematic literature search was conducted in the ISI Web of Science database for observational and experimental studies published from 1975 to 13 January 2020 using the following search terms: TOPIC: (grassland* OR prairie* OR steppe* OR shrubland* OR scrubland* OR bushland*) AND TOPIC: (drought* OR ‘dry period*’ OR ‘dry condition*’ OR ‘dry year*’ OR ‘dry spell*’) AND TOPIC: (product* OR biomass OR cover OR abundance* OR phytomass). The search was refined to include the subject categories Ecology, Environmental Sciences, Plant Sciences, Biodiversity Conservation, Multidisciplinary Sciences and Biology, and the document types Article, Review and Letter. This yielded a total of 2,187 peer-reviewed papers (Supplementary Fig. 1). At first, these papers were screened by title and abstract, which resulted in 197 potentially relevant full-text articles. We then examined the full text of these papers for eligibility and selected 87 studies (43 experimental, 43 observational and 1 that included both types) on the basis of the following criteria:

(1)

The research was conducted in the field, in natural or semi-natural grasslands or shrublands (for example, artificially constructed (seeded or planted) plant communities or studies using monolith transplants were excluded). We used this restriction because most reports on observational droughts are from intact ecosystems, and experiments in disturbed sites or using artificial communities would thus not be comparable to observational drought studies.

(2)

In the case of observational studies, the drought year or a multi-year drought was clearly specified by the authors (that is, we did not arbitrarily extract dry years from a long-term dataset). Please note that some observational data points are from control plots of experiments (of any kind), where the authors reported that a drought had occurred during the study period. We did not involve gradient studies that compare sites of different climates, which are sometimes referred to as ‘observational studies’.

(3)

The paper reported the amount or proportion of change in annual or growing-season precipitation (GSP) compared with control conditions. We consistently use the term ‘control’ for normal precipitation (non-drought) year or years in observational studies and for ambient precipitation (no treatment) in experimental studies hereafter. Similarly, we use the term ‘drought’ for both drought year or years in observational studies and drought treatment in experimental studies. In the case of multi-factor experiments, where precipitation reduction was combined with any other treatment (for example, warming), data from the plots receiving drought only and data from the control plots were used.

(4)

The paper contained raw data on plant production under both control and drought conditions, expressed in any of the following variables: ANPP, aboveground plant biomass (in grassland studies only) or percentage plant cover. In 79% of the studies that used ANPP as a production variable, ANPP was estimated by harvesting peak or end-of-season AGB. We therefore did not distinguish between ANPP and AGB, which are referred to as ‘biomass’ hereafter. We included the papers that reported the production of the whole plant community, or at least that of the dominant species or functional groups approximating the abundance of the whole community.

(5)

When multiple papers were published on the same experiment or natural drought event at the same study site, the most long-term study including the largest number of drought years was chosen.

In addition to the systematic literature search, we included 27 studies (9 experimental, 17 observational and 1 that included both types) meeting the above criteria from the cited references of the Web of Science records selected for our meta-analyses, and from previous meta-analyses and reviews on the topic. In total, this resulted in 114 studies (52 experimental, 60 observational and 2 that included both types; Supplementary Note 9, Supplementary Fig. 2 and ref. 25).Data compilationData were extracted from the text or tables, or were read from the figures using Web Plot Digitizer26. For each study, we collected the study site, latitude, longitude, mean annual temperature (MAT) and precipitation (MAP), study type (experimental or observational), and drought length (the number of consecutive drought years). When MAT or MAP was not documented in the paper, it was extracted from another published study conducted at the same study site (identified by site names and geographic coordinates) or from an online climate database cited in the respective paper. We also collected vegetation type—that is, grassland when it was dominated by grasses, or shrubland when the dominant species included one or more shrub species (involving communities co-dominated by grasses and shrubs). Data from the same study (that is, paper) but from different geographic locations or environmental conditions (for example, soil types, land uses or multiple levels of experimental drought) were collected as distinct data points (but see ‘Statistical analysis’ for how these points were handled). As a result, the 114 published papers provided 239 data points (112 experimental and 127 observational)25.For the observational studies, normal precipitation year or years specified by the authors was used as the control. If it was not specified in the paper, the year immediately preceding the drought year(s) was chosen as the control. When no data from the pre-drought year were available, the year immediately following the drought year(s) (14 data points) or a multi-year period given in the paper (22 data points) was used as the control. For the experimental studies, we also collected treatment size (that is, rainout shelter area or, if it was not reported in the paper, the experimental plot size).For the calculation of drought severity, we used yearly precipitation (YP), which was reported in a much higher number of studies than GSP. We extracted YP for both control (YPcontrol) and drought (YPdrought). For the observational studies, when a multi-year period was used as the control or the natural drought lasted for more than one year, precipitation values were averaged across the control or drought years, respectively. Consistently, in the case of multi-year drought experiments, YPcontrol and YPdrought were averaged across the treatment years. When only GSP was published in the paper (63 of 239 data points), we used this to obtain YP data as follows: we regarded MAP as YPcontrol, and YPdrought was calculated as YPdrought = MAP − (GSPcontrol − GSPdrought). From YPcontrol and YPdrought data, we calculated drought severity as follows: (YPdrought − YPcontrol)/YPcontrol × 100.For production, we compiled the mean, replication (N) and, if the study reported it, a variance estimate (s.d., s.e.m. or 95% CI) for both control and drought. In the case of multi-year droughts, data only from the last drought year were extracted, except in five studies (17 data points) where production data were given as an average for the drought years. When both biomass and cover data were presented in the paper, we chose biomass. For each study, we consistently considered replication as the number of the smallest independent study unit. When only the range of replications was reported in a study, we chose the smallest number.To quantify climatic aridity for each study site, we used an aridity index (AI), calculated as the ratio of MAP and mean annual PET (AI = MAP/PET). This is a frequently used index in recent climate change research27,28. AI values were extracted from the Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapotranspiration (ET0) Climate Database v.2 for the period of 1970–2000 (aggregated on annual basis)29.Because we wanted to prevent our analysis from being distorted by a strongly unequal distribution of studies between the two study types regarding some potentially important explanatory variables, we left out studies from our focal meta-analysis in three steps. First, we left out studies that were conducted at wet sites—that is, where site AI exceeded 1. The value of 1 was chosen for two reasons: above this value, the distribution of studies between the two study types was extremely uneven (22 experimental versus 2 observational data points with AI  > 1)25, and the AI value of 1 is a bioclimatically meaningful threshold, where MAP equals PET. Second, we left out shrublands, because we had only 14 shrubland studies (out of 105 studies with AI  More

Lampert, W. Zooplankton research: The contribution of limnology to general ecological paradigms. Aquat. Ecol. 31, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009943402621 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sotton, B. et al. Trophic transfer of microcystins through the lake pelagic food web: Evidence for the role of zooplankton as a vector in fish contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 466–467, 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.020 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
St-Gelais, F. N., Sastri, A. R., del Giorgio, P. A. & Beisner, B. E. Magnitude and regulation of zooplankton community production across boreal lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2(6), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10050 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dejen, E., Vijverberg, J., Nagelkerke, L. A. J. & Sibbing, F. A. Temporal and spatial distribution of microcrustacean zooplankton in relation to turbidity and other environmental factors in a large tropical lake (L. Tana, Ethiopia). Hydrobiologia 513(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:hydr.0000018163.60503.b8 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arendt, K. E. et al. Effects of suspended sediments on copepods feeding in a glacial influenced sub-Arctic fjord. J. Plankton Res. 33, 1526–1537. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbr054 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrasco, N. K., Perissinotto, R. & Jones, S. Turbidity effects on feeding and mortality of the copepod Acartiella natalensis (Connell and Grindley, 1974) in the St Lucia Estuary, South Africa. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 446, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.04.016 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goździejewska, A. et al. Effects of lateral connectivity on zooplankton community structure in floodplain lakes. Hydrobiologia 774, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2724-8 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, J., Qin, B. & Han, X. The synergetic effects of turbulence and turbidity on the zooplankton community structure in large, shallow Lake Taihu. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 1168–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0262-1 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chou, W.-R., Fang, L.-S., Wang, W.-H. & Tew, K. S. Environmental influence on coastal phytoplankton and zooplankton diversity: A multivariate statistical model analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184(9), 5679–5688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2373-3 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Du, X. et al. Analyzing the importance of top-down and bottom-up controls in food webs of Chinese lakes through structural equation modeling. Aquat. Ecol. 49(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-015-9518-3 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Feitosa, I. B. et al. Plankton community interactions in an Amazonian floodplain lake, from bacteria to zooplankton. Hydrobiologia 831, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-018-3855-x (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruk, M. & Paturej, E. Indices of trophic and competitive relations in a planktonic network of a shallow, temperate lagoon. A graph and structural equation modeling approach. Ecol. Indic. 112, 106007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106007 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruk, M., Paturej, E. & Artiemjew, P. From explanatory to predictive network modeling of relationships among ecological indicators in the shallow temperate lagoon. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106637 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruk, M., Paturej, E. & Obolewski, K. Zooplankton predator–prey network relationships indicates the saline gradient of coastal lakes. Machine learning and meta-network approach. Ecol. Indic. 125, 107550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107550 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oh, H.-J. et al. Comparison of taxon-based and trophi-based response patterns of rotifer community to water quality: Applicability of the rotifer functional group as an indicator of water quality. Anim. Cells Syst. 21, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19768354.2017.1292952 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sodré, E. D. O. & Bozelli, R. L. How planktonic microcrustaceans respond to environment and affect ecosystem: A functional trait perspective. Int. Aquat. Res. 11, 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40071-019-0233-x (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simões, N. R. et al. Changing taxonomic and functional β-diversity of cladoceran communities in Northeastern and South Brazil. Hydrobiologia 847, 3845–3856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04234-w (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goździejewska, A. M., Koszałka, J., Tandyrak, R., Grochowska, J. & Parszuto, K. Functional responses of zooplankton communities to depth, trophic status, and ion content in mine pit lakes. Hydrobiologia 848, 2699–2719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04590-1 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, R. C. Zooplankton feeding rates in relation to suspended sediment content: Potential influences on community structure in a turbid reservoir. Fresh. Biol. 19, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1988.tb00334.x (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gliwicz, Z. M. & Pijanowska, J. The role of predation in zooplankton succession. In Plankton Ecology. Succession in Plankton Communities (ed. Sommer, U.) 253–296 (Springer Verlag, 1989).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Gardner, M. B. Effects of turbidity on feeding rates and selectivity of bluegills. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110(3), 446–450. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1981)110%3c446:EOTOFR%3e2.0.CO;2 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zettler, E. R. & Carter, J. C. H. Zooplankton community and species responses to a natural turbidity gradient in Lake Temiskaming, Ontario-Quebec. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43, 665–673. https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-080 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th edn. (American Public Health Association, 1999).
Google Scholar 
Lind, O. T., Chrzanowski, T. H. & D’avalos-Lind, L. Clay turbidity and the relative production of bacterioplankton and phytoplankton. Hydrobiologia 353, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003039932699 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boenigk, J. & Novarino, G. Effect of suspended clay on the feeding and growth of bacterivorous flagellates and ciliates. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 34, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame034181 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Noe, G. B., Harvey, J. W. & Saiers, J. E. Characterization of suspended particles in Everglades wetlands. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1166–1178. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.3.1166 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bilotta, G. S. & Brazier, R. E. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota. Water Res. 42, 2849–2861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.03.018 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Severini, M. D., Hoffmeyer, M. S. & Marcovecchio, J. E. Heavy metals concentrations in zooplankton and suspended particulate matter in a southwestern Atlantic temperate estuary (Argentina). Environ. Monit. Assess. 185, 1495–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-3023-0 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Paaijmans, K. P., Takken, W., Githeko, A. K. & Jacobs, A. F. G. The effect of water turbidity on the near-surface water temperature of larval habitats of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Int. J. Biometeorol. 52(8), 747–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-008-0167-2 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Asrafuzzaman, M., Fakhruddin, A. N. M. & Hossain, M. A. Reduction of turbidity of water using locally available natural coagulants. ISRN Microbiol. 1–6, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/632189 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirk, K. L. & Gilbert, J. J. Suspended clay and the population dynamics of planktonic rotifers and cladocerans. Ecology 71(5), 1741–1755. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937582 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirk, K. L. Effects of suspended clay on Daphnia body growth and fitness. Freshwater Biol. 28, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1992.tb00566.x (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levine, S. N., Zehrer, R. F. & Burns, C. W. Impact of resuspended sediment on zooplankton feeding in Lake Waihola, New Zealand. Freshw. Biol. 50, 1515–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01420 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreira, F. W. A. et al. Assessing the impacts of mining activities on zooplankton functional diversity. Acta Limn. Bras. 28, e7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X0816 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kerfoot, W. C. & Sih, A. Predation. Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities Vol. 160 (University Press of New England, 1987).
Google Scholar 
Schou, M. O. et al. Restoring lakes by using artificial plant beds: Habitat selection of zooplankton in a clear and a turbid shallow lake. Freshw. Biol. 54(7), 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02189.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goździejewska, A. M., Gwoździk, M., Kulesza, S., Bramowicz, M. & Koszałka, J. Effects of suspended micro- and nanoscale particles on zooplankton functional diversity of drainage system reservoirs at an open-pit mine. Sci. Rep. 9, 16113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52542-6 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ribeiro, F. et al. Silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate induce high toxicity to Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Daphnia magna and Danio rerio. Sci. Total Environ. 466–467, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.101 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vallotton, P., Angel, B., Mccall, M., Osmond, M. & Kirby, J. Imaging nanoparticle-algae interactions in three dimensions using Cytoviva microscopy. J. Microsc. 257(2), 166–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.12199 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shanthi, S. et al. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using a probiotic Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 and their antibiofilm activity and toxicity effects in Ceriodaphnia cornuta. Microb. Pathogenesis 93, 70e77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2016.01.014 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vijayakumar, S. et al. Ecotoxicity of Musa paradisiaca leaf extract-coated ZnO nanoparticles to the freshwater microcrustacean Ceriodaphnia cornuta. Limnologica 67, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2017.09.004 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, R. C. Zooplankton distribution in relation to turbidity and related environmental gradients in a large subtropical reservoir: Patterns and implications. Freshw. Biol. 24(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00706.x (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pollard, A. I., González, M. J., Vanni, M. J. & Headworth, J. L. Effects of turbidity and biotic factors on the rotifer community in an Ohio reservoir. In Rotifera VIII: A Comparative Approach. Developments in Hydrobiology, Hydrobiologia Vol. 387388 (eds Wurdak, E. et al.) 215–223 (Springer, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Roman, M. R., Holliday, D. V. & Sanford, L. P. Temporal and spatial patterns of zooplankton in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 213, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps213215 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, I. R. & Ribal, A. Multiplatform evaluation of global trends in wind speed and wave height. Science 364(6440), 548–552. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9527 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goździejewska, A. M., Skrzypczak, A. R., Paturej, E. & Koszałka, J. Zooplankton diversity of drainage system reservoirs at an opencast mine. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 419, 33. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018020 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goździejewska, A. M., Skrzypczak, A. R., Koszałka, J. & Bowszys, M. Effects of recreational fishing on zooplankton communities of drainage system reservoirs at an open-pit mine. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 00, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allesina, S., Bodini, A. & Bondavalli, C. Ecological subsystems via graph theory: The role of strongly connected components. Oikos 110, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13082.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Alelio, D. et al. Ecological-network models link diversity, structure and function in the plankton food-web. Sci. Rep. 6, 21806. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21806 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Krebs, C. J. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance 6th edn. (Benjamin Cummings, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Ejsmont-Karabin, J., Radwan, S. & Bielańska-Grajner, I. Rotifers. Monogononta–Atlas of Species. Polish Freshwater Fauna (Univ of Łódź, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Streble, H. & Krauter, D. Das Leben im Wassertropfen. Mikroflora und Mikrofauna des Süβwassers (Kosmos Gesellschaft der Naturfreunde Franckhsche Verlagshandlung Stuttgart, 1978).
Google Scholar 
Ejsmont-Karabin, J. The usefulness of zooplankton as lake ecosystem indicators: Rotifer trophic state index. Pol. J. Ecol. 60, 339–350 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Gutkowska, A., Paturej, E. & Kowalska, E. Rotifer trophic state indices as ecosystem indicators in brackish coastal waters. Oceanologia 55(4), 887–899. https://doi.org/10.5697/oc.55-4.887 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dembowska, E. A., Napiórkowski, P., Mieszczankin, T. & Józefowicz, S. Planktonic indices in the evaluation of the ecological status and the trophic state of the longest lake in Poland. Ecol. Indic. 56, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.019 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sousa, W., Attayde, J. L., Rocha, E. D. S. & Eskinazi-Sant’Anna, E. M. The response of zooplankton assemblages to variations in the water quality of four man-made lakes in semi-arid northeastern Brazil. J. Plankton Res. 30(6), 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn032 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kak, A. & Rao, R. Does the evasive behavior of H. exarthra influence its competition with cladocerans? In Rotifera VIII: A Comparative Approach. Developments in Hydrobiology, Hydrobiologia Vol. 387/388 (eds Wurdak, E. et al.) 409–419 (Springer, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Hochberg, R., Yang, H. & Moore, J. The ultrastructure of escape organs: Setose arms and crossstriated muscles in Hexarthra mira (Rotifera: Gnesiotrocha: Flosculariaceae). Zoomorphology 136, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-016-0339-2 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, J. L. & Dodson, S. I. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150, 28–35 (1965).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. Science 204(4399), 1345 (1979).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martín González, A. M., Dalsgaard, B. & Olesen, J. M. Centrality measures and the importance of generalist species in pollination networks. Ecol. Complex. 7(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.03.008 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paine, R. T. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat. 104, 91–93 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmitz, O. J. & Trussell, G. C. Multiple stressors, state-dependence and predation risk—Foraging trade-offs: Toward a modern concept of trait-mediated indirect effects in communities and ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 12, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.08.003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burns, C. W. & Gilbert, J. J. Effects of daphnid size and density on interference between Daphnia and Keratella cochlearis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31(4), 848–858. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1986.31.4.0848 (1986).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. J. Suppression of rotifer populations by Daphnia: A review of the evidence, the mechanisms, and the effects on zooplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33(6), 1286–1303. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1988.33.6.1286 (1988).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Conde-Porcuna, J. M., Morales-Baquero, R. & Cruz-Pizarro, L. Effects of Daphnia longispina on rotifer populations in a natural environment: Relative importance of food limitation and interference competition. J. Plankton Res. 16(6), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/16.6.691 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ladle, R. J. & Whittaker, R. J. (eds) Conservation Biogeography (Wiley–Blackwell, 2011).
Google Scholar 
Cottee-Jones, H. E. W. & Whittaker, R. J. The keystone species concept: A critical appraisal. Front. Biogeogr. 4(3), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.21425/F5FBG12533 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Remane, A. Die Brackwasserfauna. Verhandlungen Der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft 36, 34–74 (1934).
Google Scholar 
Skrzypczak, A. R. & Napiórkowska-Krzebietke, A. Identification of hydrochemical and hydrobiological properties of mine waters for use in aquaculture. Aquac. Rep. 18, 100460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100460 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
von Flössner, D. & Krebstiere, C. Kiemen-und Blattfüsser, Branchiopoda, Fischläuse, Branchiura Vol. 382 (VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1972).
Google Scholar 
Koste, W. Rotatoria. Die Rädertiere Mitteleuropas. Überordnung Monogononta. I Textband, II Tafelband 52–570 (Gebrüder Borntraeger, 1978).
Google Scholar 
Rybak, J. I. & Błędzki, L. A. Freshwater Planktonic Crustaceans (Warsaw University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Błędzki, L. A. & Rybak, J. I. Freshwater Crustacean Zooplankton of Europe: Cladocera & Copepoda (Calanoida, Cyclopoida). Key to Species Identification with Notes on Ecology, Distribution, Methods and Introduction to Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Bottrell, H. H. et al. A review of some problems in zooplankton production studies. Norw. J. Zool. 24, 419–456 (1976).
Google Scholar 
Ejsmont-Karabin, J. Empirical equations for biomass calculation of planktonic rotifers. Pol. Arch. Hydr. 45, 513–522 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Kovach, W. L. MVSP—A Multivariate Statistical Package for Windows, ver. 3.2 (Kovach Computing Services Pentraeth, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Borgatti, S. P. Centrality and network flow. Soc. Netw. 27, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamada, T. & Kawai, S. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs—Inform. Process Lett. 31, 7–15 (1989).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavlopoulos, G. A. et al. Using graph theory to analyze biological networks. BioData Min 4, 10 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newman, M. E. J. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc. Netw. 27, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandes, U. A. faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J. Math. Sociol. 25, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249 (2001).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science (80- ). 359, 80–83 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eakin, C. M., Sweatman, H. P. A. & Brainard, R. E. The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: Insights and impacts. Coral Reefs 38, 539–545 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glynn. Coral reef bleaching: Facts, hypotheses and implications. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2, 495–509 (1996).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, B. E. Coral bleaching: Causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16, 129–138 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Maynard, J. A. et al. Projections of climate conditions that increase coral disease susceptibility and pathogen abundance and virulence. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 688–694 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anthony, K. R. N., Kline, D. I., Diaz-Pulido, G., Dove, S. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105, 17442–17446 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huang, H. et al. Positive and negative responses of coral calcification to elevated pCO2: Case studies of two coral species and the implications of their responses. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 502, 145–156 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoadley, K. D. et al. Physiological response to elevated temperature and pCO2 varies across four Pacific coral species: Understanding the unique host + symbiont response. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–15 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Schoepf, V. et al. Coral energy reserves and calcification in a high-CO2 world at two temperatures. PLoS One. 8, e75049 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, (eds. Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) 1–36 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2019).Bahr, K. D., Jokiel, P. L. & Rodgers, K. S. Relative sensitivity of five Hawaiian coral species to high temperature under high-pCO2 conditions. Coral Reefs 35, 729–738 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dove, S. G., Brown, K. T., Van Den Heuvel, A., Chai, A. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Ocean warming and acidification uncouple calcification from calcifier biomass which accelerates coral reef decline. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Chow, M. H., Tsang, R. H. L., Lam, E. K. Y. & Ang, P. O. Quantifying the degree of coral bleaching using digital photographic technique. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 479, 60–68 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Amid, C. et al. Additive effects of the herbicide glyphosate and elevated temperature on the branched coral Acropora formosa in Nha Trang, Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 13360–13372 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anthony, K. R. N., Connolly, S. R. & Willis, B. L. Comparative analysis of energy allocation to tissue and skeletal growth in corals. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 1417–1429 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. & Davies, P. S. An energy budget for Porites porites (Scleractinia). Mar. Biol. 92, 339–347 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Stimson, J. S. Location, quantity and rate of change in quantity of lipids in tissue of Hawaiian hermatypic corals. Bull. Mar. Sci. 41, 889–904 (1987).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Harland, A. D., Navarro, J. C., Spencer Davies, P. & Fixter, L. M. Lipids of some Caribbean and Red Sea corals: Total lipid, wax esters, triglycerides and fatty acids. Mar. Biol. 117, 113–117 (1993).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G., Tchernov, D. & Winters, G. Physiological and biogeochemical responses of super-corals to thermal stress from the northern gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, L. J. & Grottoli, A. G. Energy reserves and metabolism as indicators of coral recovery from bleaching. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1874–1882 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Anthony, K. R. N., Hoogenboom, M. O., Maynard, J. A., Grottoli, A. G. & Middlebrook, R. Energetics approach to predicting mortality risk from environmental stress: A case study of coral bleaching. Funct. Ecol. 23, 539–550 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Baumann, J. H., Grottoli, A. G., Hughes, A. D. & Matsui, Y. Photoautotrophic and heterotrophic carbon in bleached and non-bleached coral lipid acquisition and storage. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 461, 469–478 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, A. D. & Grottoli, A. G. Heterotrophic compensation: A possible mechanism for resilience of coral reefs to global warming or a sign of prolonged stress?. PLoS ONE 8, 1–10 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G. et al. The cumulative impact of annual coral bleaching can turn some coral species winners into losers. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 3823–3833 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G., Rodrigues, L. J. & Palardy, J. E. Heterotrophic plasticity and resilience in bleached corals. Nature 440, 1186–1189 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Levas, S. J. et al. Can heterotrophic uptake of dissolved organic carbon and zooplankton mitigate carbon budget deficits in annually bleached corals?. Coral Reefs 35, 495–506 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jury, C. P., Delano, M. N. & Toonen, R. J. High heritability of coral calcification rates and evolutionary potential under ocean acidification. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Jury, C. P. & Toonen, R. J. Adaptive responses and local stressor mitigation drive coral resilience in warmer, more acidic oceans. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20190614 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Concepcion, G. T., Polato, N. R., Baums, I. B. & Toonen, R. J. Development of microsatellite markers from four Hawaiian corals: Acropora cytherea, Fungia scutaria, Montipora capitata and Porites lobata. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 2, 11–15 (2010).

Google Scholar 
Gorospe, K. D. & Karl, S. A. Genetic relatedness does not retain spatial pattern across multiple spatial scales: Dispersal and colonization in the coral, Pocillopora damicornis. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3721–3736 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wall, C. B., Ritson-Williams, R., Popp, B. N. & Gates, R. D. Spatial variation in the biochemical and isotopic composition of corals during bleaching and recovery. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 2011–2028 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bahr, K. D., Tran, T., Jury, C. P. & Toonen, R. J. Abundance, size, and survival of recruits of the reef coral Pocillopora acuta under ocean warming and acidification. PLoS ONE 15, 1–13 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Rogelj, J. et al. Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McLachlan, R. H., Price, J. T., Solomon, S. L. & Grottoli, A. G. Thirty years of coral heat-stress experiments: A review of methods. Coral Reefs 39, 885–902 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G. et al. Increasing comparability among coral bleaching experiments. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02262 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grottoli, A. G. Variability of stable isotopes and maximum linear extension in reef-coral skeletons at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Mar. Biol. 135, 437–449 (1999).
Google Scholar 
McLachlan, R. H., Dobson, K. L., Grottoli, A. G. Quantification of Total Biomass in Ground Coral Samples. Protocols.io (2020). https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bdyai7se.McLachlan, R. H., Muñoz-Garcia, A., Grottoli, A. G. Extraction of Total Soluble Lipid from Ground Coral Samples. Protocols.io (2020). https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bc4qiyvw.McLachlan, R. H., Price, J. T., Dobson, K. L., Weisleder, N. & Grottoli, A. G. Microplate Assay for Quantification of Soluble Protein in Ground Coral Samples. Protocols.io (2020). https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bdc8i2zw.McLachlan, R. H., Juracka, C. & Grottoli, A. G. Symbiodiniaceae Enumeration in Ground Coral Samples Using Countess™ II FL Automated Cell Counter. Protocols.io (2020). https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bdc5i2y6.McLachlan, R. H. & Grottoli, A. G. Geometric Method for Estimating Coral Surface Area Using Image Analysis. Protocols.io https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bdyai7se(2021).Muscatine, L., McCloskey, L. R. & Marian, R. E. Estimating the daily contribution of carbon from zooxanthellae to coral animal respiration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 601–611 (1981).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Levas, S. J. et al. Organic carbon fluxes mediated by corals at elevated pCO2 and temperature. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 519, 153–164 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. T. et al. Loss of coral reef growth capacity to track future increases in sea level. Nature 558, 396–400 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Woodley, C. M., Burnett, A. & Downs, C. A. Epidemiological Assessment of Reproductive Condition of ESA Priority Coral (2013).Logan, C. A., Dunne, J. P., Eakin, C. M. & Donner, S. D. Incorporating adaptive responses into future projections of coral bleaching. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 125–139 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, L. J., Grottoli, A. G. & Lesser, M. P. Long-term changes in the chlorophyll fluorescence of bleached and recovering corals from Hawaii. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 2502–2509 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rowan, H. et al. Environmental gradients drive physiological variation in Hawaiian corals. Coral Reefs 40(5), 1505–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-021-02140-8 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Houlbrèque, F. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Heterotrophy in tropical scleractinian corals. Biol. Rev. 84, 1–17 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
J. T. Price, thesis, The Ohio State University (2020). More

Seasonality of human–bear conflictOn the Deccan Plateau and Gujarat, most sloth bear attacks occurred in winter, which differs significantly from the seasonality of attacks reported by other studies. Unlike other study areas, people on the Deccan Plateau and in Gujarat are more active in the forest in winter when monsoons and crop harvests have ended. The higher incidence of attacks during monsoons in central India correlates with the increased presence of people farming and protecting crops from cattle depredation, as well as from bears and other wildlife species grazing in nearby forested areas5, 16,17,18. The Kanha–Pench Corridor study was the only one which documented an increase in sloth bear attacks during summer. This increase is concurrent with an increase of people in the forest that collect mahua flower (Madhuca spp) and tendu leaf (Diospyros spp)19. In Sri Lanka, most attacks occurred in the dry season, coincident with the highest levels of human activity in forested areas. People in Sri Lanka enter forests for alternative sources of income as agriculture activity declines during the dry season4.Across all studies, the majority of sloth bear attacks are correlated with the time of year when human activity is greatest in bear habitat. However, the time of year that the peak of human activity occurs in sloth bear habitat varies by region. We conclude that the seasonal activity of bears plays a much smaller role on attack rates than the seasonal activity of humans. Consistent with findings in other studies, human incursion into bear habitat is the primary factor responsible for precipitating conflict21.Time of day influences on human–bear conflictMost studies attributed the time of day that attacks occurred to when most humans were active in the forest4, 17,18,19,20. However, the Deccan plateau differed in that the majority of attacks occurred after dark when fewer people were active in or near the forest. Working in agricultural areas after dark is a more common practice on the Deccan Plateau than for the other study areas due to the availability of electricity and artificial lighting, though even with artificial lighting human activity after dark on the Deccan Plateau is still substantially less than during daytime. While a contributing factor, we do not feel that the increase in nighttime activity on the Deccan Plateau fully explains the significant increase in attacks during that time period as compared to other areas. We suspect that sloth bear activity patterns on the Deccan Plateau, and how bears use their environment, accounts for the shift in attack timing.Sloth bears, though potentially active throughout the day, are predominately crepuscular and nocturnal17, 22,23,24. During daytime, sloth bears seek shelter in naturally occurring caves, crevices between big boulders, the spaces between tree roots, beneath fallen trees, or under bushes1, 25,26,27,28. On the Deccan Plateau, however, sloth bears utilize rocky caves almost exclusively for daytime denning29. A cave reduces chance encounters with people and predators while providing a modicum of security, hence the lower incident rate for areas with naturally occurring caves.Conversely, studies conducted in Sri Lanka, Maharashtra and the Kanha-Pench corridor documented more attacks during daytime when people are more active but sloth bears are less active4, 5, 19. Large areas where sloth bears are located in Sri Lanka do not have caves for resting, though they do have dense vegetation and tree cavities (S. Ratnayeke, personal communication July 28, 2020). The Dnyanganga Wildlife Sanctuary, in the state of Maharastra, is mostly lower plains forest without rocky caves (N. Dharaiya, personal communication June 25, 2020). The Kanha-Pench corridor landscape is largely comprised of sal (Shorea spp) and teak (Tectona spp) forests largely devoid of caves30. The role of caves in minimizing daylight sloth bear attacks may be best exemplified by an attack in Sri Lanka as quoted in Ratnayeke et al.4:
“I was following two of my companions and saw a black form lying at the foot of a clump bushes, about 10 m from me. I called out to my companions. Before I knew it, the impact of the charging bear knocked me off my feet. It happened so fast, I didn’t see the bear coming… just dust, flying leaves, and the screams and roars of the bear.”
Had this bear been in a cave rather than the shade of a bush, it likely would not have felt threatened and reacted defensively. We speculate that during daylight on the Deccan Plateau, sloth bears rest securely within a cave and are not threatened by humans passing nearby. We know that farmers and livestock herders work in relatively close proximity to known den locations without fear of being attacked (S. Shanmugavelu, pers. observation). Clearly, caves afford a level of protection and separation that benefits both bears and humans. Consequently, we suggest this is the most likely explanation as to why there are relatively few attacks on the Deccan Plateau during daytime.Season and sloth bear safety messagingBear attack research and safety messaging often recognizes a seasonal component17,18,19,20, 31 (e.g., more sloth bear attacks occur during the monsoon season than during other seasons). Sloth bears are active year-round, and the rate of attacks is strongly correlated with the level of human activity in the forest. Similarly, in Alaska, Smith and Herrero32 reported that human-brown bear conflicts were strongly seasonal in their occurrence. Additionally, they reported that attacks occurred most often when both people and bears vied for the same resource, such as salmon or ungulates. Farther north, human-polar bear conflict peaks when bears are on land awaiting freeze up in the fall33. Not infrequently, sloth bear safety messaging amounts to little more than general statements such as “when in the forest or in sloth bear country be aware”. In other words, an individual’s odds of being attacked by a sloth bear while in the woods may not significantly vary regardless of season. But, where it has been found to vary by season, this information should be conveyed to the public.Time of day and sloth bear safety messagingSloth bear research and safety messaging often reports and warns of the “most dangerous” time or times of the day to be active in the forest17,18,19,20, 31, 34. Sloth bear attacks, like grizzly bear or American black bear attacks33, can occur anytime, day or night6. However, due to an abundance of naturally occurring caves on the Deccan Plateau, stumbling across a sleeping sloth bear mid-day is much less likely to occur than it is in Sri Lanka or in the Kanha-Pench corridor. Therefore, regional sloth bear safety messaging should acknowledge this significant difference which will promote bear safety.The Corbett Foundation31 and Dharaiya et al.34 do an admirable job of focusing their safety messaging to a specific regional group of people in their respective publications. This type of regional messaging is necessary for optimizing sloth bear safety messaging efficacy. However, there is also value to non-site-specific sloth bear safety messaging. The short film “Living with Sloth Bears”35 intentionally addresses general safety messaging that applies to sloth bears across their entire range. Consequently, in the making of this film, we purposely avoided referring to the timing of attacks, seasons or time of day, or other aspects of human-bear conflict because we were aware of significant differences with respect to these variables between locations.Yet another aspect of bear safety messaging is to keep it simple so that a person, under duress, will remember what to do in the event of a bear encounter Attempting to recall the details of an extended message, especially when being threatened by a bear, can be difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, the trend has been to keep bear messaging as simple as possible and we agree with it. However, teaching people that work in bear habitat the most likely times of day encounters occur can be beneficial. In summary, there is a time and place to provide detailed information that is regionally specific, and other situations in which to keep messaging simple.Sloth bear denning ecology on the Deccan Plateau and its role in human–bear conflictThe Deccan Plateau is known as high quality sloth bear habitat, as evidenced by the relatively high density of bears in this area (S. Shanmugavelu, pers. observation). While there is ample food on the Deccan Plateau, the abundance of caves there sets it apart from other areas within the specie’s range. Sloth bears use only caves or cave-like structures on the Deccan Plateau for resting (Shanmugavelu et al. In Print). Caves provide protection from the elements, such as the heat of the day or severe storms, as well as protection from potential predators. Sloth bears do not have many predators and while a cub or very young bear may be at risk from leopards (Panthera pardus) or wolves (Canis lupes pallipes), the only natural predator of adult sloth bears is the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris). Tiger scat studies revealed that sloth bears can comprise up to 2% of a their diet36,37,38,39. Tigers no longer occur on the Deccan Plateau, but the abundance of caves in the area undoubtedly historically benefited sloth bears, perhaps facilitating a higher density than would have been otherwise attainable. Presently, however, an increase in human population and habitat loss represents greater threat to the species. More

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bruno, J. F. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328, 1523–1528 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rahmstorf, S. & Coumou, D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17905–17909 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toseland, A. et al. The impact of temperature on marine phytoplankton resource allocation and metabolism. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 979–984 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doney, S. C. Plankton in a warmer world. Nature 444, 695–696 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harley, C. D. G. et al. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems: Climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 9, 228–241 (2006).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zingone, A., Phlips, E. J. & Harrison, P. J. Multiscale variability of twenty-two coastal phytoplankton time series: A global scale comparison. Estuaries Coasts 33, 224–229 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cloern, J. E. et al. Human activities and climate variability drive fast-paced change across the world’s estuarine-coastal ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 513–529 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cloern, J. E. & Jassby, A. D. Patterns and scales of phytoplankton variability in estuarine-coastal ecosystems. Estuaries Coasts 33, 230–241 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romagnan, J.-B. et al. Comprehensive model of annual plankton succession based on the whole-plankton time series approach. PLoS ONE 10, e0119219 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guadayol, Ò. et al. Responses of coastal osmotrophic planktonic communities to simulated events of turbulence and nutrient load throughout a year. J. Plankton Res. 31, 583–600 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Totti, C. et al. Phytoplankton communities in the northwestern Adriatic Sea: Interdecadal variability over a 30-years period (1988–2016) and relationships with meteoclimatic drivers. J. Mar. Syst. 193, 137–153 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zingone, A. et al. Coastal phytoplankton do not rest in winter. Estuaries Coasts 33, 342–361 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Widdicombe, C. E., Eloire, D., Harbour, D., Harris, R. P. & Somerfield, P. J. Long-term phytoplankton community dynamics in the Western English Channel. J. Plankton Res. 32, 643–655 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Harding, L. W. et al. Variable climatic conditions dominate recent phytoplankton dynamics in Chesapeake Bay. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–16 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Suikkanen, S., Laamanen, M. & Huttunen, M. Long-term changes in summer phytoplankton communities of the open northern Baltic Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 71, 580–592 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wasmund, N., Tuimala, J., Suikkanen, S., Vandepitte, L. & Kraberg, A. Long-term trends in phytoplankton composition in the western and central Baltic Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 87, 145–159 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Cloern, J. E. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Cont. Shelf Res. 7, 1367–1381 (1987).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Barbosa, A. B., Domingues, R. B. & Galvão, H. M. Environmental forcing of phytoplankton in a Mediterranean estuary (Guadiana Estuary, South-western Iberia): A decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Estuaries Coasts 33, 324–341 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barrera-Alba, J. J., Abreu, P. C. & Tenenbaum, D. R. Seasonal and inter-annual variability in phytoplankton over a 22-year period in a tropical coastal region in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Cont. Shelf Res. 176, 51–63 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brito, A. C. et al. Changes in the phytoplankton composition in a temperate estuarine system (1960 to 2010). Estuaries Coasts 38, 1678–1691 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zingone, A. et al. Increasing the quality, comparability and accessibility of phytoplankton species composition time-series data. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 162, 151–160 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Smayda, T. J. Phytoplankton species succession. In The Physiological Ecology of Phytoplankton 493–570 (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1980).
Google Scholar 
Kremer, C. T. & Klausmeier, C. A. Species packing in eco-evolutionary models of seasonally fluctuating environments. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1158–1168 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sakavara, A., Tsirtsis, G., Roelke, D. L., Mancy, R. & Spatharis, S. Lumpy species coexistence arises robustly in fluctuating resource environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 738–743 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wiltshire, K. H. et al. Resilience of North Sea phytoplankton spring bloom dynamics: An analysis of long-term data at Helgoland Roads. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 1294–1302 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tsakalakis, I., Pahlow, M., Oschlies, A., Blasius, B. & Ryabov, A. B. Diel light cycle as a key factor for modelling phytoplankton biogeography and diversity. Ecol. Model. 384, 241–248 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Platt, T., Fuentes-Yaco, C. & Frank, K. T. Spring algal bloom and larval fish survival. Nature 423, 398–399 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vantrepotte, V. & Melin, F. Temporal variability of 10-year global SeaWiFS time-series of phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentration. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 1547–1556 (2009).
Google Scholar 
McQuatters-Gollop, A. et al. From microscope to management: The critical value of plankton taxonomy to marine policy and biodiversity conservation. Mar. Policy 83, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Edwards, K. F., Litchman, E. & Klausmeier, C. A. Functional traits explain phytoplankton community structure and seasonal dynamics in a marine ecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 16, 56–63 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wentzky, V. C., Tittel, J., Jäger, C. G., Bruggeman, J. & Rinke, K. Seasonal succession of functional traits in phytoplankton communities and their interaction with trophic state. J. Ecol. 108, 1649–1663 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karl, D. M. Oceanic ecosystem time-series programs: Ten lessons learned. Oceanography 23, 104–125 (2010).
Google Scholar 
d’Alcalà, M. R. et al. Seasonal patterns in plankton communities in a pluriannual time series at a coastal Mediterranean site (Gulf of Naples): An attempt to discern recurrences and trends. Sci. Mar. 68, 65–83 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Mazzocchi, M. G., Dubroca, L., García-Comas, C., Capua, I. D. & Ribera d’Alcalà, M. Stability and resilience in coastal copepod assemblages: The case of the Mediterranean long-term ecological research at Station MC (LTER-MC). Prog. Oceanogr. 97–100, 135–151 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thioulouse, J., Simier, M. & Chessel, D. Simultaneous analysis of a sequence of paired ecological tables. Ecology 85, 272–283 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Lindeman, R. H., Merenda, P. F. & Gold, R. Z. Introduction to bivariate and multivariate analysis 119 (Scott Foresman Co, 1980).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Longobardi, L. From Data to Knowledge: Integrating Observational Data to Trace Phytoplankton Dynamics in a Changing World (Open Univ, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Pisano, A. et al. New evidence of mediterranean climate change and variability from sea surface temperature observations. Remote Sens. 12, 132 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zingone, A. et al. Time series and beyond: multifaceted plankton research at a marine Mediterranean LTER site. Nat. Conserv. 34, 273–310 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zingone, A., Licandro, P. & Sarno, D. Revising paradigms and myths of phytoplankton ecology using biological time series. In Mediterranean Biological Time Series. CIESM Workshop Monographs 109–114 (2003).Cianelli, D. et al. Disentangling physical and biological drivers of phytoplankton dynamics in a coastal system. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–15 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zingone, A., Casotti, R., d’Alcalà, M. R., Scardi, M. & Marino, D. ‘St Martin’s Summer’: The case of an autumn phytoplankton bloom in the Gulf of Naples (Mediterranean Sea). J. Plankton Res. 17, 575–593 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Margalef, R. Life-forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment. Oceanol. Acta 1, 493–509 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Sommer, U. et al. Beyond the plankton ecology group (PEG) model: Mechanisms driving plankton succession. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 429–448 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Reynolds, C. S. What factors influence the species composition of phytoplankton in lakes of different trophic status? In Phytoplankton and Trophic Gradients (eds Alvarez-Cobelas, M. et al.) 11–26 (Springer, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Zingone, A., Montresor, M. & Marino, D. Summer phytoplankton physiognomy in coastal waters of the Gulf of Naples. Mar. Ecol. 11, 157–172 (1990).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Harding, L. W. et al. Long-term trends of nutrients and phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries Coasts 39, 664–681 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andersen, J. H. et al. Long-term temporal and spatial trends in eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea. Biol. Rev. 92, 135–149 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giner, C. R. et al. Quantifying long-term recurrence in planktonic microbial eukaryotes. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14929 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ward, C. S. et al. Annual community patterns are driven by seasonal switching between closely related marine bacteria. ISME J. 11, 1412–1422 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. A. et al. Defining seasonal marine microbial community dynamics. ISME J. 6, 298–308 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G. et al. Synchronous marine pelagic regime shifts in the Northern Hemisphere. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20130272 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Conversi, A. et al. The Mediterranean Sea Regime Shift at the End of the 1980s, and intriguing parallelisms with other European Basins. PLoS ONE 5, e10633 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Eilertsen, H., Sandberg, S. & Tøllefsen, H. Photoperiodic control of diatom spore growth; a theory to explain the onset of phytoplankton blooms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 116, 303–307 (1995).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hensen, V. Ueber die Bestimmung des Plankton’s oder des im Meere treibenden Materials an Pflanzen und Thieren (Kiel Publishers, 1887).
Google Scholar 
Andersen, D. M. & Keafer, B. A. An endogenous annual clock in the toxic marine dinoflagellate Gonyaulax tamarensis. Nature 325, 616–617 (1987).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kremp, A. & Anderson, D. M. Factors regulating germination of resting cysts of the spring bloom dinoflagellate Scrippsiella hangoei from the northern Baltic Sea. J. Plankton Res. 22, 1311–1327 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Aubry, F. B. et al. Plankton communities in the northern Adriatic Sea: Patterns and changes over the last 30 years. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 115, 125–137 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, A. et al. Growth and grazing rate dynamics of major phytoplankton groups in an oligotrophic coastal site. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 95, 77–87 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brannock, P. M., Ortmann, A. C., Moss, A. G. & Halanych, K. M. Metabarcoding reveals environmental factors influencing spatio-temporal variation in pelagic micro-eukaryotes. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3593–3604 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Piredda, R. et al. Diversity and temporal patterns of planktonic protist assemblages at a Mediterranean Long Term Ecological Research site. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, fiw200 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lambert, S. et al. Rhythmicity of coastal marine picoeukaryotes, bacteria and archaea despite irregular environmental perturbations. ISME J. 13, 388–401 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hiltz, M., Bates, S. S. & Kaczmarska, I. Effect of light: Dark cycles and cell apical length on the sexual reproduction of the pennate diatom Pseudo-nitzschia multiseries (Bacillariophyceae) in culture. Phycologia 39, 59–66 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Mouget, J.-L., Gastineau, R., Davidovich, O., Gaudin, P. & Davidovich, N. A. Light is a key factor in triggering sexual reproduction in the pennate diatom Haslea ostrearia. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 69, 194–201 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Montresor, M., Vitale, L., D’Alelio, D. & Ferrante, M. I. Sex in marine planktonic diatoms: Insights and challenges. Perspect. Phycol. 3, 61–75 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Rost, B., Riebesell, U. & Sültemeyer, D. Carbon acquisition of marine phytoplankton: Effect of photoperiod length. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 12–20 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, K. F. Community trait structure in phytoplankton: Seasonal dynamics from a method for sparse trait data. Ecology 97, 3441–3451 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forrest, J. & Miller-Rushing, A. J. Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3101–3112 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Margiotta, F. et al. Do plankton reflect the environmental quality status? The case of a post-industrial Mediterranean Bay. Mar. Environ. Res. 160, 104980 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ferrera, I. et al. Assessment of microbial plankton diversity as an ecological indicator in the NW Mediterranean coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111691 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cloern, J. E., Jassby, A. D., Thompson, J. K. & Hieb, K. A. A cold phase of the East Pacific triggers new phytoplankton blooms in San Francisco Bay. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18561–18565 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scotto di Carlo, B. et al. Uno studio integrato dell’ecosistema pelagico costiero del Golfo di Napoli. Nova Thalass 7, 99–128 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Carrada, G. C., Fresi, E., Marino, D., Modigh, M. & D’Alcalà, M. R. Structural analysis of winter phytoplankton in the Gulf of Naples. J. Plankton Res. 3, 291–314 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marino, D., Modigh, M. & Zingone, A. General features of phytoplankton communities and primary production in the Gulf of Naples and adjacent waters. In Marine Phytoplankton and Productivity (Springer, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Hansen, H. P. & Grasshoff, K. Automated chemical analysis. Methods Seawater Anal. 49, 347–395 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Sabia, L. et al. Assessing the quality of biogeochemical coastal data: A step-wise procedure. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 20, 56–73 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mann, H. B. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13, 245–259 (1945).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Kendall, M. G. Kendall Rank Correlation Methods (Griffin, 1975).
Google Scholar 
Jassby, A. D. & Cloern, J. E. wq: Exploring water quality monitoring data. R Package Version 04 5, (2015).Lomb, N. R. Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data. Astrophys. Space Sci. 39, 447–462 (1976).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Scargle, J. D. Studies in astronomical time series analysis. II-Statistical aspects of spectral analysis of unevenly spaced data. Astrophys. J. 263, 835–853 (1982).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Linnell Nemec, A. F. & Nemec, J. M. A test of significance for periods derived using phase-dispersion-minimization techniques. Astron. J. 90, 2317–2320 (1985).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A., Cram, J. A. & Needham, D. M. Marine microbial community dynamics and their ecological interpretation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 133–146 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cram, J. A. et al. Seasonal and interannual variability of the marine bacterioplankton community throughout the water column over ten years. ISME J. 9, 563–580 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Escoufier, Y. Le traitement des variables vectorielles. Biometrics 29, 751–760 (1973).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Thioulouse, J. et al. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data with ade4 (Springer, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A. et al. Annually reoccurring bacterial communities are predictable from ocean conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13104–13109 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
O’Brien, R. M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 673–690 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Grömping, U. Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. 17, 1–27 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Bi, J. A review of statistical methods for determination of relative importance of correlated predictors and identification of drivers of consumer liking. J. Sens. Stud. 27, 87–101 (2012).
Google Scholar  More

We use the notation in Table 1.Table 1 Notation used in the description of the optimisation framework.Full size tableCurrent crop production and areas, P
i(x), H
i(x)We used 5-arc-minute maps of the fresh-weight production Pi(x) (Mg year−1) and cropping area Hi(x) (ha) of 25 major crops (Table 2) in the year 201037. These represent the most recent spatially explicit and crop-specific global data75. Separate maps were available for irrigated and rainfed croplands, allowing us to estimate the worldwide proportion of irrigated areas as 21% of all croplands.Table 2 Crops included in the analysis.Full size tableAgro-ecologically attainable yields ({widehat{Y}}_{i}(x))
We used 5-arc-minute maps of the agro-ecologically attainable dry-weight yield (Mg ha −1 year−1) of the same 25 crops on worldwide potential growing areas (Supplementary Movie 3) from the GAEZ v4 model, which incorporates thermal, moisture, agro-climatic, soil, and terrain conditions42. These yield estimates were derived based on the assumption of rainfed water supply (i.e., without additional irrigation) and are available for current climatic conditions and, assuming a CO2 fertilisation effect, for four future (2071–2100 period) climate scenarios corresponding to representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.576 simulated by the HadGEM2-ES model77. Potential rainfed yield estimates for current climatic conditions were available for a low- and a high-input crop management level, representing, respectively, subsistence-based organic farming systems and advanced, fully mechanised production using high-yielding crop varieties and optimum fertiliser and pesticide application42. We additionally considered potential yields representing a medium-input management scenario, given by the mean of the relevant low- and high-input yields. Future potential yields were available only for the high-input management level. Thus, we considered a total of 175 (=25 × 3 present + 25 × 4 future) potential yield maps. Potential dry-weight yields were converted to fresh-weight yields, ({widehat{Y}}_{i}(x)), using crop-specific conversion factors42,78.Both current and future potential rainfed yields from GAEZ v4 were simulated based on daily weather data, and therefore account for short-term events such as frost days, heat waves, and wet and dry spells42. However, the estimates represent averages of annual yields across 30-year periods; thus, whilst the need for irrigation on cropping areas identified in our approach during particularly dry years may in principle be obviated by suitable storage of crop production79, in practice, ad hoc irrigation may be an economically desirable measure to maintain productivity during times of drought, which are projected to increase in different geographic regions due to climate change80,81.Carbon impact C
i(x)Following an earlier approach8, the carbon impact of crop production, Ci(x), in a 5-arc-minute grid cell was estimated as the difference between the potential natural carbon stocks and the cropland-specific carbon stocks, each given by the sum of the relevant vegetation- and soil-specific carbon. The change in vegetation carbon stocks resulting from land conversion is given by the difference between carbon stored in the potential natural vegetation, available as a 5-arc-minute global map8 (Supplementary Fig. 1a), and carbon stored in the crops, for which we used available estimates8,78. Regarding soil, spatially explicit global estimates of soil organic carbon (SOC) changes from land cover change are not available. We therefore chose a simple approach, consistent with estimates across large spatial scales, rather than a complex spatially explicit model for which, given the limited empirical data, robust predictions across and beyond currently cultivated areas would be difficult to achieve. Following an earlier approach8, and supported by empirical meta-analyses82,83,84,85,86, we assumed that the conversion of natural habitat to cropland results in a 25% reduction of the potential natural SOC. For the latter, we used a 5-arc-minute global map of pre-agricultural SOC stocks7 (Supplementary Fig. 1b). Thus, the total local carbon impact (Mg C ha−1) of the production of crop i in the grid cell x was estimated as$${C}_{i}(x)={{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{vegetation}}}}}}}(x)+0.25cdot {C}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{SOC}}}}}}}(x)-{C}_{{{{{{rm{crop}}}}}}}(i)$$
(1)
where ({{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{vegetation}}}}}}}(x)) and ({C}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{SOC}}}}}}}(x)) denote the potential natural carbon stocks in the vegetation and the soil in x, respectively, and ({C}_{{{{{{rm{crop}}}}}}}(i)) denotes the carbon stocks of crop i (all in Mg C ha−1). By design, the approach allows us to estimate the carbon impact of the conversion of natural habitat to cropland regardless of whether an area is currently cultivated or not.In our analysis, we did not consider greenhouse gas emissions from sources other than from land use change, including nitrous emissions from fertilised soils and methane emissions from rice paddies87. In contrast to the one-off land use change emissions considered here, those are ongoing emissions that incur continually in the production process. We would assume that the magnitude of these emissions in a scenario of redistribution of agricultural areas, in which the total production of each crop remains constant, is roughly similar to that associated with the current distribution of areas. We also did not consider emissions associated with transport; however, these have been shown to be small compared to other food chain emissions88 and poorly correlated with the distance travelled by agricultural products89.Biodiversity impact B
i(x)Analogous to our approach for carbon, we estimated the biodiversity impact of crop production, Bi(x), in a 5-arc-minute grid cell as the difference between the local biodiversity associated with the natural habitat and that associated with cropland. For our main analysis, we quantified local biodiversity in terms of range rarity (given by the sum of inverse species range sizes; see below) of mammals, birds, and amphibians. Range rarity has been advocated as a biodiversity measure particularly relevant to conservation planning in general39,90,91,92,93 and the protection of endemic species in particular39. In a supplementary analysis, we additionally considered biodiversity in terms of species richness.We used 5-arc-minute global maps of the range rarity and species richness of mammals, birds, and amphibians under potential natural vegetation (Supplementary Fig. 1c, d) and under cropland land cover94. The methodology used to generate these data38 combines species-specific extents of occurrence (spatial envelopes of species’ outermost geographic limits40) and habitat preferences (lists of land cover categories in which species can live95), both available for all mammals, birds, and amphibians96,97, with a global map of potential natural biomes44 in order to estimate which species would be present in a grid cell for natural habitat conditions. Incorporating information on species’ ability to live in croplands, included in the habitat preferences, allows for determining the species that would, and those that would not, tolerate a local conversion of natural habitat to cropland. The species richness impact of crop production in a grid cell is then obtained as the number of species estimated to be locally lost when natural habitat is converted to cropland. Instead of weighing all species equally, the range rarity impact in a grid cell is calculated as the sum of the inverse potential natural range sizes of the species locally lost when natural habitat is converted; thus, increased weight is attributed to range-restricted species, which tend to be at higher extinction risk40,41.As in the case of carbon, the approach allows us to estimate the biodiversity impact of crop production in both currently cultivated and uncultivated areas.Land potentially available for agriculture, V(x)We defined the area V(x) (ha) potentially available for crop production in a given grid cell x, as the area not currently covered by water bodies42, land unsuitable due to soil and terrain constraints42, built-up land (urban areas, infrastructure, roads)1, pasture lands1, crops not considered in our analysis37, or protected areas42 (Supplementary Fig. 1e). In the scenario of a partial relocation of crop production, in which a proportion of existing croplands is not moved, the relevant retained areas are additionally subtracted from the potentially available area, as described further below.Optimal transnational relocationWe first consider the scenario in which all current croplands are relocated across national borders based on current climate (Fig. 3a, dark blue line). For each crop i and each grid cell x, we determined the local (i.e., grid-cell-specific) area ({widehat{H}}_{i}(x)) (ha) on which crop i is grown in cell x so that the total production of each crop i equals the current production and the environmental impact is minimal. Denoting by$${bar{P}}_{i}={sum }_{x}{P}_{i}(x)$$
(2)
the current global production of crop i, any solution ({widehat{H}}_{i}(x)) must satisfy the equality constraints$${sum }_{x}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot {widehat{Y}}_{i}(x)={bar{P}}_{{{{{{rm{i}}}}}}},{{{{{rm{for}}}}}}quad{{{{{rm{each}}}}}},{{{{{rm{crop}}}}}},i$$
(3)
requiring the total production of each individual crop after relocation to be equal to the current one. A solution must also satisfy the inequality constraints$${sum }_{i}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)le V(x),{{{{{rm{for}}}}}}quad{{{{{rm{each}}}}}},{{{{{rm{grid}}}}}},{{{{{rm{cell}}}}}},x,,$$
(4)
ensuring that the local sum of cropping areas is not larger than the locally available area V(x) (see above). Given these constraints, we can identify the global configuration of croplands that minimises the associated total carbon or biodiversity impact by minimising the objective function$${sum }_{x}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot {C}_{i}(x)to ,{{min }}quad{{{{{rm{or}}}}}}quad{sum }_{x}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot {B}_{i}(x)to ,{{min }}$$
(5)
respectively. More generally, we can minimise a combined carbon and biodiversity impact measure, and examine potential trade-offs between minimising each of the two impacts, by considering the weighted objective function$${sum }_{x}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot (alpha cdot {C}_{i}(x)+(1-alpha )cdot {B}_{i}(x))to ,{{min }}$$
(6)
where the weighting parameter α ranges between 0 and 1.Considering all crops across all grid cells, we denote by$$bar{C}={sum }_{i}{sum }_{x}{H}_{i}(x)cdot {C}_{i}(x)$$
(7)
the global carbon impact associated with the current distribution of croplands, and by$$hat{C}(alpha )={sum }_{i}{sum }_{x}{hat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot {C}_{i}(x)$$
(8)
the global carbon impact associated with the optimal distribution ({{{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)}}_{i,x}(={{{widehat{H}}_{i}^{alpha }(x)}}_{i,x})) of croplands for some carbon-biodiversity weighting (alpha in [0,1]). The relative change between the current and the optimal carbon impact is then given by$$hat{c}(alpha )=100 % cdot frac{hat{C}(alpha )-bar{C}}{bar{C}}$$
(9)
Using analogous notation, the relative change between the current and the optimal global biodiversity impact across all crops and grid cells is given by$$widehat{b}(alpha )=100 % cdot frac{widehat{B}(alpha )-bar{B}}{bar{B}}$$
(10)
The dark blue line in Fig. 3a visualises (widehat{c}(alpha )) and (widehat{b}(alpha )) for the full range of carbon-biodiversity weightings (alpha in [0,1]), each of which corresponds to a specific optimal distribution ({{{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)}}_{i,x}) of croplands. We defined an optimal weighting ({alpha }_{{{{{{rm{opt}}}}}}}), meant to represent a scenario in which the trade-off between minimising the total carbon impact and minimising the total biodiversity impact is as small as possible. Such a weighting is necessarily subjective; here, we defined it as$${alpha }_{{{{{{rm{opt}}}}}}}={{arg }},{{{min }}}_{alpha in [0,1]}left|begin{array}{ll}frac{frac{partial {hat{c}}(alpha)} {partial {hat{b}}(alpha)}}{hat{c}(alpha)} cdot frac{frac{partial {hat{b}}(alpha)} {partial {hat{c}}(alpha)}}{hat{b}(alpha)}end{array}right|$$
(11)
Each of the two factors on the right-hand side represents the relative rate of change in the reduction of one impact type with respect to the change in the reduction of the other one as α varies. Thus, αopt represents the weighting at which neither impact type can be further reduced by varying α without increasing the relative impact of the other by at least the same amount. Scenarios based on this optimal weighting are shown in Figs. 1,  2, and Supplementary Figs. 3–6, and are represented by the black markers in Fig. 3.Our approach does not account for multiple cropping; i.e., part of a grid cell is not allocated to more than one crop, and the assumed annual yield is based on a single harvest. Allowing for multiple crops to be successively planted in the same location during a growing period would increase the dimensionality of the optimisation problem substantially. However, given that only 5% of current global rainfed areas are under multiple cropping98, this is likely not a strong limitation of our rainfed-based analysis. As a result of this approach, our results may even slightly underestimate local crop production potential and therefore global impact reduction potentials.Optimal national relocationIn the case of areas being relocated within national borders, the mathematical framework is identical with the exception that the sum over relevant grid cells x in Eqs. (2) and (4) is taken over the cells that define the given country of interest, instead of the whole world. In this way, the total production of each crop within each country for optimally distributed croplands is the same as for current areas. The optimisation problem is then solved independently for each country.Optimal partial relocationWhen (either for national or transnational relocation) only a certain proportion (lambda in [0,1]) of the production of each crop (of a country or the world) is being relocated rather than the total production, Eq. (3) changes to$$mathop{sum}limits_{x}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)cdot {widehat{Y}}_{i}(x)=lambda cdot {bar{P}}_{i},{{{{{rm{for}}}}}},{{{{{rm{each}}}}}},{{{{{rm{crop}}}}}},i,.$$
(12)
In addition, the area potentially available for new croplands, V(x), (see above) is reduced by the area that remains occupied by current croplands accounting for the proportion ((1-lambda )) of production that is not being relocated. We denote by ({H}_{i}^{lambda }(x)) the area that continues to be used for the production of crop i in grid cell x in the scenario where the proportion λ of the production is being optimally redistributed. In particular, ({H}_{i}^{0}(x)={H}_{i}(x)) and ({H}_{i}^{1}(x)=0) for all i and x. For a given carbon-biodiversity weighting (alpha in [0,1]) in Eq. (6), ({H}_{i}^{lambda }(x)) is calculated as follows. First, all grid cells in which crop i is currently grown are ordered according to their agro-environmental efficiency, i.e., the grid-cell-specific ratio between the environmental impact attributed to the production of the crop and the local production,$${E}_{i}^{alpha }(x)=frac{{H}_{i}(x)cdot (alpha cdot {C}_{i}(x)+(1-alpha )cdot {B}_{i}(x))}{{P}_{i}(x)}.$$
(13)
Let ({x}_{1}(={x}_{1}(i,alpha ))) denote the index of the grid cell in which crop i is currently grow for which ({E}_{i}^{alpha }) is smallest among all grid cells in which the crop is grown. Then let x2 be the index for which ({E}_{i}^{alpha }) is second smallest (or equal to the smallest), and so on. Thus, the vector (({x}_{1},{x}_{2},{x}_{3},ldots )) contains all indices of grid cells where crop i is currently grown in descending order of agro-environmental efficiency. The area ({H}_{i}^{lambda }({x}_{n})) retained in some grid cell ({x}_{n}) is then given by$${H}_{i}^{lambda }({x}_{n})=left{begin{array}{ll}{H}_{i}({x}_{n}) & {{{{{rm{if}}}}}};mathop{sum }limits_{m=1}^{n}{P}_{i}({x}_{m})le (1-lambda )cdot {bar{P}}_{i}\ 0, & hskip-7.5pc{{{{{rm{else}}}}}}end{array}right.$$
(14)
Thus, cropping areas in a grid cell ({x}_{n}) are retained if they are amongst the most agro-environmentally efficient ones of crop i on which the combined production does not exceed ((1-lambda )cdot {bar{P}}_{i}) (which is not being relocated). Growing areas in the remaining, less agro-environmental efficient grid cells are abandoned and become potentially available for other relocated crops. Note that ({H}_{i}^{lambda }) depends on the weighting α of carbon against biodiversity impacts. Finally, instead of Eq. (4), we have, in the case of the partial relocation of the proportion λ of the total production,$$mathop{sum}limits_{i}{widehat{H}}_{i}(x)le V(x)-{H}_{i}^{lambda }(x)quad{{{{{rm{for}}}}}},{{{{{rm{each}}}}}},{{{{{rm{grid}}}}}},{{{{{rm{cell}}}}}},x,.$$
(15)
Solving the optimisation problemAll datasets needed in the optimisation (i.e., (A(x)), ({P}_{i}(x)), ({H}_{i}(x)), ({C}_{i}(x)), ({B}_{i}(x)), ({widehat{Y}}_{i}(x)), (V(x))) are available at a 5 arc-minute (0.083°) resolution; however, computational constraints required us to upscale these to a 20-arc-minute grid (0.33°) spatial grid. At this resolution, Eq. (6) defines a 1.12 × 106-dimensional linear optimisation problem in the scenario of across-border relocation. The high dimensionality of the problem is in part due to the requirement in Eq. (3) that the individual production level of each crop is maintained. Requiring instead that, for example, only the total caloric production is maintained31,99 reduces Eq. (6) to a 1-dimensional problem. However, in such a scenario, the production of individual crops, and therefore of macro- and micronutrients, would generally be very different from current levels, implicitly assuming potentially drastic dietary shifts that may not be nutritionally or culturally realistic.The optimisation problem in Eq. (6) was solved using the dual-simplex algorithm in the function linprog of the Matlab R2021b Optimization Toolbox100 for a termination tolerance on the dual feasibility of 10−7 and a feasibility tolerance for constraints of 10−4.In the case of a transnational relocation of crop production, the algorithm always converged to the optimal solution, i.e., for all crop management levels, climate scenarios, and proportions of production that were being relocated. For the relocation within national borders, this was not always the case. This is because some countries produce small quantities of crops which, according to the GAEZ v4 potential yield estimates, could not be grown in the relevant quantities anywhere in the country under natural climatic conditions and for rainfed water supply; these crops likely require greenhouse cultivation or irrigation can therefore not be successfully relocated within our framework. Across all countries, this was the case for production occurring on 0.6% of all croplands. When this was the case for a certain country and crop, we excluded the crop from the optimisation routine, and a country’s total carbon and biodiversity impacts were calculated as the sum of the impacts of optimally relocated crops plus the current impacts of non-relocatable crops.This issue is linked to why determining the optimal distribution of croplands within national borders is not a well-defined problem for future climatic conditions. Under current climatic conditions, if a crop cannot be relocated within our framework, then its current distribution offers a fall-back solution that provides the current production level and allows us to quantify environmental impacts. Different climatic conditions in the future mean that the production of a crop across current growing locations will not be the same as it is today, and therefore the fall-back solution available for the present is no longer available, so that a consistent quantification of the environmental impacts of a non-relocatable crop is not possible.Carbon and biodiversity recovery trajectoriesOur analysis in Supplementary Fig. 6 requires spatially explicit estimates of the carbon recovery trajectory on abandoned croplands. Whilst carbon and biodiversity regeneration have been shown to follow certain general patterns, recovery is context-specific (Supplementary Note 1) in that, depending on local conditions, the regeneration in a specific location can take place at slower or faster speeds than would typically be the case in the broader ecoregion. Here, we assumed that these caveats can be accommodated by using conservative estimates of recovery times and by assuming that local factors will average out at the spatial resolution of our analysis. The carbon recovery times assumed here are based on ecosystem-specific estimates of the time required for abandoned agricultural areas to retain pre-disturbance carbon stocks82. Aiming for a conservative approach, we assumed carbon recovery times equal to at least three times these estimates, rounded up to the nearest quarter century (Table 3). Independent empirical estimates from specific sites and from meta-analyses are well within these time scales (Supplementary Note 1).Table 3 Assumed times required for carbon stocks on abandoned cropland to reach pre-disturbance levels.Full size tableApplying the values in Table 3 to a global map of potential natural biomes44 provides a map of carbon recovery times. We assumed a square root-shaped carbon recovery trajectory across these regeneration periods101; similar trajectories, sometimes modelled by faster-converging exponential functions, have been identified in other studies25,27,30,102,103,104,105. Thus, the carbon stocks in an area of a grid cell x previously used to grow crop i were assumed to regenerate according to the function$$left{begin{array}{ll}{{C}}_{{{{{{rm{agricultural}}}}}}}(x)+sqrt{frac{t}{{{T}}_{{{{{{rm{carbon}}}}}}}(x)}}cdot ({{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}}}(x)-{{C}}_{{{{{{rm{agricultural}}}}}}}(x)) & {{{{{rm{if}}}}}},t ; < ; {{T}}_{{{{{{rm{carbon}}}}}}}\ hskip14.7pc{{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}}}(x) & {{{{{rm{if}}}}}},tge {{T}}_{{{{{{rm{carbon}}}}}}}end{array}right.$$ (16) where, using the same notation as further above$${{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}}}(x) ={{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{vegetation}}}}}}}(x)+{{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{SOC}}}}}}}(x)\ {{C}}_{{{{{{rm{agricultural}}}}}}}(x) ={{C}}_{i}(x)+0.75cdot {{C}}_{{{{{{rm{potential}}}}}},{{{{{rm{SOC}}}}}}}(x)$$ (17) Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. http://www.faostat.org (2020).Nouatin, G., Kougbadi, S. & Afouda, L. Analyse des contraintes de la production rizicole et les stratégies développées par les femmes de la commune de Gogounou. Ann. Sci. Agro. 12, 45–59 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Totin, E. et al. Barriers and opportunities for innovation in rice production in the inland valleys of Benin. NJAS-Wagen J. Life Sci. 60–63, 57–66 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tanaka, A., Saito, K., Azoma, K. & Kobayashi, K. Factors affecting variation in farm yields of irrigated lowland rice in southern-central Benin. Eur. J. Agron. 44, 46–53 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nonvide, G. M. A., Sarpong, D. B., Kwadzo, G.T.-M., Anim-Somuah, H. & Amoussouga, G. F. Farmers’ perceptions of irrigation and constraints on rice production in Benin: A stakeholder-consultation approach. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 34, 1001–1021 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seye, B., Arouna, A., Sall, S. N. & Ndiaye, A. A. Determinants de l’adoption des semences certifiees de varietes ameliorees du riz au Benin. J. Rech. Sci. Univ. Lomé 18, 93–106 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Chiambo, P. J., Coelho, J. P., Soares, F. B. & Salumbo, A. Characterization of rice production system in Camacupa and Catabola municipalities of the province of Bié in Angola. DRJAFS. 7, 250–263 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kleinhenz, V., Chea, S. & Hun, N. Survey of rice cropping systems in Kampong Chhnang Province, Cambodia. Rice Sci. 20, 154–164 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loko, Y. L. E. et al. On-Farm Management of Rice Diversity, Varietal Preference Criteria, and Farmers’ Perceptions of the African (Oryza glaberrima Steud.) Versus Asian Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the Republic of Benin (West Africa): Implications for Breeding and Conservation. Econ. Bot. 75, 1–29 (2021)Bello, O. L., Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. & Danso-Abbeam, G. Productivity impact of improved rice varieties’ adoption: Case of smallholder rice farmers in Nigeria. Econ. Innov. New Tech. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1776488 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gnacadja, C., Azokpota, P., Moreira, J. & Sie, M. Perceptions des producteurs et consommateurs sur le riz africain (Oryza glaberrima). Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 11, 2778–2792 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yokouchi, T. & Saito, K. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of NERICA upland rice varieties: The case of a seed producing village in central Benin. Food Sec. 8, 197–209 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandio, A. A. & Yuansheng, J. Determinants of adoption of improved rice varieties in northern Sindh, Pakistan. Rice Sci. 25, 103–110 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagnelie P. Statistiques théoriques et appliquées [Theoretical and applied statistics]. Paris, France: De Boeck & Larcier SA. (1998).Adebo, H. O. et al. Ethnobotanical Knowledge of Jute (Corchorus olitorius L.) in Benin. Eur. J. Med. Plants. 26, 1–11 (2018).INSAE (Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Économique). Principaux indicateurs sociodémographiques et économiques (RGPH-4, 2013). https://insae.bj/statistiques/enquetes-et-recensements (2016).MAEP (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche). Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Agricole. Repport, MAEP, Bénin. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ben149176.pdf (2008).Dansi, A. et al. Traditional leafy vegetables and their use in the Benin Republic. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 55, 1239–1256 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keuls, M. The use of the “studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1, 112–122 (1952).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xie, Y. knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R. R package version 129 (2020).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.gbif.org/fr/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing (2018).Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/ (2019).Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package R package version 25-6. https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan (2019).Robinson, D., Hayes, A. & Couch, S. Broom: Convert Statistical Objects into Tidy Tibbles R package version 070. https://cran.r-project.org/package=broom (2020).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Kinkingninhoun-Mêdagbé, F. M., Diagne, A., Simtowe, F., Agboh-Noameshie, A. R. & Adégbola, P. Y. Gender discrimination and its impact on income, productivity, and technical efficiency: evidence from Benin. Agric. Human Values. 27, 57–69 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adétonah S. et al. Analysis of gender and governance of value chain-based systems on rice and vegetable crops in southern Benin and Mali. Open .J Soc. Sci. 3, 134–141 (2015).Le Vido, A. A. riz africain (Oryza glaberrima Steudel) dans l’agrosystème des Fon du plateau d’Abomey (Bénin) au XIXè siècle: essai d’approche historique. Rev. Iv. Hist. 20, 59–76 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Sakurai, T. Intensification of rainfed lowland rice production in West Africa: Present status and potential green revolution. Dev. Econ. 44, 232–251 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, S. Land rental, off-farm employment and technical efficiency of farm households in Jiangxi Province, China. NJAS 55, 363–378 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Affholder, F., Poeydebat, C., Corbeels, M., Scopel, E. & Tittonell, P. The yield gap of major food crops in family agriculture in the tropics: Assessment and analysis through field surveys and modelling. Field Crops Res. 143, 106–118 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anang, B. T. & Awuni, J. A. Effect of training on small-scale rice production in northern Ghana. APSTRACT. 12, 13–20 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nonvide, G. M. A. A re-examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in Benin: An application of the endogenous switching model. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 40, 657–662 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Osawe, O. W., Akinyosoye, V. O., Omonona, B. T., Okoruwa, V. O. & Salman, K. K. Productivity differentials in rice production systems: Evidence from rice farmers in five agroecological zones in Nigeria. J. Nutraceut. Food Sci. 2, 1–18 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Yabi, I. & Afouda, F. Extreme rainfall years in Benin (West Africa). Quat. Int. 262, 39–43 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulart, R. Z., Reichert, J. M. & Rodrigues, M. F. Cropping poorly-drained lowland soils: Alternatives to rice monoculture, their challenges and management strategies. Agric. Syst. 177, 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagsy2019102715 (2020).Dobermann, A. & Fairhurst, T. Rice: Nutrient Disorders & Nutrient Management Handbook Series, Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Rice Research Institute, Philippine, 191 (2000).Roder, W., Maniphone, S. & Keoboulapha, B. Pigeon pea for fallow improvement in slash-and-burn systems in the hills of Laos?. Agrofor. Syst. 39, 45–57 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Campenhout, B. The role of information in agricultural technology adoption: Experimental evidence from rice farmers in Uganda. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 69, 1239–1272 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castillo, J., Kirk, G. J. D., Rivero, M. M. J., Dobermann, A. & Haefele, M. The nitrogen economy of rice-livestock systems in Uruguay. Glob. Food Sect. 30, 100566; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100566 (2021).Paman, U., Inaba, S. & Uchida, S. The mechanization of small-scale rice farming: Labor requirements and costs. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 7, 122–126 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mesfin, A. H. & Zemedu, L. Choices of varieties and demand for improved rice seed in Fogera district of Ethiopia. Rice Sci. 25, 350–356 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandio, A. A., Jiang, Y., Gessesse, A. T. & Dunya, R. The nexus of agricultural credit, farm size and technical efficiency in Sindh, Pakistan: A stochastic production frontier approach. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 18(3), 348–354 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Naseem, A., Mhlanga, S., Diagne, A., Adegbola, P. Y. & Midingoyi, G. S. Economic analysis of consumer choices based on rice attributes in the food markets of West Africa—The case of Benin. Food Sect. 5, 575–589 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Demont, M., Fiamohé, R. & Kinkpé, T. Comparative advantage in demand and the development of rice value chains in West Africa. World Dev. 96, 578–590 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zannou, A., Kpenavoun, C. S,. Saliou, I. O. & Biaou, G. Technical efficiency of irrigated rice seed farmers in Koussin-Lélé, Benin Republic. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 10, 28–37 (2018).Ouédraogo, M. & Dakouo, D. Evaluation de l’adoption des variétés de riz NERICA dans l’Ouest du Burkina Faso. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 12, 1–16 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruce, A. K. K., Donkoh, S. A. & Ayamga, M. Improved rice variety adoption and its effects on farmers’ output in Ghana. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 6, 242–248 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beke, T. E. Institutional constraints and adoption of improved rice varieties: Econometric evidence from Ivory Coast. RAEStud. 92, 117–141 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hagos, A. & Zemedu, L. Determinants of improved rice varieties adoption in Fogera district of Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 4, 221–228 (2015).Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K. & Pingali, P. Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of globalization. Agric. Econ. 37, 173–183 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khush, G. S. Modern varieties—Their real contribution to food supply and equity. GeoJourna 35, 275–284 (1995).Bannor, R. K., Kumar, G. A. K., Oppong-Kyeremeh, H. & Wongnaa, C. A. Adoption and impact of modern rice varieties on poverty in Eastern India. Rice Sci. 27, 56–66 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anik, A. R. & Salam, M. D. A. Determinants of adoption of improved onion variety in Banglades. J. Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. 109, 71–88 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Nascente, A. S. & Kromocardi, R. Genotype selection and addition of fertilizer increases grain yield in upland rice in Suriname. Acta Amazon. 47, 185–194 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hossain, M. G., Sabiruzzaman, M., Islam, S., Ohtsuki, F. & Lestrel, P. E. Effect of craniofacial measures on the cephalic index of Japanese adult female students. Anthropol. Sci. 118, 117–121 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nonvide, G. M. A. Identification of factors affecting adoption of improved rice varieties among smallholder farmers in the municipality of Malanville, Benin. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 22, 305–316 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

Jones, H. P. et al. Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4033–4038 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
DIISE. The database of island invasive species eradications, developed by island conservation, coastal conservation action laboratory UCSC, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. http://diise.islandconservation.org (2020).Doherty, T. S., Glen, A. S., Nimmo, D. G., Ritchie, E. G. & Dickman, C. R. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11261–11265 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Simberloff, D. et al. Yes we can! Exciting progress and prospects for controlling invasives on islands and beyond. West. North Am. Nat. 78, 942 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kappes, P. J., Bond, A. L., Russell, J. C. & Wanless, R. M. Diagnosing and responding to causes of failure to eradicate invasive rodents. Biol. Invasions 21, 2247–2254 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Browett, S. S., O’Meara, D. B. & McDevitt, A. D. Genetic tools in the management of invasive mammals: recent trends and future perspectives. Mammal. Rev. 50, 200–210 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Burgess, B. T., Irvine, R. L., Howald, G. R. & Russello, M. A. The promise of genetics and genomics for improving invasive mammal management on islands. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 704809 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Abdelkrim, J., Pascal, M., Calmet, C. & Samadi, S. Importance of assessing population genetic structure before eradication of invasive species: examples from insular Norway rat populations. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1509–1518 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Adams, A. L., van Heezik, Y., Dickinson, K. J. M. & Robertson, B. C. Identifying eradication units in an invasive mammalian pest species. Biol. Invasions 16, 1481–1496 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Sjodin, B. M. F., Irvine, R. L., Ford, A. T., Howald, G. R. & Russello, M. A. Rattus population genomics across the Haida Gwaii archipelago provides a framework for guiding invasive species management. Evol. Appl. 13, 889–904 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Russello, M. A., Smith-Vidaurre, G. & Wright, T. F. In Naturalized Parrots of the World: Distribution, Ecology, and Impacts of the World’s Most Colorful Colonizers (ed. Pruett-Jones, S.) Ch. 4 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).Russell, J. C. et al. Survivors or reinvaders? Using genetic assignment to identify invasive pests following eradication. Biol. Invasions 12, 1747–1757 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Amos, W., Nichols, H. J., Churchyard, T. & Brooke, MdeL. Rat eradication comes within a whisker! A case study of a failed project from the South Pacific. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160110 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sjodin, B. M. F., Puckett, E. E., Irvine, R. L., Munshi-South, J. & Russello, M. A. Global origins of invasive brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) in the Haida Gwaii archipelago. Biol. Invasions 23, 611–623 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gaston, A. J., Golumbia, T., Martin, J.-L. & Sharpe, S. Lessons from the islands: introduced species and what they tell us about how ecosystems work. In Proc. from the Research Group on Introduced Species 2002 Symposium 103–116 (Canadian Wildlife Society, 2008).Parks Canada. Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/nature/faune-wildlife (2019).Stockton, S. A., Allombert, S., Gaston, A. J. & Martin, J.-L. A natural experiment on the effects of high deer densities on the native flora of coastal temperate rain forests. Biol. Conserv. 126, 118–128 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Allombert, S., Stockton, S. & Martin, J.-L. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer on forest invertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1917–1929 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Allombert, S., Gaston, A. J. & Martin, J.-L. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer on songbird populations. Biol. Conserv. 126, 1–13 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Chollet, S., Maillard, M., Schörghuber, J., Grayston, S. J. & Martin, J. Deer slow down litter decomposition by reducing litter quality in a temperate forest. Ecology 102, e03235 (2021).Deagle, G. Traditional west coast native medicine. Can. Fam. Physician 34, 4 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Bellis, K. X. T., Peet, R. T., Irvine, R. L., Howald, G. & Alsop, G. J. In Island Invasives: Scaling up to Meet the Challenge Ch. 3 (eds Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Russell, J. C. & West, C. J.) 494–496 (IUCN, 2019).Stroh, N., Baltzinger, C. & Martin, J.-L. Deer prevent western redcedar (Thuya plicata) regeneration in old-growth forests of Haida Gwaii: Is there a potential for recovery? Ecol. Manag 255, 3973–3979 (2008).
Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17, 373–387 (1963).
Google Scholar 
Catchen, J., Hohenlohe, P. A., Bassham, S., Amores, A. & Cresko, W. A. Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 22, 3124–3140 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Foll, M. & Gaggiotti, O. A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective. Genetics 180, 977–993 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E. & Quattro, J. M. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, G. A. & Rannala, B. Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. Genetics 163, 1177–1191 (2003).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mussmann, S. M., Douglas, M. R., Chafin, T. K. & Douglas, M. E. BA3‐SNPs: contemporary migration reconfigured in BayesAss for next‐generation sequence data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1808–1813 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Loiselle, B. A., Sork, V. L., Nason, J. & Graham, C. Spatial genetic structure of a tropical understory shrub Psychotria officinalis (Rubiaceae). Am. J. Bot. 82, 1420 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a package for r to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Bellard, C., Cassey, P. & Blackburn, T. M. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150623 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Robinette, W. L. Mule deer home range and dispersal in Utah. J. Wildl. Manag 30, 335 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Bunnell, F. L. & Harestad, A. S. Dispersal and dispersion of black-tailed deer: models and observations. J. Mammal. 64, 201–209 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, A. & Wallmo, O. Odocoileus hemionus. Am. Soc. Mammal. 219, 1–9 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Quigley, D. T. G. & Moffatt, S. Sika-like deer Cervus nippon Temminck, 1838 observed swimming out to sea at Greystones, Co. Wicklow: Increasing deer population pressure? Bull. Ir. Biogeogr. Soc. 38, 251–262 (2014).Colson, K. E., Brinkman, T. J., Person, D. K. & Hundertmark, K. J. Fine-scale social and spatial genetic structure in Sitka black-tailed deer. Conserv. Genet. 14, 439–449 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Powell, J. H. et al. Microsatellites indicate minimal barriers to mule deer Odocoileus hemionus dispersal across Montana, USA. Wildl. Biol. 19, 102–110 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Dolman, P. M. & Wäber, K. Ecosystem and competition impacts of introduced deer. Wildl. Res. 35, 202 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Edge, K.-A., Crouchley, D., McMurtrie, P., Willans, M. J. & Byrom, A. In Island Invasives: Eradication and Management (eds Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N. & Towns, D. R.) 166–171 (IUCN, 2011).Hess, S. C., Muise, J. & Schipper, J. Anatomy of an eradication effort: removing Hawaii’s illegally introduced axis deer. Wildl. Prof. 9, 26–29 (2015).Masters, P., Markopoulos, N., Florance, B. & Southgate, R. The eradication of fallow deer (Dama dama) and feral goats (Capra hircus) from Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 25, 86–98 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Macdonald, N., Nugent, G., Edge, K.-A. & Parkes, J. P. In Island Invasives: Scaling up to Meet the Challenge Ch. 2 (eds Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Russell, J. C. & West, C. J.) 256–260 (IUCN, 2019).Keitt, B. et al. In Island Invasives: Eradication and Management (eds Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N. & Towns, D. R.) 74–77 (IUCN, 2011).Gerber, L. R. Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3563–3566 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Baird, N. A. et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE 3, e3376 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lemay, M. A. & Russello, M. A. Genetic evidence for ecological divergence in kokanee salmon. Mol. Ecol. 24, 798–811 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rochette, N. C. & Catchen, J. M. Deriving genotypes from RAD-seq short-read data using Stacks. Nat. Protoc. 12, 2640–2659 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beaumont, M. A. & Balding, D. J. Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans. Mol. Ecol. 13, 969–980 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lischer, H. E. L. & Excoffier, L. PGDSpider: an automated data conversion tool for connecting population genetics and genomics programs. Bioinformatics 28, 298–299 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans, P. G. & Tienderen, Van, P. H. Genotype and Genodive: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 792–794 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Zheng, X. et al. A high-performance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of SNP data. Bioinformatics 28, 3326–3328 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg, N. A. distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure: PROGRAM NOTE. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 137–138 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Vekemans, X. & Hardy, O. J. New insights from fine-scale spatial genetic structure analyses in plant populations. Mol. Ecol. 13, 921–935 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, B. T., Irvine, R. L. & Russello, M. A. Population genomics of Sitka black-tailed deer supports invasive species management and ecological restoration on islands. Dryad https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q2bvq83mq (2022). More