Ecology

1.Stephenson, N. L. Am. Nat. 135, 649–670 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Mencuccini, M. et al. New Phytol. 222, 1207–1222 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Ellison, D. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 806–820 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Jump, A. S. et al. Glob Change Biol. 23, 3742–3757 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Zhang, Y., Keenan, T. F. & Zhou, S. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01551-8 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Sankaran, M. J. Ecol. 107, 1531–1549 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Foster, D. et al. Biosciences 53, 77–88 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Tilman, D. & Wedin, D. Nature 353, 653–655 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Pfeiffer, M. et al. Biogeosciences 17, 5829–5847 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Brodribb, T. J. et al. Science 368, 261–266 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Slette, I. J. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3193–3200 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Bernardino, P. N. et al. Remote Sens. 12, 2332 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

1.Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group I to IPCC AR5. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).4.Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. & da Fonseca, G. A. B. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125 LP–125128 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Watson, J. E. M. et al. Set a global target for ecosystems. Nature 578, 360–362 (2020).7.Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).8.Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11645 LP–11611650 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Keith, D. A. et al. The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Beyer, H. L., Venter, O., Grantham, H. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv. Lett. 13, 1–9 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chauvenet, A. L. M. et al. To achieve big wins for terrestrial conservation, prioritize protection of ecoregions closest to meeting targets. One Earth 2, 479–486 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Wilson, E. O. Half Earth: Our Planets Fight for Life (W.W. Norton and Company, 2016).14.Polak, T. et al. Efficient expansion of global protected areas requires simultaneous planning for species and ecosystems. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150107 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Visconti, B. P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Hoffmann, S., Irl, S. D. H. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Predicted climate shifts within terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 10, 4787 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Finsinger, W., Giesecke, T., Brewer, S. & Leydet, M. Emergence patterns of novelty in European vegetation assemblages over the past 15 000 years. Ecol. Lett. 20, 336–346 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Fordham, D. A. et al. Using paleo-archives to safeguard biodiversity under climate change. Science 369 (2020).19.Jackson, S. T. Vegetation, environment, and time: the origination and termination of ecosystems. J. Veg. Sci. 17, 549–557 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hoffmann, S. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Climate change exposure and vulnerability of the global protected area estate from an international perspective. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1496–1509 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579–1247579 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Multivariate climate departures have outpaced univariate changes across global lands. Sci. Rep. 10 (2020).23.Heubes, J. et al. Modelling biome shifts and tree cover change for 2050 in West Africa: Biome shifts and tree cover change in West Africa. J. Biogeogr. 38, 2248–2258 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Scholze, M., Knorr, W., Arnell, N. W. & Prentice, I. C. A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 13116–13120 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Salazar, L. F. & Nobre, C. A. Climate change and thresholds of biome shifts in Amazonia: CLIMATE CHANGE AND AMAZON BIOME SHIFTS. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, n/a–n/a (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Yu, D., Liu, Y., Shi, P. & Wu, J. Projecting impacts of climate change on global terrestrial ecoregions. Ecol. Indic. 103, 114–123 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Iwamura, T., Guisan, A., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H. P. How robust are global conservation priorities to climate change? Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1277–1284 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Littlefield, C. E., Krosby, M., Michalak, J. L. & Lawler, J. J. Connectivity for species on the move: supporting climate-driven range shifts. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 270–278 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.McGuire, J. L., Lawler, J. J., McRae, B. H., Nuñez, T. A. & Theobald, D. M. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 7195 LP–7197200 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.CBD. Zero Draft of post-2020 biodiversity framework. Secr. Conv. Biol. Divers. 1–14 (2020).31.Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B., Dougherty, E. R. & Merenlender, A. M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. 6 (2020).32.Batllori, E., Parisien, M. A., Parks, S. A., Moritz, M. A. & Miller, C. Potential relocation of climatic environments suggests high rates of climate displacement within the North American protection network. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3219–3230 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Hole, D. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on a continent-wide protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12, 420–431 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Corlett, R. T. & Tomlinson, K. W. Climate change and edaphic specialists: irresistible force meets immovable object? Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 367–376 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Svenning, J. C. et al. The influence of interspecific interactions on species range expansion rates. Ecography 37, 1198–1209 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Urban, M. C., Zarnetske, P. L. & Skelly, D. K. Moving forward: dispersal and species interactions determine biotic responses to climate change. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1297, 44–60 (2013).
Google Scholar 
37.Alagador, D., Cerdeira, J. O. & Araújo, M. B. Shifting protected areas: scheduling spatial priorities under climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 703–713 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Araujo. Climate Change and Spatial Conservation Planning. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).39.Woodward, F. I. Climate and Plant Distribution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).40.Stephenson, N. L. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: the role of the water balance. Am. Nat. 135, 649–670 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Burke, K. D. et al. Differing climatic mechanisms control transient and accumulated vegetation novelty in Europe and eastern North America. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20190218 (2019).42.Williams, J. W., Jackson, S. T. & Kutzbach, J. E. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 5738 LP–5735742 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.OECD. The post-2020 biodiversity framework: targets, indicators and measurability implications at global and national level. (2019).44.Carroll, C. & Noss, R. F. Rewilding in the face of climate change. Conserv. Biol. 00, 1–13 (2020).
Google Scholar 
45.Lovejoy, T. E. & Hannah, L. Avoiding the climate failsafe point. Sci. Adv. 4 (2018).46.Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Theobald, D. M., Baruch‐Mordo, S. & Kiesecker, J. Managing the middle: a shift in conservation priorities based on the global human modification gradient. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 811–826 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kier, G. et al. A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 9322–9327 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Franklin, J. F. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 349–350 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Galán-Acedo, C. et al. The conservation value of human-modified landscapes for the world’s primates. Nat. Commun. 10, 152 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Boesing, A. L., Nichols, E. & Metzger, J. P. Biodiversity extinction thresholds are modulated by matrix type. Ecography 41, 1520–1533 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Carroll, C., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R. & Hamann, A. Biotic and climatic velocity identify contrasting areas of vulnerability to climate change. PLoS ONE 10, e0140486 (2015).52.Hamann, A., Roberts, D. R., Barber, Q. E., Carroll, C. & Nielsen, S. E. Velocity of climate change algorithms for guiding conservation and management. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 997–1004 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nat. Commun. 7 (2016).54.Parks, S. A., Carroll, C., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Allred, B. W. Human land uses reduce climate connectivity across North America. Glob. Change Biol. 26 (2020).55.Carroll, C., Parks, S. A., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Roberts, D. R. Climatic, topographic, and anthropogenic factors determine connectivity between current and future climate analogs in North America. Glob. Change Biol. 24 (2018).56.Vos, C. C. et al. Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1722–1731 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Hannah, L. et al. Fine-grain modeling of species’ response to climate change: holdouts, stepping-stones, and microrefugia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 390–397 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Dunn, R. R. Contemporary climatic analogs for 540 North American urban areas in the late 21st century. Nat. Commun. 10, 614 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Beale, C. M., Lennon, J. J., Yearsley, J. M., Brewer, M. J. & Elston, D. A. Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecol. Lett. 13, 246–264 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Dormann, C. et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30, 609–628 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Mahony, C. R., Cannon, A. J., Wang, T. & Aitken, S. N. A closer look at novel climates: new methods and insights at continental to landscape scales. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3934–3955 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Fitzpatrick, M. C. et al. How will climate novelty influence ecological forecasts? Using the quaternary to assess future reliability. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3575–3586 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Mahony, C. R., MacKenzie, W. H. & Aitken, S. N. Novel climates: trajectories of climate change beyond the boundaries of British Columbia’s forest management knowledge system. For. Ecol. Manag. 410, 35–47 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Smith, J. R. et al. A global test of ecoregions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1889–1896 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Stephenson, N. L. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. J. Biogeogr. 25, 855–870 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Corlett, R. T. & Westcott, D. A. Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 482–488 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Svenning, J. C. & Sandel, B. Disequilibrium vegetation dynamics under future climate change. Am. J. Bot. 100, 1266–1286 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Davis, K. T. et al. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 6193–6198 (2019).70.Rodriguez Mega, E. Apocalypic fires are ravaging the worlds largest tropical wetland. Nature 586, 20–21 (2020).71.van Oldenborgh, G. J. et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-69 (2020).72.Wintle, B. A. et al. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 909 LP–909914 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Taylor, P. G. et al. Temperature and rainfall interact to control carbon cycling in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 20, 779–788 (2017).74.Parks, S. A. et al. How will climate change affect wildland fire severity in the western US? Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035002 (2016).75.Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Sci. Data 5 (2018).76.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Mitchell, T. D. Pattern scaling: an examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim. Change 60, 217–242 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Bowman, J., Jaeger, J. A. G. & Fahrig, L. Dispersal distance of mammal is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83, 2049–2055 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Smith, A. M. & Green, D. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28, 110–128 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Sutherland, G., Harestad, A. S., Price, K. & Lertzman, K. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv. Ecol. 4 (2000).82.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Michalak, J. L., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R. & Carroll, C. Distribution and protection of climatic refugia in North America. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1414–1425 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Vol. 5, 563 (Island Press, 2005).
Google Scholar 
2.Parker, I. M. et al. Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol. Invas. 1(1), 3–19 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Crowl, T. A., Crist, T. O., Parmenter, R. R., Belovsky, G. & Lugo, A. E. The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6(5), 238–246 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Mazza, G., Tricarico, E., Genovesi, P. & Gherardi, F. Biological invaders are threats to human health: An overview. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 26, 112–129 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52, 273–288 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Vilà, M. et al. How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8(3), 135–144 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Lindenmayer, D. B. & Likens, G. E. Adaptive monitoring: A new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(9), 482–486 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Lawson Handley, L.-J. et al. Ecological genetics of invasive alien species. Biocontrol 56, 409–428 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Fischer, M. L. et al. Multiple founder effects are followed by range expansion and admixture during the invasion process of the raccoon (Procyon lotor) in Europe. Divers. Distrib. 23(4), 409–420 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Salgado, I. Is the raccoon (Procyon lotor) out of control in Europe?. Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 2243–2256 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Asada, M. “Lag-phase management” as a population management method in low density areas in sika deer (Cervus nippon) and racoon (Procyon lotor). Honyurui Kagaku (Mamm. Sci.) 53(2), 243–255 (2013).
Google Scholar 
12.Gehrt, S. D. & Fritzell, E. K. Duration of familial bonds and dispersal patterns for raccoons in south Texas. J. Mammal. 79(3), 859–872. https://doi.org/10.2307/1383094 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Gascoigne, J., Berec, L., Gregory, S. & Courchamp, F. Dangerously few liaisons: A review of mate-finding Allee effects. Popul. Ecol. 51(3), 355–372 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Porter, W. F., Mathews, N. E., Underwood, H. B., Sage, R. W. & Behrend, D. F. Social organization in deer: Implications for localized management. Environ. Manage. 15(6), 809–814 (1991).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Long, J. Introduced Mammals of the World: Their History Distribution and Influence (CSIRO Publishing, 2003).Book 

Google Scholar 
16.Gehrt, S. D. Wild mammals of North America. In Raccoons and Allies (eds Feldhamer, G. A. et al.) 611–634 (CABI, 2003).
Google Scholar 
17.Ikeda, T., Asano, M., Matoba, Y. & Abe, G. Present status of invasive alien raccoon and its impact in Japan. Glob. Environ. Res. 8, 125–131 (2004).
Google Scholar 
18.Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. The Birds and Beasts (Bears) Need Care Habitation Distribution Survey in 2017. Survey Report, Raccoon, Palm civet, Nutria (2018).19.Okuyama, M. W. et al. Genetic population structure of invasive raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Hokkaido, Japan: Unique phenomenon caused by pet escape or abandonment. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–10 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Ochiai, K., Ishii, M. & Furukawa, T. Invasion and distribution of the raccoon, Procyon lotor, in Chiba Prefecture, Central Japan. J. Nat. Hist. Museum Inst. 7, 21–27 (2002).
Google Scholar 
21.Asada, M. Bayesian estimation of population size in raccoon (Procyon lotor) using state-space model based on removal sampling. Honyurui Kagaku (Mamm. Sci.) 54, 207–218 (2014).
Google Scholar 
22.Sugai, T., Matsushima, H. & Mizuno, K. Last 400 ka landform evolution of the Kanto Plain: Under the influence of concurrent glacio-eustatic sea level changes and tectonic activity. J. Geogr. Chigaku Zasshi 122(6), 921–948 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bagan, H. & Yamagata, Y. Landsat analysis of urban growth: How Tokyo became the world’s largest megacity during the last 40 years. Remote Sens. Environ. 127, 210–222 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Japan Meteorology Agency. Search Past Weather Data (2021). http://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/monthly_h1.php?prec_no=45&block_no=00&year=2020&month=&day=&view=p1. Accessed 28 Feb 2021.25.Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. https://maps.gsi.go.jp/. Accessed 4 Apr 2021.26.Frantz, A. C. et al. Limited mitochondrial DNA diversity is indicative of a small number of founders of the German raccoon (Procyon lotor) population. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 59, 665–674 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Cullingham, C. I., Kyle, C. J., Pond, B. A. & White, B. N. Genetic structure of raccoons in eastern North America based on mtDNA: Implications for subspecies designation and rabies disease dynamics. Can. J. Zool. 86, 947–958 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35(6), 1547–1549 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Cullingham, C. I., Kyle, C. J. & White, B. N. Isolation, characterization and multiplex genotyping of raccoon tetranucleotide microsatellite loci. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6(4), 1030–1032 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Fike, J. A., Drauch, A. M., Beasley, J. C., Dharmarajan, G. & Rhodes, O. E. Development of 14 multiplexed microsatellite loci for raccoons Procyon lotor: Primer note. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7(3), 525–527 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Siripunkaw, C. et al. Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite loci in the raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8(1), 199–201 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Koressaar, T. & Remm, M. Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics 23(10), 1289–1291 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Untergasser, A. et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(15), 1–12 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Brownstein, M. J., Carpten, J. D. & Smith, J. R. Modulation of non-templated nucleotide addition by Taq DNA polymerase: Primer modifications that facilitate genotyping. Biotechniques 20(6), 1004–1010 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Pompanon, F., Bonin, A., Bellemain, E. & Taberlet, P. Genotyping errors: Causes, consequences and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6(11), 847–859 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Holleley, C. E. & Geerts, P. G. Multiplex Manager 1.0: A cross-platform computer program that plans and optimizes multiplex PCR. Biotechniques 46(7), 511–517 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Yoshida, K., Hirose, M., Hasegawa, M. & Inoue, E. Mitochondrial DNA analyses of invasive raccoons (Procyon lotor) in the Boso Peninsula, Japan. Mamm. Study 45(1), 1–6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bandelt, H. J., Forster, P. & Rohl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 37–48 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Cullingham, A., Zalewski, A., Bartoszewicz, M., Okarma, H. & Jędrzejewska, E. The genetic structure of raccoon introduced in Central Europe reflects multiple invasion pathways. Biol. Invas. 16, 1611–1625 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Fischer, M. L. et al. Historical invasion records can be misleading: genetic evidence for multiple introductions of invasive raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Germany. PLoS ONE 10(5), e0125441 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Alda, F. et al. Genetic evidence for multiple introduction events of raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Spain. Biol. Invas. 15, 687–698 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Biedrzycka, A., Zalewski, A., Bartoszewicz, M., Okarma, H. & Jędrzejewska, E. The genetic structure of raccoon introduced in Central Europe reflects multiple invasion pathways. Biol. Invas. 16(8), 1611–1625 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Santonastaso, T. T., Dubach, J., Hauver, S. A., Graser, W. H. & Gehrt, S. D. Microsatellite analysis of raccoon (Procyon lotor) population structure across an extensive metropolitan landscape. J. Mammal. 93(2), 447–455 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Peakall, R. O. D. & Smouse, P. E. GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6(1), 288–295 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenALEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28(19), 2537–2539 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Goudet, J. FSTAT, a Program to Estimate and Test Gene Diversity and Fixation Indices (Version 2.9. 3). http://www2.unil.ch/popgen/softwares/fstat.htm (2001).47.Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2), 945–959 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Earl, D. A. & von Holdt, B. M. Structure harvester: A website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23(14), 1801–1806. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Rosenberg, N. A. Distruct: A program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4(1), 137–138 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Ratnayeke, S., Tuskan, G. A. & Pelton, M. R. Genetic relatedness and female spatial organization in a solitary carnivore, the raccoon, Procyon lotor. Mol. Ecol. 11(6), 1115–1124 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.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(5), 1509–1518 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar  More

The present study was carried out in six fjords within New Zealand’s Fiordland system, specifically Breaksea Sound, Chalky Inlet, Doubtful Sound, Dusky Sound, Long Sound, and Wet Jacket Arm, as described in Tobias-Hünefeldt et al.15. Analyses were divided into three categories: (1) a multi-fjord analysis comprising five of the tested fjords (excluding Long Sound), (2) a high-resolution study along Long Sound’s horizontal axis, and (3) a depth profile of Long Sound’s deepest location (at 421 m). These categories were established to identify trends across multiple fjords, and then test the trends using a fjord analysed at a higher resolution. Total community composition (via 16S and 18S rRNA gene sequencing) and metabolic potential did not significantly covary across the five studied fjords (Mantel, r  More

1.Stein, R. & Macdonald, R. W. Organic carbon budget: Arctic Ocean vs. global ocean. In The Organic Carbon Cycle in the Arctic Ocean (eds Stein, R. & Macdonald, R. W.) (Springer, 2004).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
2.Barber, D. G. & Massom, R. A. The role of sea ice in Arctic and Antarctic polynyas. Oceanogr. Ser. 74, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0422-9894(06)74001-6 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Sheremetevskiy, A. M. Role of meiobenthos of the South Sakhalin shelf, Eastern Kamchatka, and Novosibirsk shallow water area. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei 35, 43 (1987).
Google Scholar 
4.Golikov, A. N. Ecosystems of the New Siberian shoals and fauna of the Laptev Sea and adjacent waters of the Arctic Ocean (in Russian). Explor. Fauna Seas 37, 4 (1990).
Google Scholar 
5.Golikov, A. N. Fauna of the East Siberian Sea. Part III. Explor. Fauna Seas 49, 57 (1994).
Google Scholar 
6.Sirenko, B. I. & Denisenko, S. G. Fauna of the East Siberian Sea, distribution patterns and structure of bottom communities. Explor. Fauna Seas 66, 74 (2010).
Google Scholar 
7.Sirenko, B. I. List of species of free-living invertebrates of Eurasian Arctic seas and adjacent deep waters. Explor. Fauna Seas 51(59), 1–76 (2001).
Google Scholar 
8.Schmidt-Rhaesa, A. Handbook of Zoology: Gastrotricha, Cycloneuralia, Gnathifera Vol. 2, 608 (De Gruyter, 2020).
Google Scholar 
9.Udalov, A. et al. Integrity of benthic assemblages along the arctic estuarine-coastal system. Ecol. Indic. 121, 107115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107115 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Portnova, D., Fedyaeva, M., Udalov, A. & Tchesunov, A. Community structure of nematodes in the Laptev Sea shelf with notes on the lives of ice nematodes. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 31, 100757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100757 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Gallucci, F., Moens, T. & Fonseca, G. Small-scale spatial patterns of meiobenthos in the Arctic deep sea. Mar. Biodivers. 39(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-009-0003-x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Lei, Y., Stumm, K., Volkenborn, N., Wickham, S. A. & Berninger, U. G. Impact of Arenicola marina (Polychaeta) on the microbial assemblages and meiobenthos in a marine intertidal flat. Mar. Biol. 157(6), 1271–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1407-7 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Flint, M. V., Poyarkov, S. G. & Rymsky-Korsakov, N. A. Ecosystems of the Siberian Arctic Seas-2017 (Cruise 69 of the R/V Akademik Mstislav Keldysh). Oceanology 58(2), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437018020042 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Garlitska, L. A. & Azovsky, A. I. Benthic harpacticoid copepods of the Yenisei Gulf and the adjacent shallow waters of the Kara Sea. J. Nat. Hist. 50, 2941–2959. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2016.1219410 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Portnova, D., Garlitska, L., Udalov, A. & Kondar, D. Meiobenthos and nematode community in the Yenisei Bay and adjacent parts of the Kara Sea shelf. Oceanology 57(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437017010155 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Carmack, E. et al. Toward quantifying the increasing role of oceanic heat in sea ice loss in the new Arctic. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96(12), 2079–2105. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00177.1 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Peterson, B. J. et al. Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science 298(5601), 2171–2173. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077445 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Polukhin, A. The role of river runoff in the Kara Sea surface layer acidification and carbonate system changes. ERL 14(10), 105007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab421e (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Lisitzin, A. P. Marginal filter of the oceans. Oceanology 34(5), 735–743 (1994).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Moens, T., Braeckman, U., Derycke, S., Fonseca, G., Gallucci, F., Gingold, R., Guilini, Katja, Ingles, J., Leduc, D., Vanaverbeke, J., Van Colen, C., Vanreusel, A, & Vincx, M. Ecology of free-living marine nematodes. In Volume 2 Nematoda, 109–152. De Gruyter (2013)21.Aller, J. Y. & Aller, R. C. General characteristics of benthic faunas on the Amazon inner continental shelf with comparison to the shelf off the Changjiang River, East China Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. 6(1–2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4343(86)90065-8 (1986).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Soetaert, K., Vincx, M., Wittoeck, J. & Tulkens, M. Meiobenthic distribution and nematode community structure in five European estuaries. Hydrobiologia 311(1), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008580 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Tank, S. E. et al. The processing and impact of dissolved riverine nitrogen in the Arctic Ocean. Estuaries Coast 35, 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9417-3 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Galtsova, V. V., Lukina, T. G. & Vladimirov, M. V. Meiobenthos of Chaunskaya Bay, East Siberian Sea. Issledovaniya Fauny Morei 48(56), 67–97 (1994).
Google Scholar 
25.Coull, B. C. Role of meiofauna in estuarine soft‐bottom habitats. Austral Ecol. 24(4), 327–343 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Vincx, M., Meire, P., & Heip, C. The distribution of nematodes communities in the Southern Bight of the North Sea. Cah Biol Mar. 31(1), 107–129 (1990).27.Vanaverbeke, J., Gheskiere, T., Steyaert, M., & Vincx, M. Nematode assemblages from subtidal sandbanks in the Southern Bight of the North Sea: effect of small sedimentological differences. J. Sea Res. 48(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-1101(02)00165-X (2002)ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Steyaert, M., et al. The importance of fine-scale, vertical profiles in characterising nematode community structure. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 58(2), 353–366 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Alves, A. S., Adão, H., Patrício, J., Neto, J. M., Costa, M. J., & Marques, J. C. Spatial distribution of subtidal meiobenthos along estuarine gradients in two southern European estuaries (Portugal). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 89(8), 1529–1540 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Garlitska, L. A., Chertoprud, E. S., Portnova, D. A. & Azovsky, A. I. Benthic harpacticoida of the Kara Sea: Species composition and bathymetrically related distribution. Oceanology 59(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437019040064 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Huang, D. et al. Preliminary study on community structures of meiofauna in the middle and eastern Chukchi Sea. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 40(6), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-021-1777-3 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Giere, O. Meiobenthology: The Microscopic Motile Fauna in Aquatic Sediments 2nd edn. (Springer, 2009).
Google Scholar 
33.Semiletov, I. et al. The East Siberian Sea as a transition zone between Pacific-derived waters and Arctic shelf waters. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022490 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Miroshnikov, A. Y. et al. Ecological state and mineral-geochemical characteristics of the bottom sediments of the East Siberian Sea. Oceanology 60(4), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0030157420040152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Frontalini, F. et al. The response of cultured meiofaunal and benthic foraminiferal communities to lead exposure: Results from mesocosm experiments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37(9), 2439–2447. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4207 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Fonseca, G. & Soltwedel, T. Deep-sea meiobenthic communities underneath the marginal ice zone off Eastern Greenland. Polar Biol. 30, 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-006-0220-8 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Portnova, D. & Polukhin, A. Meiobenthos of the eastern shelf of the Kara Sea compared with the meiobenthos of other parts of the sea. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 24, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2018.10.002 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Alexeev, D. K., & Galtsova, V. V. Effect of radioactive pollution on the biodiversity of marine benthic ecosystems of the Russian Arctic shelf. Polar Sci. 6(2), 183–195 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Grzelak, K. & Sørensen, M. V. Diversity and community structure of kinorhynchs around Svalbard: First insights into spatial patterns and environmental drivers. Zool. Anz. 282, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2019.05.009 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Landers, S. C. et al. Kinorhynch communities from Alabama coastal waters. Mar. Biol. Res. 16(6–7), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2020.1789660 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Holovachov, O. New and known species of the genus Campylaimus Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Araeolaimida: Diplopeltidae) from North European marine habitats. Biodivers. Data J. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e46545 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Sharma, J. & Bluhm, B. A. Diversity of larger free-living nematodes from macrobenthos ( > 250 μm) in the Arctic deep-sea Canada Basin. Mar. Biodivers. 41(3), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-010-0060-1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kotwicki, L., Grzelak, K. & Bełdowski, J. Benthic communities in chemical munitions dumping site areas within the Baltic deeps with special focus on nematodes. Deep Sea Res. II 128, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.12.012 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Netto, S. A., Pagliosa, P. R., Colling, A., Fonseca, A. L. & Brauk, K. M. Benthic estuarine assemblages from the Southern Brazilian marine ecoregion. Braz. Estuaries. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77779-5_6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Broman, E., et al. Uncovering diversity and metabolic spectrum of animals in dead zone sediments. Commun. Biol. 3(1), 1–12 (2020).46.Zeppilli, D., et al. Characteristics of meiofauna in extreme marine ecosystems: a review. Mar. Biodiver. 48(1), 35–71 (2018).47.Pérez-García, J. A. et al. Nematode diversity of freshwater and anchialine caves of Western Cuba. PBSW 131(1), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.2988/17-00024 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bezzubova, E. M., Seliverstova, A. M., Zamyatin, I. A. & Romanova, N. D. Heterotrophic bacterioplankton of the Laptev and East Siberian Sea shelf affected by freshwater inflow areas. Oceanology 60, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437020010026 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Vanreusel, A. et al. Meiobenthos of the central Arctic Ocean with special emphasis on the nematode community structure. Deep Sea Res. I 47, 1855–1879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-063728002900007-8 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Tahseen, Q. Nematodes in aquatic environments: Adaptations and survival strategies. Biodivers. J. 3(1), 13–40 (2012).
Google Scholar 
51.Williams, W. J. & Carmack, E. C. The ‘interior’ shelves of the Arctic Ocean: Physical oceanographic setting, climatology and effects of sea-ice retreat on cross-shelf exchange. Prog. Ocean 139, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.008 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Magritsky, D. V. et al. Long-term changes of river water inflow into the seas of the Russian Arctic sector. Polarforschung 87(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.2312/polarforschung.87.2.177 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Anderson, L. G. et al. East Siberian Sea, an Arctic region of very high biogeochemical activity. Biogeosciences 4, 6. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1745-2011 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Dmitrienko, I. A. et al. Impact of the Arctic Ocean Atlantic water layer on Siberian shelf hydrography. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006020 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Stein, R. Arctic Ocean Sediments: Processes, PROXIES, and Paleoenvironment (Elsevier, 2008).
Google Scholar 
56.Petrova, V. I., Batova, G. I., Kursheva, A. V. & Litvinenko, I. V. Geochemistry of organic matter of bottom sediments in the rises of the central Arctic Ocean. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 51(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2009.12.008 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Millero, F. J. Thermodynamics of the carbon dioxide system in oceans. GCA 59(4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjce-3-6-1 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Pavlova, G. Y. et al. Intercalibration of Bruevich’s method to determine the total alkalinity in seawater. Oceanology 48, 438. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437008030168 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Dickson, A. G. & Goyet, C. Handbook of Methods for the Analysis of the Various Parameters of the Carbon Dioxide System in Sea Water. Version 2 (No. ORNL/CDIAC-74) (1994).60.Dickson, A. G., Afghan, J. D. & Anderson, G. C. Reference materials for oceanic CO2 analysis: A method for the certification of total alkalinity. Mar. Chem. 80, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4203(02)00133-0 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Lewis, E. & Wallace, D. W. R. Program Developed for CO2 System Calculations. ORNL/CDIAC-105 (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 1998).Book 

Google Scholar 
62.Shiklomanov, A. I., Holmes, J. W., McClelland, S. E., Tank, R. & Spencer, G.M. Arctic Great Rivers Observatory. Discharge Dataset, Version 20200801 (2020).63.Niemistö, L. A gravity corer for studies of soft sediments. Merentutkimuslait. Julk./Havsforskningsinst. Skr. 238, 33–38 (1974).
Google Scholar 
64.Eleftheriou, A. Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos (Wiley, 2013).Book 

Google Scholar 
65.Wieser, W. Beziehungen zwischen Mundhöhlengestalt, Ernährungsweise und Vorkommen bei freilebenden, marinen Nematoden. Ark. Zool. 2, 439–484 (1953).
Google Scholar 
66.Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T. & Ryan, P. D. PAST paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4, 1–9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
67.Heip, C. & Herman, P. Indices of diversity and evenness. Oceanis 24(4), 61–88 (2001).
Google Scholar  More

1.Grime, J. P. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties (John Wiley and Sons, 2001).2.Reich, P. B. et al. The evolution of plant functional variation: traits, spectra, and strategies. Int. J. Plant Sci. 164, S143–S164 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Díaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Bergmann, J. et al. The fungal collaboration gradient dominates the root economics space in plants. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba3756 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database — enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Iversen, C. M. et al. A global Fine-Root Ecology Database to address below-ground challenges in plant ecology. New Phytol. 215, 15–26 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R. et al. Global root traits (GRooT) database. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 25–37 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.McCormack, M. L. et al. Redefining fine roots improves understanding of below-ground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. New Phytol. 207, 505–518 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M. F. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269, 341–356 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Eissenstat, D. M. Costs and benefits of constructing roots of small diameter. J. Plant Nutr. 15, 763–782 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Freschet, G. T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., van Logtestijn, R. S. P. & Aerts, R. Evidence of the ‘plant economics spectrum’ in a subarctic flora. J. Ecol. 98, 362–373 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Reich, P. B. The world-wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J. Ecol. 102, 275–301 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Shen, Y. et al. Linking aboveground traits to root traits and local environment: implications of the plant economics spectrum. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1412 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Kramer-Walter, K. R. et al. Root traits are multidimensional: specific root length is independent from root tissue density and the plant economic spectrum. J. Ecol. 104, 1299–1310 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Bergmann, J., Ryo, M., Prati, D., Hempel, S. & Rillig, M. C. Root traits are more than analogues of leaf traits: the case for diaspore mass. New Phytol. 216, 1130–1139 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Weemstra, M. et al. Towards a multidimensional root trait framework: a tree root review. New Phytol. 211, 1159–1169 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Ma, Z. et al. Evolutionary history resolves global organization of root functional traits. Nature 555, 94–97 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.de la Riva, E. G. et al. Root traits across environmental gradients in Mediterranean woody communities: are they aligned along the root economics spectrum? Plant Soil 424, 35–48 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Craine, J. M., Lee, W. G., Bond, W. J., Williams, R. J. & Johnson, L. C. Environmental constraints on a global relationship among leaf and root traits of grasses. Ecology 86, 12–19 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Liese, R., Alings, K. & Meier, I. C. Root branching is a leading root trait of the plant economics spectrum in temperate trees. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 315 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Carmona, C. P. et al. Erosion of global functional diversity across the tree of life. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf2675 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Niklas, K. J. Modelling below- and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Ann. Bot. 95, 315–321 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Liu, G. et al. Coordinated variation in leaf and root traits across multiple spatial scales in Chinese semi-arid and arid ecosystems. New Phytol. 188, 543–553 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Galland, T., Carmona, C. P., Götzenberger, L., Valencia, E. & de Bello, F. Are redundancy indices redundant? An evaluation based on parameterized simulations. Ecol. Indic. 116, 106488 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Valverde‐Barrantes, O. J., Maherali, H., Baraloto, C. & Blackwood, C. B. Independent evolutionary changes in fine‐root traits among main clades during the diversification of seed plants. New Phytol. 228, 541–553 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Cornwell, W. K. et al. Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1065–1071 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Freschet, G. T. et al. Climate, soil and plant functional types as drivers of global fine-root trait variation. J. Ecol. 105, 1182–1196 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.De Deyn, G. B. & Van der Putten, W. H. Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 625–633 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Pausas, J. G. & Bond, W. J. Humboldt and the reinvention of nature. J. Ecol. 107, 1031–1037 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Poorter, H. et al. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol. 193, 30–50 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Moora, M. Mycorrhizal traits and plant communities: perspectives for integration. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 1126–1132 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Freschet, G. T. et al. Root traits as drivers of plant and ecosystem functioning: current understanding, pitfalls and future research needs. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17072 (2021).34.McCormack, M. L. & Iversen, C. M. Physical and functional constraints on viable belowground acquisition strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1215 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Wells, C. E. & Eissenstat, D. M. Beyond the roots of young seedlings: the influence of age and order on fine root physiology. J. Plant Growth Regul. 21, 324–334 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Zanne, A. E. et al. Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature 506, 89–92 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.USDA. USDA PLANTS Database (accessed 3rd July 2020); https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov38.Engemann, K. et al. A plant growth form dataset for the New World. Ecology 97, 3243 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.BGCI. GlobalTreeSearch online database (accessed 3rd July 2020); https://www.bgci.org/globaltree_search.php40.The Plant List. The Plant List (accessed 17th February 2020); http://www.theplantlist.org41.Cayuela, L., Macarro, I., Stein, A. & Oksanen, J. Taxonstand: Taxonomic Standardization of Plant Species Names. R package version 2.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Taxonstand (2019).42.Stekhoven, D. J. & Buhlmann, P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28, 112–118 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Oliveira, B. F., Sheffers, B. R. & Costa, G. C. Decoupled erosion of amphibians’ phylogenetic and functional diversity due to extinction. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 309–319 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Penone, C. et al. Imputation of missing data in life-history trait datasets: which approach performs the best? Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 961–970 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Jin, Y. & Qian, H. V.PhyloMaker: an R package that can generate very large phylogenies for vascular plants. Ecography 42, 1353–1359 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Smith, S. A. & Brown, J. W. Constructing a broadly inclusive seed plant phylogeny. Am. J. Bot. 105, 302–314 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Whittakker, R. H. Communities and Ecosystems (Macmillan, 1975).48.Stefan, V. & Levin, S. plotbiomes: Plot Whittaker biomes with ggplot2. R package version 0.0.0.9001 https://github.com/valentinitnelav/plotbiomes (2021).49.Ricklefs, R. E. The Economy of Nature (W. H. Freeman and Company, 2008).50.GBIF. GBIF Occurrence Download (accessed 15 December 2019); https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.thlxph51.South, A. rworldmap: a new R package for mapping global data. R J. 3, 35–43 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Dinno, A. paran: Horn’s Test of Principal Components/Factors. R package version 1.5.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=paran (2018).53.Dray, S. & Dufour, A.-B. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v022.i04 (2007).54.Duong, T. ks: kernel density estimation and kernel discriminant analysis for multivariate data in R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i07 (2015).55.Duong, T. ks: Kernel smoothing. R package version 1.11.5 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ks (2019).56.Carmona, C. P., Bello, F., Mason, N. W. H. & Lepš, J. Trait probability density (TPD): measuring functional diversity across scales based on TPD with R. Ecology 100, e02876 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Carmona, C. P. TPD: methods for measuring functional diversity based on Trait Probability Density. R package version 1.1.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TPD (2019).58.Duong, T. & Hazelton, M. L. Plug-in bandwidth matrices for bivariate kernel density estimation. J. Nonparametr. Stat. 15, 17–30 (2003).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Mason, N. W. H. & Lepš, J. Traits without borders: integrating functional diversity across scales. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 382–394 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Mason, N. W. H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W. G. & Wilson, J. B. Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111, 112–118 (2005).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
62.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-5 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2019).63.Carmona, C. P. et al. Taxonomical and functional diversity turnover in Mediterranean grasslands: interactions between grazing, habitat type and rainfall. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1084–1093 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Micó, E. et al. Contrasting functional structure of saproxylic beetle assemblages associated to different microhabitats. Sci. Rep. 10, 1520 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Blonder, B. et al. New approaches for delineating n-dimensional hypervolumes. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 305–319 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Mason, N. W. H. & Lepš, J. The density awakens: a reply to Blonder. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 667–669 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Mouillot, D. et al. Niche overlap estimates based on quantitative functional traits: a new family of non-parametric indices. Oecologia 145, 345–353 (2005).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.de Bello, F., Carmona, C. P., Mason, N. W. H., Sebastià, M.-T. & Lepš, J. Which trait dissimilarity for functional diversity: trait means or trait overlap? J. Veg. Sci. 24, 807–819 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Traba, J., Iranzo, E. C., Carmona, C. P. & Malo, J. E. Realised niche changes in a native herbivore assemblage associated with the presence of livestock. Oikos 126, 1400–1409 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Cornwell, W. K., Schwilk, D. W. & Ackerly, D. D. A trait-based test for habitat filtering: Convex Hull Volume. Ecology 87, 1465–1471 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Blonder, B., Lamanna, C., Violle, C. & Enquist, B. J. The n-dimensional hypervolume. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 595–609 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Blonder, B. Hypervolume concepts in niche- and trait-based ecology. Ecography 41, 1441–1455 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Ricotta, C. et al. Measuring the functional redundancy of biological communities: a quantitative guide. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1386–1395 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Mouillot, D. et al. Functional over-redundancy and high functional vulnerability in global fish faunas on tropical reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13757–13762 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Sasaki, T., Uchida, K. & Pärtel, M. Towards a common toolbox for rarity: a response to Violle et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 889–891 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Violle, C. et al. Functional rarity: the ecology of outliers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 356–367 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73, 1045–1055 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Gower, J. C. General coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27, 857–871 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Carmona, C. P. et al. Agriculture intensification reduces plant taxonomic and functional diversity across European arable systems. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1448–1460 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Gherardi, L. A. & Sala, O. E. Global patterns and climatic controls of belowground net carbon fixation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20038–20043 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

This is an observational study with no intervention on flock and hatchery practices. None of the birds or eggs were exposed to experimental procedures. The study was based mainly on existing data provided by the hatchery company (DanHatch Denmark A/S) from five broiler breeder flocks in Denmark during the period from November 2018 to January 2019 when the breeders were 46 to 62 weeks of age, see details in Table 1. In addition, feed samples from the flock locations and eggs from grocery stores were acquired.Table 1 Flocks and production periods.Full size tableThe average age of breeders was 48–59 weeks (SD from 0.5 to 2.2) ranging from 46–50 weeks to 57–62 weeks (Table 1; Supplementary Fig. S1 online) with observation period ranging from 1.6 to 7.6 weeks in the five flocks. Average laying percent over observation days was 65% (SD = 5.4%) and average hatchability over deliveries was 79% (SD = 5.8%).Feed samplesTwenty-six feed samples were collected for analysis of glyphosate content, 3 to 10 feed samples per flock. The glyphosate concentration related to a given sampling date was assumed representative for the flock from this day and until next sampling. Average duration of the preceding samples were used as duration for the last sampling date within each flock. Glyphosate (N‐(phosphonomethyl) glycine) and the glyphosate degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in feed samples were analysed by the method described by Nørskov et al.4.Production dataData on egg production and hatchability from periods following each feed sampling was obtained from the hatchery company. Daily information was available on laying percent (100% * number of eggs/number of breeders), breeder age (days) and egg weight. For the hatchability, this was calculated as the proportion of eggs placed in incubators from which a viable chicken hatched (but presented as a percentage, i.e. multiplied by 100%). Daily egg weight had been calculated as the average from approx. 30 randomly sampled eggs.Glyphosate concentration of the feed consumed by the breeders during the 10 days prior to laying was the explanatory variable of main interest. The weighted average of glyphosate concentrations across the 10 days of development from follicle to ovulation of egg was used with number of days each glyphosate sample is representative during these 10 days as weights. For hatchability, glyphosate concentrations were aggregated at the level of delivery by weighted averaging using number of hatch eggs as weights.Eggs from grocery storesNo eggs were obtained from the five flocks, however we acquired eight cartons of conventional as well as eight cartons of organic eggs from eight different grocery stores. Three eggs from each carton were selected and egg yolk were analysed for glyphosate by the microLC-MS/MS method as described by Nørskov et al.4 adjusted to the egg yolk matrix.Statistical analysisLaying percent and hatchability were analysed by linear mixed effects models, including a random effect of flock and a first order autoregressive correlation structure to account for the repeated measurements from each flock. Following two covariates were considered for both outcomes: average egg weight (g) and breeder age (decimal weeks). However, since egg weight and breeder age are highly correlated (Pearson’s correlation coefficient ranging from 0.73 to 0.95 in the five flocks; Supplementary Fig. S1 online), only breeder age was included in the models. An important reason for this choice being that average egg weight was missing for 24% and 43% of the days from flock 4 and 5, respectively. In the age range used for this study, laying percent decrease with breeder age (Supplementary Fig. S1 online) as substantiated by a correlation coefficient between − 0.38 and − 0.87. Hatchability also decrease with breeder age (Supplementary Fig. S1 online).In addition, storage time on farm until delivery (1 to 5 days) and storage time at hatchery until incubation starts (1 to 11 days) were included as covariates for hatchability. The incubation start date was determined as date of hatching minus 21 days. For hatchability, covariates obtained from flock production data were aggregated at the level of delivery by weighted averaging; using daily number of eggs as weights for the calculation of average egg weight, number of hatch eggs as weights for average storage time on farm, and current number of breeders as weights for average breeder age. Weighted average storage time on farm until delivery varied from 1.0 to 4.0 and was on average 2.1 days. For storage time at hatchery, deliveries had been split on one to four incubator start dates. Therefore, weighted average of storage days was calculated using number of delivered eggs as weights. Weighted average storage time at hatchery before incubation starts varied from 1.2 to 8.0 days and was on average 4.8 days.Final models were fitted with restricted maximum likelihood estimation using the lme function from the nlme package v. 3.1-152 in R version 4.0.45 and with a significance level of 0.05. Fixed effects were tested by χ2 likelihood ratio tests after maximum likelihood estimation. Model checking was carried out by examination of qq-plots for normality and scatter plots of residuals versus predicted values to look for uncovered trends and variance heterogeneity. More