Ecology

1.Cramp, S. & Perrins, C. M. in The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 7 (eds. Cramp, S. & Perrins, C. M.) (Oxford University Press, 1993).2.Lack, D. Clutch and brood size in the Robin. Br. Birds 39(98–109), 130–135 (1946).
Google Scholar 
3.Lack, D. Further notes on clutch and brood size in the Robin. Br. Birds 41(98–104), 130–137 (1948).
Google Scholar 
4.Lack, D. The Life of Robin (Witherby, 1965).
Google Scholar 
5.Harper, D. G. C. Pairing strategies and mate choice in female Robins (Erithacus rubecula). Anim. Behav. 33, 862–875 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Lebedeva, N. V. & Lomadze, N. H. in The Robin Erithacus Rubecula in the North-Western Caucasus (eds. Matishov, G. G. & Lebedeva, N. V.) 252–277 (SSC RAS Publishing, 2007).7.Knysh, N. P. Materials on the biology of Robin in forest-steppe deciduous forests of Sumy region. Berkut 17, 41–60 (2008).
Google Scholar 
8.Zimin V. B. in The Robin in the North of the Area, Vol. 1. Distribution. Number. Reproduction (ed. Zimin, V. B.) 401–422 (Karel’skiy nauchnyy centr RAN, 2009).9.Baranovskiy, A. V. & Ivanov, E. S. Features of reproductive biology of robins (Erithacus rubecula) in anthropogenic habitats (for example, the city of Ryazan). Principy èkologii 6, 17–25 (2017).
Google Scholar 
10.Wesołowski, T. Primeval conditions—What can we learn from them?. Ibis 149, 64–77 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Tobias, J. & Seddon, N. Territoriality as a paternity guard in the European robin Erithacus rubecula. Anim. Behav. 60, 165–173 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Tobias, J. & Seddon, N. Female begging in European robins: Do neighbors eavesdrop for extrapair copulations?. Behav. Ecol. 13, 637–642 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lubjuhn, T., Strohbach, S., Brün, J., Gerken, T. & Epplen, J. T. Extra-pair paternity in great tits (Parus major)—A long term study. Behaviour 136, 1157–1172 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F. & Thuman, K. A. Extra pair paternity in birds: A review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol. Ecol. 11, 2195–2212 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Cockburn, A. Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273, 1375–1383 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Zagalska-Neubauer, M. & Dubiec, A. Techniki i markery molekularne w badaniach zmienności genetycznej ptaków. Not. Ornit. 48, 193–206 (2007).
Google Scholar 
17.Brouwer, L. & Griffith, S. C. Extra-pair paternity in birds. Mol. Ecol. 28, 4864–4882 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Petter, S. C., Miles, D. B. & White, M. M. Genetic evidence of mixed reproductive strategy in a monogamous bird. Condor 92, 702–708 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75, 21–64 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Akçay, E. & Roughgarden, J. Extra-pair paternity in birds: Review of the genetic benefits. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9, 855–868 (2007).
Google Scholar 
21.Dietzen, C., Witt, H.-H. & Wink, M. The phylogeographic differentiation of the European robin Erithacus rubecula on the Canary Islands revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequence data and morphometrics: Evidence for a new robin on Gran Canaria?. Avian Sci. 3, 115–131 (2003).
Google Scholar 
22.Rodrigues, P. et al. Phylogeography and genetic diversity of the Robin (Erithacus rubecula) in the Azores Islands: Evidence of a recent colonisation. J. Ornithol. 154, 889–900 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Fulgione, D., Rippa, D., Manganiello, E., Caliendo, M. F. & Rastogi, R. K. Seasonal genetic structure analysis of a resident population of European Robin. Open Zool. J. 1, 11–17 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Morin, P. A., Messier, J. & Woodruff, D. S. DNA extraction, amplification, and direct sequencing from hornbill feathers. J. Sci. Soc. Thail. 20, 31–41 (1994).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Wright, T. F. et al. Microsatellite variation among divergent populations of stalk-eyed flies, genus Cyrtodiopsis. Genet. Res. 84, 27–40 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Yue, G.-H., Kovacs, B. & Orban, L. A new problem with cross-species amplification of microsatellites: Generation of non-homologous products. Dongwuxue Yanjiu 2, 131–140 (2010).
Google Scholar 
27.Chapuis, M.-P. & Estoup, A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 621–631 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Dąbrowski, M. J., Bornelöv, S., Kruczyk, M., Baltzer, N. & Komorowski, J. ‘True’ null allele detection in microsatellite loci: A comparison of methods, assessment of difficulties and survey of possible improvements. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 477–488 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Primmer, C. R., Møller, A. P. & Ellegren, H. A wide-range survey of cross-species microsatellite amplification in birds. Mol. Ecol. 5, 365–378 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Jaroszewicz, B. et al. Białowieża forest—A relic of the high naturalness of European forests. Forests 10, 849 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Campos, A. R. et al. How do Robins Erithacus rubecula resident in Iberia respond to seasonal flooding by conspecific migrants?. Bird Study 58, 435–442 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Owen, J. C. Collecting, processing, and storing avian blood: A review. J. Field Ornithol. 82, 339–354 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Horváth, M. B., Martínez-Cruz, B., Negro, J. J., Kalmár, L. & Godoy, J. A. An overlooked DNA source for non-invasive genetic analysis in birds. J. Avian Biol. 36, 84–88 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Faircloth, B. C. MSATCOMMANDER: Detection of microsatellite repeat arrays and automated, locus-specific primer design. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 92–94 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Schuelke, M. An economic method for the fluorescent labeling of PCR fragments. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 233–234 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Austin, J. D. et al. Permanent genetic resources added to Molecular Ecology Resources Database 1 February 2011–31 March 2011. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 757–758 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
38.Raymond, M. & Rousset, F. GENEPOP (version 1.2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Heredity 86, 248–249 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rousset, F. GENEPOP’007: A complete reimplementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Goudet, J. FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices, version 2.9.3. http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.htlm (2001).41.Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L. & Marshall, T. C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16, 1099–1106 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Grohme, M. A., Soler, R. F., Wink, M. & Frohme, M. Microsatellite marker discovery using single molecule real-time circular consensus sequencing on the Pacific Biosciences RS. Biotechniques 55, 253–256 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Liljegren, M. M., de Muinck, E. J. & Trosvik, P. Microsatellite length scoring by single molecule real time sequencing-effects of sequence structure and PCR regime. PLoS ONE 11, e0159232 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Dutta, N. et al. Microsatellite marker set for genetic diversity assessment of primitive Chitala chitala (Hamilton, 1822) derived through SMRT sequencing technology. Mol. Biol. Rep. 46, 41–49 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Selkoe, K. A. & Toonen, R. J. Microsatellites for ecologists: A practical guide to using and evaluating microsatellite markers. Ecol. Lett. 9, 615–629 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Corner, S., Yuzbasiyan-Gurkan, V., Agnew, D. & Venta, P. J. Development of a 12-plex of new microsatellite markers using a novel universal primer method to evaluate the genetic diversity of jaguars (Panthera onca) from North American zoological institutions. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 11, 487–497 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Graham, B. A., Carpenter, A. M., Friesen, V. L. & Burg, T. M. A comparison of neutral genetic differentiation and genetic diversity among migratory and resident populations of Golden-crowned-Kinglets (Regulus satrapa). J. Ornithol. 161, 509–519 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bensch, S., Grahn, M., Müller, N., Gay, L. & Akesson, S. A. Genetic, morphological, and feather isotope variation of migratory willow warblers show gradual divergence in a ring. Mol. Ecol. 18, 3087–3096 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Kralj, J., Procházka, P., Fainová, D., Patzenhauerová, H. & Tutiš, V. Intraspecific variation in the wing shape and genetic differentiation of reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus in Croatia. Acta Ornithol. 45, 51–58 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Mettler, R. et al. Contrasting patterns of genetic differentiation among blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) with divergent migratory orientations in Europe. PLoS ONE 8, e81365 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Gyllensten, U., Jakonsson, S. & Temrin, H. No evidence for illegitimate young in monogamous and polygynous warblers. Nature 343, 168–170 (1990).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Gil, D., Slater, P. J. B. & Graves, J. A. Extrapair paternity and song characteristics in the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus. J. Avian Biol. 38, 291–297 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Moskalenko, V. N., Belokon, M. M., Belokon, Y. S. & Goretskaia, M. I. Extrapair young in nests of the Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) in the Middle Russia (poster). In 26th International Ornithological Congress (2014).54.Grendelmeier, A., Arlettaz, R., Olano-Marin, J. & Pasinelli, G. Experimentally provided conspecific cues boost bird territory density but not breeding performance. Behav. Ecol. 28, 174–185 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. Extrapair paternity in birds: Explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 52–58 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Wagner, R. H. Hidden leks: sexual selection and the clustering of avian territories. Ornithol. Monogr. 49, 123–145 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Fletcher, R. J. & Miller, C. W. On the evolution of hidden leks and the implications for reproductive and habitat selection behaviours. Anim. Behav. 71, 1247–1251 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Broughton, R. K., Bubnicki, J. W. & Maziarz, M. Multi-scale settlement patterns of a migratory songbird in a European primeval forest. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 74, 1–12 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Brommer, J. E., Pietiäinen, H. & Kolunen, H. Reproduction and survival in a variable environment: Ural owls (Strix uralensis) and the three-year vole cycle. Auk 119, 544–550. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[0544:rasiav]2.0.co;2 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Begon, M., Townsend, C. R. & Harper, J. L. Ecology, Individuals, Populations and Communities 4th edn. (Blackwell, 2006).
Google Scholar 
3.Chang, A. M. & Wiebe, K. L. Body condition in snowy owls wintering on the prairies is greater in females and older individuals and may contribute to sex-biased mortality. Auk 133, 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1642/auk-16-60.1 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.McLean, N., van der Jeugd, H. P. & van de Pol, M. High intra-specific variation in avian body condition responses to climate limits generalisation across species. PLoS ONE 13, e0192401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192401 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.McLean, N. M., van der Jeugd, H. P., van Turnhout, C. A. M., Lefcheck, J. S. & van de Pol, M. Reduced avian body condition due to global warming has little reproductive or population consequences. Oikos 129, 714–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06802 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Aubry, L. M. et al. Climate change, phenology, and habitat degradation: Drivers of gosling body condition and juvenile survival in lesser snow geese. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12013 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Gardner, J. L., Amano, T., Sutherland, W. J., Clayton, M. & Peters, A. Individual and demographic consequences of reduced body condition following repeated exposure to high temperatures. Ecology 97, 786–795. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0642.1 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Newton, I. Population Limitation in Birds (Academic Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
9.Dunn, P. O. & Møller, A. P. Effects of Climate Change on Birds 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2019).Book 

Google Scholar 
10.Crossin, G. T. et al. A carryover effect of migration underlies individual variation in reproductive readiness and extreme egg size dimorphism in Macaroni penguins. Am. Nat. 176, 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1086/655223 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Clausen, K. K., Madsen, J. & Tombre, I. M. Carry-over or compensation? The impact of winter harshness and post-winter body condition on spring-fattening in a migratory goose species. PLoS ONE 10(7), e0132312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132312 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Selonen, V., Wistbacka, R. & Korpimäki, E. Food abundance and weather modify reproduction of two arboreal squirrel species. J. Mammal. 97, 1376–1384. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw096 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Harrison, X. A., Blount, J. D., Inger, R., Norris, D. R. & Bearhop, S. Carry-over effects as drivers of fitness differences in animals. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01740.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.O’Connor, C. M., Norris, D. R., Crossin, G. T. & Cooke, S. J. Biological carryover effects: Linking common concepts and mechanisms in ecology and evolution. Ecosphere 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/es13-00388.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Montreuil-Spencer, C., Schoenemann, K., Lendvai, A. Z. & Bonier, F. Winter corticosterone and body condition predict breeding investment in a nonmigratory bird. Behav. Ecol. 30, 1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz129 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Korpimäki, E. Body mass of breeding Tengmalm’s owls Aegolius funereus: Seasonal, between-year, site and age-related variation. Ornis Scand. 21, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/3676776 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Dijkstra, C., Daan, S., Meijer, T., Cave, A. J. & Foppen, R. P. B. Daily and seasonal-variations in body-mass of the kestrel in relation to food availability and reproduction. Ardea 76, 127–140 (1988).
Google Scholar 
18.Pietiäinen, H. & Kolunen, H. Female body condition and breeding of the Ural owl Strix uralensis. Funct. Ecol. 7, 726–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390195 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Wijnandts, H. Ecological energetics of the long-eared owl (Asio otus). Ardea 72, 1–92 (1984).
Google Scholar 
20.Korpimäki, E. & Hakkarainen, H. Fluctuating food supply affects the cluch size of Tengmalm’s owl independent of laying date. Oecologia 85, 543–552 (1991).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Korpimäki, E. & Wiehn, J. Clutch size of kestrels: Seasonal decline and experimental evidence for food limitation under fluctuating food conditions. Oikos 83, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546837 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Pietiäinen, H. Seasonal and individual variation in the production of offspring in the Ural owl Strix uralensis. J. Anim. Ecol. 58, 905–920. https://doi.org/10.2307/5132 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Wellicome, T. I. Effects of food on reproduction in burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) during three stages of the breeding season (Ph.D. dissertation). (University of Alberta, 2000).24.Ilmonen, P. et al. Parental effort and blood parasitism in Tengmalm’s owl: Effects of natural and experimental variation in food abundance. Oikos 86, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546571 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Santangeli, A., Hakkarainen, H., Laaksonen, T. & Korpimäki, E. Home range size is determined by habitat composition but feeding rate by food availability in male Tengmalm’s owls. Anim. Behav. 83, 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.02.002 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Griebel, R. L. & Savidge, J. A. Factors related to body condition of nestling burrowing owls in Buffalo Gap National Grassland, South Dakota. Wilson Bull. 115, 477–480. https://doi.org/10.1676/02-094 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Valkama, J., Korpimäki, E., Holm, A. & Hakkarainen, H. Hatching asynchrony and brood reduction in Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus: The role of temporal and spatial variation in food abundance. Oecologia 133, 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1033-2 (2002).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.König, C. & Weick, F. Owls of the World 2nd edn. (Yale University Press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
29.Mikkola, H. Owls of Europe (Poyser, 1983).
Google Scholar 
30.Korpimäki, E. On the Ecology and Biology of Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus) in Southern Ostrobothnia and Soumenselkä, Western Finland Vol. 13, 1–84 (University of Oulu, 1981).
Google Scholar 
31.Korpimäki, E. Diet of breeding Tengmalm’s owls Aegolius funereus: Long-term changes and year-to-year variation under cyclic food conditions. Ornis Fenn. 65, 21–30 (1988).
Google Scholar 
32.Korpimäki, E. & Hakkarainen, H. The Boreal Owl: Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation of a Forest-Dwelling Predator (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
33.Kouba, M., Bartoš, L., Šindelář, J. & Šťastný, K. Alloparental care and adoption in Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus). J. Ornithol. 158, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1381-z (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Eldegard, K. & Sonerud, G. A. Experimental increase in food supply influences the outcome of within-family conflicts in Tengmalm’s owl. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 815–826 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Eldegard, K. & Sonerud, G. A. Sex roles during post-fledging care in birds: Female Tengmalm’s owls contribute little to food provisioning. J. Ornithol. 153, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0753-7 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Kouba, M., Bartoš, L. & Šťastný, K. Differential movement patterns of juvenile Tengmalm’s owls (Aegolius funereus) during the post-fledging dependence period in two years with contrasting prey abundance. PLoS ONE 8(7), e67034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067034 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Korpimäki, E. Fluctuating food abundance determines the lifetime reproductive success of male Tengmalm’s owls. J. Anim. Ecol. 61, 103–111 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Kouba, M., Bartoš, L., Korpimäki, E. & Zárybnická, M. Factors affecting the duration of nestling period and fledging order in Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus): Effect of wing length and hatching sequence. PLoS ONE 10(3), e0121641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121641 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Björklund, H., Saurola, P. & Valkama, J. Petolintuvuosi 2019 oli kohtalainen (Summary: Breeding and population trends of common raptors and owls in Finland in 2019). Yearb. Linnut Mag. 2019, 44–59 (2020).
Google Scholar 
40.Kouba, M., Bartoš, L., Bartošová, J., Hongisto, K. & Korpimäki, E. Interactive influences of fluctuations of main food resources and climate change on long-term population decline of Tengmalm’s owls in the boreal forest. Sci. Rep. 10, 20429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-41020-77531-y (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Ferrero, J. J., Grande, J. M. & Negro, J. J. Copulation behavior of a potentially double-brooded bird of prey, the black-winged kite (Elanus caeruleus). J. Raptor Res. 37, 1–7 (2003).
Google Scholar 
42.Sergio, F. From individual behaviour to population pattern: Weather-dependent foraging and breeding performance in black kites. Anim. Behav. 66, 1109–1117. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2303 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Korpimäki, E. Effects of age on breeding performance of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus in western Finland. Ornis Scand. 19, 21–26 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Laaksonen, T., Korpimäki, E. & Hakkarainen, H. Interactive effects of parental age and environmental variation on the breeding performance of Tengmalm’s owls. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00570.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Korpimäki, E. Highlights from a long-term study of Tengmalm’s owls: Cyclic fluctuations in vole abundance govern mating systems, population dynamics and demography. Brit. Birds 113, 316–333 (2020).
Google Scholar 
46.Peig, J. & Green, A. J. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: The scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118, 1883–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Korpimäki, E., Norrdahl, K., Huitu, O. & Klemola, T. Predator-induced synchrony in population oscillations of coexisting small mammal species. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 272, 193–202 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Huitu, O., Norrdahl, K. & Korpimäki, E. Landscape effects on temporal and spatial properties of vole population fluctuations. Oecologia 135, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1171-6 (2003).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Schreiber-Gregory, D. N. & Jackson, H. M. Multicollinearity: What is it, why should we care, and how can it be controlled. In Proc. SAS R Global Forum 2017, Conference Paper 1404 (2017).50.Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N. & Smith, G. M. Analyzing Ecological Data (Springer, 2007).Book 

Google Scholar 
51.Tao, J., Littel, R., Patetta, M., Truxillo, C. & Wolfinger, R. Mixed Model Analyses Using the SAS System Course Notes (SAS Institute Inc., 2002).
Google Scholar 
52.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretical Approach (Springer, 1998).Book 

Google Scholar 
53.Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716–723 (1974).ADS 
MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Vaida, F. & Blanchard, S. Conditional Akaike information for mixed-effects models. Biometrika 92, 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/92.2.351 (2005).MathSciNet 
Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
55.Ward, E. J. A review and comparison of four commonly used Bayesian and maximum likelihood model selection tools. Ecol. Model. 211, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.10.030 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6, 461–464 (1978).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Christensen, W. Agreeing to disagree: Using SAS to make reasoned decisions when information criteria select different models. In SAS Conference Proceedings: Western Users of SAS Software 2018. September 5–7, 2018, Sacramento, California, Paper 099–2018 (2018).58.Posada, D. & Buckley, T. R. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: Advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 53, 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490522304 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
60.Buckland, S. T., Burnham, K. P. & Augustin, N. H. Model selection: An integral part of inference. Biometrics 53, 603–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533961 (1997).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
61.Wagenmakers, E. J. & Farrell, S. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 192–196. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206482 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Lack, D. The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Oxford University Press, 1954).
Google Scholar 
63.Korpela, K. et al. Nonlinear effects of climate on boreal rodent dynamics: Mild winters do not negate high-amplitude cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12099 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Wiehn, J. & Korpimäki, E. Food limitation on brood size: Experimental evidence in the Eurasian kestrel. Ecology 78, 2043–2050. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265943 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Korpimäki, E. & Lagerström, M. Survival and natal dispersal of fledglings of Tengmalm’s owl in relation to fluctuating food conditions and hatching date. J. Anim. Ecol. 57, 433–441 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Norris, K. J. Female choice and the quality of parental care in the great tit Parus major. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27, 275–281 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Naef-Daenzer, B., Widmer, F. & Nuber, M. Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 730–738. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00533.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Grüebler, M. U. & Naef-Daenzer, B. Postfledging parental effort in barn swallows: Evidence for a trade-off in the allocation of time between broods. Anim. Behav. 75, 1877–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.002 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Jones, T. M., Ward, M. P., Benson, T. J. & Brawn, J. D. Variation in nestling body condition and wing development predict cause-specific mortality in fledgling dickcissels. J. Avian Biol. 48, 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01143 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Magrath, R. D. Nestling weight and juvenile survival in the blackbird, Turdus merula. J. Anim. Ecol. 60, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/5464 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Naef-Daenzer, B. & Grüebler, M. U. Post-fledging survival of altricial birds: Ecological determinants and adaptation. J. Field Ornithol. 87, 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12157 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Winkler, D. W., Luo, M. K. & Rakhimberdiev, E. Temperature effects on food supply and chick mortality in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Oecologia 173, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2605-z (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Hylton, R. A., Frederick, P. C., de la Fuente, T. E. & Spalding, M. G. Effects of nestling health on postfledging survival of wood storks. Condor 108, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1650/0010-5422(2006)108[0097:Eonhop]2.0.Co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Imlay, T. L., Mann, H. A. R. & Leonard, M. L. No effect of insect abundance on nestling survival or mass for three aerial insectivores. Avian Conserv. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.5751/ace-01092-120219 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Nooker, J. K., Dunn, P. O. & Whittingham, L. A. Effects of food abundance, weather, and female condition on reproduction in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Auk 122, 1225–1238. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2005)122[1225:eofawa]2.0.co;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Perrig, M., Gruebler, M. U., Keil, H. & Naef-Daenzer, B. Experimental food supplementation affects the physical development, behaviour and survival of little owl Athene noctua nestlings. Ibis 156, 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12171 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Perrig, M., Gruebler, M. U., Keil, H. & Naef-Daenzer, B. Post-fledging survival of little owls Athene noctua in relation to nestling food supply. Ibis 159, 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12477 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.McDonald, P. G., Olsen, P. D. & Cockburn, A. Sex allocation and nestling survival in a dimorphic raptor: Does size matter? Behav. Ecol. 16, 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari071 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Morosinotto, C. et al. Fledging mass is color morph specific and affects local recruitment in a wild bird. Am. Nat. 196, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1086/710708 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Overskaug, K., Bolstad, J. P., Sunde, P. & Øien, I. J. Fledgling behavior and survival in northern tawny owls. Condor 101, 169–174 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Todd, L. D., Poulin, R. G., Wellicome, T. I. & Brigham, R. M. Post-fledging survival of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. J. Wildl. Manage. 67, 512–519. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802709 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Cox, W. A., Thompson, F. R., Cox, A. S. & Faaborg, J. Post-fledging survival in passerine birds and the value of post-fledging studies to conservation. J. Wildl. Manage. 78, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.670 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Korpimäki, E. Timing of breeding of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus in relation to vole dynamics in western Finland. Ibis 129, 58–68 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Pigeault, R., Cozzarolo, C. S., Glaizot, O. & Christe, P. Effect of age, haemosporidian infection and body condition on pair composition and reproductive success in great tits Parus major. Ibis 162, 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12774 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Hakkarainen, H. & Korpimäki, E. The effect of female body-size on clutch volume of Tengmalm’s owls Aegolius funereus in varying food conditions. Ornis Fenn. 70, 189–195 (1993).
Google Scholar 
86.Hanauska-Brown, L. A., Dufty, A. M. & Roloff, G. J. Blood chemistry, cytology, and body condition in adult northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis). J. Raptor Res. 37, 299–306 (2003).
Google Scholar 
87.Chastel, O., Weimerskirch, H. & Jouventin, P. Body condition and seabird reproductive performance: A study of three petrel species. Ecology 76, 2240–2246. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941698 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Grilli, M. G., Pari, M. & Ibanez, A. Poor body conditions during the breeding period in a seabird population with low breeding success. Mar. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3401-4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Toland, B. Hunting success of some Missouri raptors. Wilson Bull. 98, 116–125 (1986).
Google Scholar 
90.Masoero, G., Morosinotto, C., Laaksonen, T. & Korpimäki, E. Food hoarding of an avian predator: Sex- and age-related differences under fluctuating food conditions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-00018-02571-x (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Masoero, G., Laaksonen, T., Morosinotto, C. & Korpimäki, E. Age and sex differences in numerical responses, dietary shifts, and total responses of a generalist predator to population dynamics of main prey. Oecologia 192, 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04607-x (2020).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Norrdahl, K. & Korpimäki, E. Changes in population structure and reproduction during a 3-year population cycle of voles. Oikos 96, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970319.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Merritt, J. F., Lima, M. & Bozinovic, F. Seasonal regulation in fluctuating small mammal populations: Feedback structure and climate. Oikos 94, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.940312.x (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Solonen, T. Overwinter population change of small mammals in southern Finland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 43, 295–302 (2006).
Google Scholar 
95.Haapakoski, M. & Ylönen, H. Snow evens fragmentation effects and food determines overwintering success in ground-dwelling voles. Ecol. Res. 28, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-012-1020-y (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Berlioz, J. & Bergman, G. (eds) Proc., XII International Ornithological Congress, Helsinki 5–12 Vol. 158, 586–591 (Tilgmannin Kirjapaino, 1960).
Google Scholar 
97.Fraixedas, S., Linden, A. & Lehikoinen, A. Population trends of common breeding forest birds in southern Finland are consistent with trends in forest management and climate change. Ornis Fenn. 92, 187–203 (2015).
Google Scholar 
98.Virkkala, R. Long-term decline of southern boreal forest birds: Consequence of habitat alteration or climate change? Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1043-0 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Björklund, H., Valkama, J., Tomppo, E. & Laaksonen, T. Habitat effects on the breeding performance of three forest-dwelling hawks. PLoS ONE 10(9), e0137877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Koskimäki, J. et al. Are habitat loss, predation risk and climate related to the drastic decline in a Siberian flying squirrel population? A 15-year study. Popul. Ecol. 56, 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-013-0411-4 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Suzuki, N. & Parker, K. L. Proactive conservation of high-value habitat for woodland caribou and grizzly bears in the boreal zone of British Columbia, Canada. Biol. Conserv. 230, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.013 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Venier, L. A. et al. Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environ. Rev. 22, 457–490. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2013-0075 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Thomas, J. W. et al. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl (US Government Printing Office 791-171/20026, 1990).
Google Scholar 
104.Laaksonen, T. & Lehikoinen, A. Population trends in boreal birds: Continuing declines in agricultural, northern, and long-distance migrant species. Biol. Conserv. 168, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.007 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Dengler, J. et al. Biodiversity of palaearctic grasslands: A synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182(1), 1–14 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Wang, H. et al. Alpine grassland plants grow earlier and faster but biomass remains unchanged over 35 years of climate change. Ecol. Lett. 23, 701–710 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Torok, P. et al. Step(pe) up! Raising the profile of the Palaearctic natural grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 25(12), 2187–2195 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Kuss, F. R. & Graefe, A. R. Effects of recreation trampling on natural area vegetation. J. Leis. Res. 17, 165–183 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Buckley, R. C. & Pannell, J. Environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in national parks and conservation reserves. J. Tourism Stud. 1, 24–32 (1990).
Google Scholar 
6.Yorks, T. et al. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: Life form conclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensive data base. Environ. Manage. 21, 12–131 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Gouvenain, R. C. Indirect impacts of soil trampling on tree growth and plant succession in the north cascade mountains of Washington (1996).8.Xu, L., Yu, F. H. & Drunen, E. V. Trampling, defoliation and physiological integration affect growth, morphological and mechanical properties of a root-suckering clonal tree. Ann. Bot. 109, 1001–1008 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Bayfield, N. G. Use and deterioration of some Scottish hill paths. J. Appl. Ecol. 10, 639–648 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Liddle, M. J. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol. Cons. 7, 17–36 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Frissell, S. S. Judging recreational impacts on wilderness campsites. J. Forest. 76, 481–483 (1978).
Google Scholar 
12.Wagar, J. A. How to predict which vegetated areas will stand up best under ‘active’ recreation. Am. Recreat. J. 1, 20–21 (1961).
Google Scholar 
13.Cole, D. N. & Bayfield, N. G. Recreational trampling of vegetation: Standard experimental procedures. Biol. Cons. 63(3), 209–215 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Prescott, O. & Stewart, G. Assessing the impacts of human trampling on vegetation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence. PeerJ 2, e360 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Vandewalle, M. et al. Functional traits as indicators of biodiversity response to land use changes across ecosystems and organisms. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2921–2947 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity, species richness and composition. Ecol. Lett. 5, 402–411 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: Functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48(5), 1079–1087 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Mouillot, D. et al. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 167–177 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Carmona, C. P. et al. Traits without borders: Integrating functional diversity across scales. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31(5), 382–394 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Conradi, T. et al. Impacts of visitor trampling on the taxonomic and functional community structure of calcareous grassland. Appl. Veg. Sci. 18, 359–367 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Pickering, C. M. & Barros, A. Using functional traits to assess the resistance of subalpine grassland to trampling by mountain biking and hiking. J. Environ. Manage. 164, 129–136 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Baraloto, C., Herault, B. & Paine, C. E. T. Contrasting taxonomic and functional responses of a tropic tree community to selective logging. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 861–870 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Magnago, L. F. S. et al. Functional attributes change but functional richness is unchanged after fragmentation of Brazilian Atlantic forests. J. Ecol. 102, 475–485 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Marion, J. L. & Cole, D. N. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecol. Appl. 6, 520–530 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Roovers, P. et al. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery in some forest and heathland communities. Appl. Veg. Sci. 7, 111–118 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Conradi, T. et al. Impacts of visitor trampling on the taxonomic and functional community structure of calcareous grassland. Appl. Veg. Sci. 18(3), 359–367 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Zamora, R. Functional equivalence in plant-animal interactions: Ecological and evolutionary consequences. Oikos 88(2), 442–447 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hubbell, S. P. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct. Ecol. 19, 166–172 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Mouchet, M. A. et al. Functional diversity measures: An overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Funct. Ecol. 24, 867–876 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Diaz, S. et al. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 20684–20689 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Suding, K. N. & Goldstein, L. J. Testing the Holy Grail framework: Using functional traits to predict ecosystem change. New Phytol. 180, 559–562 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.De Bello, F. et al. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2873–2893 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Devictor, V. et al. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: The need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1030–1040 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Tian, K., Guo, H. J. & Yang, Y. M. Ecological structures and functions of plateau wetlands in China (Chinese Science Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
36.Garnier, E. et al. standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf size and leaf dry matter content. Funct. Ecol. 15, 688–695 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Cornelissen, J. H. C. et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 51, 335–380 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Mason, N. W. H. et al. An index of functional diversity. J. Veg. Sci. 14, 571–578 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Villeger, 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 
40.Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: Revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Cianciaruso, M. V. et al. Including intraspecific variability in functional diversity. Ecology 90, 81–89 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Lepš, J. et al. Community trait response to environment: Disentangling species turnover vs intraspecific trait variability effects. Ecography 34, 856–863 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Garnier, E. et al. Assessing the effects of land-use change on plant traits, communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands: A standardized methodology and lessons from an application to 11 European sites. Ann. Bot. 99, 967–985 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Pakeman, R. J. & Quested, H. M. Sampling plant functional traits: What proportion of the species need to be measured?. Appl. Veg. Sci. 10, 91–96 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–7 (2020).47.Laliberté, E., Legendre, P., Shipley, B. FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0–12 (2014). More

1.Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2) (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2020); https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme3.Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming Higher (World Wildlife Fund, 2018).4.Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Halpern, B. S. & Fujita, R. Assumptions, challenges, and future directions in cumulative impact analysis. Ecosphere 4, art131 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 453–460 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Orr, J. A. et al. Towards a unified study of multiple stressors: divisions and common goals across research disciplines. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20200421 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Piggott, J. J., Townsend, C. R. & Matthaei, C. D. Reconceptualizing synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1538–1547 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Burgess, B. J., Purves, D., Mace, G. & Murrell, D. J. Ecological theory predicts ecosystem stressor interactions in freshwater ecosystems, but highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the additive null model. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.10.243972 (2020).11.Didham, R. K., Tylianakis, J. M., Gemmell, N. J., Rand, T. A. & Ewers, R. M. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 489–496 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Donohue, I. et al. Navigating the complexity of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1172–1185 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Galic, N., Sullivan, L. L., Grimm, V. & Forbes, V. E. When things don’t add up: quantifying impacts of multiple stressors from individual metabolism to ecosystem processing. Ecol. Lett. 21, 568–577 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Kéfi, S. et al. Advancing our understanding of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1349–1356 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Tylianakis, J. M., Didham, R. K., Bascompte, J. & Wardle, D. A. Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1351–1363 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Ashauer, R. & Jager, T. Physiological modes of action across species and toxicants: the key to predictive ecotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 20, 48–57 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Caswell, H. in Ecotoxicology. A Hierarchical Treatment (eds Newman, M. C. & Jagoe, C. H) 255–292 (CRC Press, 1996).18.Judd, A., Backhaus, T. & Goodsir, F. An effective set of principles for practical implementation of marine cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 254–262 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Schafer, R. B. & Piggott, J. J. Advancing understanding and prediction in multiple stressor research through a mechanistic basis for null models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1817–1826 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Boyd, P. W. & Brown, C. J. Modes of interactions between environmental drivers and marine biota. Front. Mar. Sci. 2, 9 (2015).
Google Scholar 
21.Beyer, J. et al. Environmental risk assessment of combined effects in aquatic ecotoxicology: a discussion paper. Mar. Environ. Res. 96, 81–91 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Côté, I. M., Darling, E. S. & Brown, C. J. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20152592 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L. & Harley, C. D. Embracing interactions in ocean acidification research: confronting multiple stressor scenarios and context dependence. Biol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0802 (2017).24.De Laender, F. Community- and ecosystem-level effects of multiple environmental change drivers: beyond null model testing. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5021–5030 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Goussen, B., Price, O. R., Rendal, C. & Ashauer, R. Integrated presentation of ecological risk from multiple stressors. Sci. Rep. 6, 36004 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Liess, M., Foit, K., Knillmann, S., Schafer, R. B. & Liess, H. D. Predicting the synergy of multiple stress effects. Sci. Rep. 6, 32965 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Van den Brink, P. J. et al. Towards a general framework for the assessment of interactive effects of multiple stressors on aquatic ecosystems: results from the Making Aquatic Ecosystems Great Again (MAEGA) workshop. Sci. Total Environ. 684, 722–726 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Kooijman, S. A. L. M. Dynamic Energy Budgets in Biological Systems: Applications to Ecotoxicology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).29.Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Jeschke, J. M., Kopp, M. & Tollrian, R. Consumer-food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders. Biol. Rev. 79, 337–349 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Bolker, B., Holyoak, M., Krivan, V., Rowe, L. & Schmitz, O. Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84, 1101–1114 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V. & Ovadia, O. Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett. 7, 153–163 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Abrams, P. A., Menge, B. A., Mittelbach, G. G., Spiller, D. A. & Yodzis, P. in Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics (eds G. A. Polis & K. O. Winemiller) 371–395 (Chapman & Hall, 1996).34.Thompson, P. L., MacLennan, M. M. & Vinebrooke, R. D. Species interactions cause non‐additive effects of multiple environmental stressors on communities. Ecosphere 9, e02518 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Loreau, M. Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 49–60 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling-up biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 23, 757–776 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Adler, P. B. et al. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333, 1750–1753 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Ives, A. R. & Carpenter, S. R. Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317, 58–62 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Newman, E. A. Disturbance ecology in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 147 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Ohlmann, M. et al. Diversity indices for ecological networks: a unifying framework using Hill numbers. Ecol. Lett. 22, 737–747 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Ohlmann, M. et al. Mapping the imprint of biotic interactions on β‐diversity. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1660–1669 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Brun, P. et al. The productivity–biodiversity relationship varies across diversity dimensions. Nat. Commun. 10, 5691 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pellissier, L. et al. Comparing species interaction networks along environmental gradients. Biol. Rev. 93, 785–800 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Bracewell, S. et al. Qualifying the effects of single and multiple stressors on the food web structure of Dutch drainage ditches using a literature review and conceptual models. Sci. Total Environ. 684, 727–740 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Kohler, H. R. & Triebskorn, R. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341, 759–765 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Kooijman, S. A. L. M. Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in Biological Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).47.Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992).48.Jackson, M. C., Pawar, S. & Woodward, G. The temporal dynamics of multiple stressor effects: from individuals to ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.01.005 (2021).49.Billick, I. & Case, T. J. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecology 75, 1529–1543 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Grilli, J., Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J. & Allesina, S. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature 548, 210–213 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Gill, R. J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O. & Raine, N. E. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491, 105–108 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Crespi, E. J., Williams, T. D., Jessop, T. S. & Delehanty, B. Life history and the ecology of stress: how do glucocorticoid hormones influence life‐history variation in animals? Funct. Ecol. 27, 93–106 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Matthiopoulos, J., Moss, R. & Lambin, X. The kin-facilitation hypothesis for red grouse population cycles: territory sharing between relatives. Ecol. Modell. 127, 53–63 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Moss, R., Watson, A. & Parr, R. Experimental prevention of a population cycle in red grouse. Ecology 77, 1512–1530 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N. et al. Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function. Nature 542, 223–227 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Lever, J. J., van Nes, E. H., Scheffer, M. & Bascompte, J. The sudden collapse of pollinator communities. Ecol. Lett. 17, 350–359 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Schmitz, O. J. Press perturbations and the predictability ofecological interactions in a food web. Ecology 78, 55–69 (1997).
Google Scholar 
58.Ernest, S. K. M. et al. Thermodynamic and metabolic effects on the scaling of production and population energy use. Ecol. Lett. 6, 990–995 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Price, P. B. & Sowers, T. Temperature dependence of metabolic rates for microbial growth, maintenance, and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 4631–4636 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Apple, J. K., Del Giorgio, P. A. & Kemp, W. M. Temperature regulation of bacterial production, respiration, and growth efficiency in a temperate salt-marsh estuary. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 43, 243–254 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Pawar, S., Dell, A. I., Savage, V. M. & Knies, J. L. Real versus artificial variation in the thermal sensitivity of biological traits. Am. Nat. 187, E41–E52 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Dell, A. I., Pawar, S. & Savage, V. M. Systematic variation in the temperature dependence of physiological and ecological traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10591–10596 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Yee, E. & Murray, S. Effects of temperature on activity, food consumption rates, and gut passage times of seaweed-eating Tegula species (Trochidae) from California. Mar. Biol. 145, 895–903 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Savage, V. M., Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163, E429–E441 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Vasseur, D. A. et al. Increased temperature variation poses a greater risk to species than climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2612 (2014).66.Vasseur, D. A. & McCann, K. S. A mechanistic approach for modeling temperature-dependent consumer-resource dynamics. Am. Nat. 166, 184–198 (2005).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Gilbert, B. et al. A bioenergetic framework for the temperature dependence of trophic interactions. Ecol. Lett. 17, 902–914 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Binzer, A., Guill, C., Brose, U. & Rall, B. C. The dynamics of food chains under climate change and nutrient enrichment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2935–2944 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Binzer, A., Guill, C., Rall, B. C. & Brose, U. Interactive effects of warming, eutrophication and size structure: impacts on biodiversity and food-web structure. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 220–227 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Sentis, A., Binzer, A. & Boukal, D. S. Temperature-size responses alter food chain persistence across environmental gradients. Ecol. Lett. 20, 852–862 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Robinson, S. I., McLaughlin, Ó. B., Marteinsdóttir, B. & O’Gorman, E. J. Soil temperature effects on the structure and diversity of plant and invertebrate communities in a natural warming experiment. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 634–646 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.McKee, D. et al. Response of freshwater microcosm communities to nutrients, fish, and elevated temperature during winter and summer. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48, 707–722 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.McKee, D. et al. Macro-zooplankter responses to simulated climate warming in experimental freshwater microcosms. Freshw. Biol. 47, 1557–1570 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Allen, A., Gillooly, J. & Brown, J. Linking the global carbon cycle to individual metabolism. Funct. Ecol. 19, 202–213 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Anderson, K. J., Allen, A. P., Gillooly, J. F. & Brown, J. H. Temperature‐dependence of biomass accumulation rates during secondary succession. Ecol. Lett. 9, 673–682 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Clarke, A. & Fraser, K. Why does metabolism scale with temperature? Funct. Ecol. 18, 243–251 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Sokolova, I. M. & Lannig, G. Interactive effects of metal pollution and temperature on metabolism in aquatic ectotherms: implications of global climate change. Clim. Res. 37, 181–201 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Petchey, O. L., Brose, U. & Rall, B. C. Predicting the effects of temperature on food web connectance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2081–2091 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Relyea, R. A. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol. Appl. 15, 618–627 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Beketov, M. A., Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B. & Liess, M. Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11039–11043 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Clements, W. H. & Rohr, J. R. Community responses to contaminants: using basic ecological principles to predict ecotoxicological effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 1789–1800 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Case, T. J. An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).84.Jeschke, J. M., Kopp, M. & Tollrian, R. Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 95–112 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Jeschke, J. M. & Tollrian, R. Density-dependent effects of prey defences. Oecologia 123, 391–396 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Jorgensen, C., Ernande, B. & Fiksen, O. Size-selective fishing gear and life history evolution in the Northeast Arctic cod. Evol. Appl. 2, 356–370 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Kuparinen, A., Kuikka, S. & Merila, J. Estimating fisheries-induced selection: traditional gear selectivity research meets fisheries-induced evolution. Evol. Appl. 2, 234–243 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Benítez-López, A. et al. The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science 356, 180–183 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
89.Day, T., Abrams, P. A. & Chase, J. M. The role of size-specific predation in the evolution and diversification of prey life histories. Evolution 56, 877–887 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Heino, M., Pauli, B. D. & Dieckmann, U. Fisheries-induced evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 461–480 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Galloway, J. N. et al. The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53, 341–356 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Beman, J. M., Arrigo, K. R. & Matson, P. A. Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature 434, 211–214 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Birk, S. et al. Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1060–1068 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Rosenzweig, M. L. Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171, 385–387 (1971).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S. D., Arruda, J. & Niemela, P. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am. Nat. 118, 240–261 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Lotze, H. K. et al. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312, 1806–1809 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Doney, S. C. The growing human footprint on coastal and open-ocean biogeochemistry. Science 328, 1512–1516 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Duchet, C. et al. Pesticide‐mediated trophic cascade and an ecological trap for mosquitoes. Ecosphere 9, e02179 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Halstead, N. T. et al. Community ecology theory predicts the effects of agrochemical mixtures on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem properties. Ecol. Lett. 17, 932–941 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Ferger, S. W. et al. Synergistic effects of climate and land use on avian beta‐diversity. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1246–1255 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Maris, V. et al. Prediction in ecology: promises, obstacles and clarifications. Oikos 127, 171–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Palmer, M. A. et al. Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 4–11 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Folt, C. L., Chen, C. Y., Moore, M. V. & Burnaford, J. Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 864–877 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Grimm, V. & Berger, U. Structural realism, emergence, and predictions in next-generation ecological modelling: synthesis from a special issue. Ecol. Modell. 326, 177–187 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Geary, W. L. et al. A guide to ecosystem models and their environmental applications. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1459–1471 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
107.Rosenblatt, A. E., Smith-Ramesh, L. M. & Schmitz, O. J. Interactive effects of multiple climate change variables on food web dynamics: Modeling the effects of changing temperature, CO2, and water availability on a tri-trophic food web. Food Webs https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.10.002 (2017).108.Bartley, T. J. et al. Food web rewiring in a changing world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0772-3 (2019).109.CaraDonna, P. J. et al. Interaction rewiring and the rapid turnover of plant–pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 20, 385–394 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
110.Gilljam, D., Curtsdotter, A. & Ebenman, B. Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 6, 8412 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
111.Staniczenko, P. P. A., Lewis, O. T., Jones, N. S. & Reed-Tsochas, F. Structural dynamics and robustness of food webs. Ecol. Lett. 13, 891–899 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
112.Thierry, A. et al. Adaptive foraging and the rewiring of size-structured food webs following extinctions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 12, 562–570 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Petchey, O. L., Beckerman, A. P., Riede, J. O. & Warren, P. H. Size, foraging, and food web structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4191–4196 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Beckerman, A. P., Petchey, O. L. & Warren, P. H. Foraging biology predicts food web complexity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13745–13749 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
115.O’Gorman, E. J. et al. A simple model predicts how warming simplifies wild food webs. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 611–616 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Williams, R. J., Brose, U. & Martinez, N. D. in From Energetics to Ecosystems: The Dynamics and Structure of Ecological Systems (eds Rooney, N. et al.) 37–51 (Springer, 2007).117.Blanchard, J. L. et al. How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size‐structured food webs? J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 270–280 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
118.Blanchard, J. L., Heneghan, R. F., Everett, J. D., Trebilco, R. & Richardson, A. J. From bacteria to whales: using functional size spectra to model marine ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 174–186 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
119.Kerr, S. R. & Dickie, L. M. The Biomass Spectrum: A Predator–Prey Theory of Aquatic Production (Columbia Univ. Press, 2001).120.Adams, M. P. et al. Informing management decisions for ecological networks, using dynamic models calibrated to noisy time-series data. Ecol. Lett. 23, 607–619 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Bode, M. et al. Revealing beliefs: using ensemble ecosystem modelling to extrapolate expert beliefs to novel ecological scenarios. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1012–1021 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
122.McGowan, C. P., Runge, M. C. & Larson, M. A. Incorporating parametric uncertainty into population viability analysis models. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1400–1408 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Delmas, E., Brose, U., Gravel, D., Stouffer, D. B. & Poisot, T. Simulations of biomass dynamics in community food webs. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 881–886 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Scott, F., Blanchard, J. L. & Andersen, K. H. mizer: an R package for multispecies, trait-based and community size spectrum ecological modelling. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1121–1125 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
125.Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
126.Tabi, A., Petchey, O. L. & Pennekamp, F. Warming reduces the effects of enrichment on stability and functioning across levels of organisation in an aquatic microbial ecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1061–1071 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
127.O’Brien, A. L., Dafforn, K. A., Chariton, A. A., Johnston, E. L. & Mayer-Pinto, M. After decades of stressor research in urban estuarine ecosystems the focus is still on single stressors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 684, 753–764 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
128.Hampton, S. E. et al. Quantifying effects of abiotic and biotic drivers on community dynamics with multivariate autoregressive (MAR) models. Ecology 94, 2663–2669 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Ives, A. R., Dennis, B., Cottingham, K. L. & Carpenter, S. R. Estimating community stability and ecological interactions from time-series data. Ecol. Monogr. 73, 301–330 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
130.Geary, W. L., Nimmo, D. G., Doherty, T. S., Ritchie, E. G. & Tulloch, A. I. T. Threat webs: reframing the co‐occurrence and interactions of threats to biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1992–1997 (2019).
Google Scholar 
131.Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
132.Rall, B. C. et al. Universal temperature and body-mass scaling of feeding rates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2923–2934 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Rillig, M. C. et al. The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. Science 366, 886–890 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Brennan, G. L., Colegrave, N. & Collins, S. Evolutionary consequences of multidriver environmental change in an aquatic primary producer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9930–9935 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
135.De Valpine, P. & Hastings, A. Fitting population models incorporating process noise and observation error. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 57–76 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
136.Ellner, S. P., Seifu, Y. & Smith, R. H. Fitting population dynamic models to time‐series data by gradient matching. Ecology 83, 2256–2270 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Blanchard, J. L. A rewired food web. Nature 527, 173–174 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
138.Law, R., Plank, M. J., James, A. & Blanchard, J. L. Size‐spectra dynamics from stochastic predation and growth of individuals. Ecology 90, 802–811 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
139.Hampton, S. E., Scheuerell, M. D. & Schindler, D. E. Coalescence in the Lake Washington story: interaction strengths in a planktonic food web. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 2042–2051 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Ives, A. R. Predicting the response of populations to environmental change. Ecology 76, 926–941 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Initial clinical courseAmong the 75 cesarean-delivered preterm piglets, nine were excluded before randomization (e.g. failed resuscitation, stillbirth), whereas the remaining 66 animals were group allocated. An additional seven animals were euthanized preschedule for reasons not related to the interventions (respiratory failure, iatrogenic complications). Two animals were euthanized preschedule with clinical NEC signs (1 CON, 1 FFTr), whereas the remaining 57 animals survived until day 5. During the course of the experiment, we observed rectal bleeding in 31% (5/16) of CON and 19% (3/16) of FMT animals relative to 0% (0/13) in both FFT groups (p  More

1.Bäckhed, F. et al. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 15718–15723 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.LeBlanc, J. G. et al. Bacteria as vitamin suppliers to their host: A gut microbiota perspective. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24, 160–168 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Huang, J. & Douglas, A. E. Consumption of dietary sugar by gut bacteria determines Drosophila lipid content. Biol. Lett. 11, 12–15 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Storelli, G. et al. Lactobacillus plantarum promotes Drosophila systemic growth by modulating hormonal signals through TOR-dependent nutrient sensing. Cell Metab. 14, 403–414 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Chandler, J. A., Lang, J., Bhatnagar, S., Eisen, J. A. & Kopp, A. Bacterial communities of diverse Drosophila species: Ecological context of a host-microbe model system. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002272 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bing, X., Gerlach, J., Loeb, G. & Buchon, N. Nutrient-dependent impact of microbes on Drosophila suzukii development. MBio 9, e02199 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Wong, A. C. N., Chaston, J. M. & Douglas, A. E. The inconstant gut microbiota of Drosophila species revealed by 16S rRNA gene analysis. ISME J. 7, 1922–1932 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Chandler, J. A., James, P. M., Jospin, G. & Lang, J. M. The bacterial communities of Drosophila suzukii collected from undamaged cherries. PeerJ 2, e474 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Kapun, M. et al. Genomic analysis of European Drosophila malanogaster populations revels longitudinal structure, continent-wide selection, and previously unknown DNA viruses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 2661 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Morais, P. B., Martins, M. B., Klaczko, L. B., Mendonca-Hagler, L. C. & Hagler, A. N. Yeast succession in the Amazon fruit Parahancornia amapa as resource partitioning among Drosophila spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61, 4251–4257 (1995).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Wolda, H. Season fluctuations in rainfall, food and abundance of tropical insects. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 369–381 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Simpson, S. J., Sibly, R. M., Lee, K. P., Behmer, S. T. & Raubenheimer, D. Optimal foraging when regulating intake of multiple nutrients. Anim. Behav. 68, 1299–1311 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lee, K. P. et al. Lifespan and reproduction in Drosophila: New insights from nutritional geometry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 2498–2503 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Lee, K. P., Kim, J. S. & Min, K. J. Sexual dimorphism in nutrient intake and life span is mediated by mating in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 86, 987–992 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wong, A. C. N., Dobson, A. J. & Douglas, A. E. Gut microbiota dictates the metabolic response of Drosophila to diet. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 1894–1901 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Rodrigues, M. A. et al. Drosophila melanogaster larvae make nutritional choices that minimize developmental time. J. Insect Physiol. 81, 69–80 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Davies, L. R., Schou, M. F., Kristensen, T. N. & Loeschcke, V. Linking developmental diet to adult foraging choice in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 221, 175554 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18Keebaugh, E. S., Yamada, R., Obadia, B., Ludington, W. B. & Ja, W. W. Microbial quantity impacts Drosophila nutrition, development, and lifespan. iScience 4, 247–259 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19Morimoto, J., Simpson, S. J. & Ponton, F. Direct and transgenerational effects of male and female gut microbiota in Drosophila melanogaster. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160966 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Simpson, S. J. & Raubenheimer, D. The Nature of Nutrition: A Unifying Framework from Animal Adaptation to Human Obesity (Princeton University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
21.Wong, A. C. N. et al. Gut microbiota modifies olfactory-guided microbial preferences and foraging decisions in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 27, 2397–2404 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Andersen, L. H., Kristensen, T. N., Loeschcke, V., Toft, S. & Mayntz, D. Protein and carbohydrate composition of larval food affects tolerance to thermal stress and desiccation in adult Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 56, 336–340 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Kutz, T. C., Sgrò, C. M. & Mirth, C. K. Interacting with change: Diet mediates how larvae respond to their thermal environment. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1940–1951 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Sørensen, T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biol. Writing 5, 1–34 (1948).
Google Scholar 
25.Broderick, N. & Lemaitre, B. Gut-associated microbes of Drosophila melanogaster. Gut Microbes 3, 307–321 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.De Ley, J. Comparative carbohydrate metabolism and a proposal for a phylogenetic relationship of the acetic acid bacteria. J. Gen. Microbiol. 24, 31–50 (1961).Article 

Google Scholar 
27Ameyama, M. Gluconobacter oxydans subsp. sphaericus, new subspecies isolated from grapes. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 25, 365–370 (1948).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Deppenmeier, U., Hoffmeister, M. & Prust, C. Biochemistry and biotechnological applications of Gluconobacter strains. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 60, 233–242 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Ryngajłło, M., Kubiak, K., Jędrzejczak-Krzepkowska, M., Jacek, P. & Bielecki, S. Comparative genomics of the Komagataeibacter strains—Efficient bionanocellulose producers. Microbiologyopen 8, 1–25 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Gilbert, D. G. Dispersal of yeasts and bacteria by Drosophila in a temperate forest. Oecologia 46, 135–137 (1980).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Blum, J. E., Fischer, C. N., Miles, J. & Handelsman, J. Frequent replenishment sustains the beneficial microbiome of Drosophila melanogaster. MBio 4, 1–8 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Staubach, F., Baines, J. F., Künzel, S., Bik, E. M. & Petrov, D. A. Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environment. PLoS ONE 8, e70749 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Wong, A. C. N. et al. The host as the driver of the microbiota in the gut and external environment of Drosophila melanogaster. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 6232–6240 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Pais, I. S., Valente, R. S., Sporniak, M. & Teixeira, L. Drosophila melanogaster establishes a species-specific mutualistic interaction with stable gut-colonizing bacteria. PLoS Biol. 16(7), e2005710 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Buchon, N., Broderick, N. A. & Lemaitre, B. Gut homeostasis in a microbial world: Insights from Drosophila melanogaster. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11, 615–626 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Wong, A. C. N., Ng, P. & Douglas, A. E. Low-diversity bacterial community in the gut of the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 1889–1900 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Manteca, A. & Sanchez, J. Streptomyces development in colonies and soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 2920–2924 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Lee, K. P., Raubenheimer, D., Behmer, S. T. & Simpson, S. J. A correlation between macronutrient balancing and insect host-plant range: Evidence from the specialist caterpillar Spodoptera exempta (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 49, 1161–1171 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Mevi-Schütz, J. & Erhardt, A. Larval nutrition affects female nectar amino acid preference in the map butterfly (Araschnia levana). Ecology 18, 2788–2794 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Lee, K. P. The interactive effects of protein quality and macronutrient imbalance on nutrient balancing in an insect herbivore. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 3236–3244 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Fanson, B. G., Weldon, C. W., Pérez-Staples, D., Simpson, S. J. & Taylor, P. W. Nutrients, not caloric restriction, extend lifespan in Queensland fruit flies (Bactrocera tryoni). Aging Cell 8, 514–523 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Spor, A., Koren, O. & Ley, R. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 279–290 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Hooper, L. V., Littman, D. R. & Macpherson, A. J. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science 336, 1268–1273 (2007).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Faith, J. J., McNulty, N. P., Rey, F. E. & Gordon, J. I. Predicting a human gut microbiota’s response to diet in gnotobiotic mice. Science 333, 101–104 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Ridley, E. V., Wong, A. C. N., Westmiller, S. & Douglas, A. E. Impact of the resident microbiota on the nutritional phenotype of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 7, e36765 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Nguyen, B. et al. Interactions between ecological factors in the developmental environment modulate pupal and adult traits in a polyphagous fly. Ecol. Evol. 9, 6342–6352 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Drew, R. A. I., Courtice, A. C. & Teakle, D. S. Bacteria as a natural source of food for adult fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). Oecologia 60, 279–284 (1983).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48Lesperance, D. N. A. & Broderick, N. Gut bacteria mediate nutrient availability in Drosophila diets. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59, 211 (2020).
Google Scholar 
49.Kristensen, T. N. et al. Fitness components of Drosophila melanogaster developed on a standard laboratory diet or a typical natural food source. Insect Sci. 23, 771–779 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Harrison, A. P. & Pelczar, M. J. Damage and survival of bacteria during freeze-drying and during storage over a ten-year period. J. Gen. Microbiol. 30, 395–400 (1963).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Rubin, B. E. R. et al. Investigating the impact of storage conditions on microbial community composition in soil samples. PLoS ONE 8, 1–9 (2013).
Google Scholar 
52.Sharon, G. et al. Commensal bacteria play a role in mating preference of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 20051–20056 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Xu, X., Feng, G., Liu, H. & Li, X. Control of spoilage microorganisms in Soybean milk by nipagin complex esters, nisin, sodium dehydroaceate and heat treatment. IPCBEE 67, 35 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Leftwich, P. T., Clarke, N. V. E., Hutchings, M. I. & Chapman, T. Gut microbiomes and reproductive isolation in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 12767–12772 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Leftwich, P. T., Clarke, N. V. E., Hutchings, M. I. & Chapman, T. Reply to Obadia et al.: Effect of methyl paraben on host–microbiota interactions in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 20, E4549–E4550 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Ward, D. V. et al. Evaluation of 16s rDNA-based community profiling for human microbiome research. PLoS ONE 7, e39315 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Caporaso, J. et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 6, 1621–1624 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 590–596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Overgaard, J., Kristensen, T. N. & Sørensen, J. G. Validity of thermal ramping assays used to assess thermal tolerance in arthropods. PLoS ONE 7, 1–7 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). Accessed February 2021. https://www.R-project.org/.62RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R (RStudio, PBC, 2020).
Google Scholar 
63McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package 2.5-7 (2019). Accessed October 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.65.Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis 2nd edn. (Springer, 2016).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar  More

1.Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 4382–4387 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Allen, C. D. et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 660–684 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Williams, C. A., Gu, H., MacLean, R., Masek, J. G. & Collatz, G. J. Disturbance and the carbon balance of US forests: A quantitative review of impacts from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Glob. Planet. Change 143, 66–80 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Kurz, W. A. et al. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452, 987–990 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Lovett, G. M. et al. Nonnative forest insects and pathogens in the United States: Impacts and policy options. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1437–1455 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Xu, L. et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci Adv 7, eabe9829 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Nave, L. E. et al. Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of carbon in US topsoils in a century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 2776–2781 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L. & Stephens, S. L. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl. 17, 2145–2151 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.McCarthy, J. K., Dwyer, J. M. & Mokany, K. A regional-scale assessment of using metabolic scaling theory to predict ecosystem properties. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20192221 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Woodall, C. W., Miles, P. D. & Vissage, J. S. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. For. Ecol. Manag. 216, 367–377 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Reineke, L. H. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 46, 627–638 (1933).
Google Scholar 
13.Long, J. N. A practical approach to density management. For. Chron. 61, 23–27 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Domke, G. et al. Forests. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report (eds Cavallaro, N., Shrestha, G., Birdsey, R., Mayes, M. A., Najjar, R. G., Reed, S. C., Romero-Lankao, P. & Zhu, Z.) 365–398 (US Global Change Research Program, 2018).15.Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H. & Hozumi, K. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14, 106–129 (1963).
Google Scholar 
16.Drew, T. J. & Flewelling, J. W. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. For. Sci. 25, 518–532 (1979).
Google Scholar 
17.Bechtold, W. A. & Patterson, P. L. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program: National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures. SRS GTR-80. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina, USA. (2005). https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-80.18.McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Andrews, C., Weiskittel, A., D’Amato, A. W. & Simons-Legaard, E. Variation in the maximum stand density index and its linkage to climate in mixed species forests of the North American Acadian Region. For. Ecol. Manag. 417, 90–102 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Nagel, L. M. et al. Adaptive silviculture for climate change: A national experiment in manager–scientist partnerships to apply an adaptation framework. J. For. 115, 167–178 (2017).
Google Scholar 
21.Pretzsch, H. & Biber, P. A re-evaluation of the Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For. Sci. 51, 304–320 (2005).
Google Scholar 
22.Condés, S. et al. Climate influences on the maximum size-density relationship in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 385, 295–307 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Ducey, M. J., Woodall, C. W. & Bravo-Oviedo, A. Climate and species functional traits influence maximum live tree stocking in the Lake States, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 386, 51–61 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zhao, D., Bullock, B. P., Montes, C. R. & Wang, M. Rethinking maximum stand basal area and maximum SDI from the aspect of stand dynamics. For. Ecol. Manag. 475, 118462 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Weiskittel, A. R. & Kuehne, C. Evaluating and modeling variation in site-level maximum carrying capacity of mixed-species forest stands in the Acadian Region of northeastern North America. For. Chron. 95, 171–182 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pretzsch, H. & del Río, M. Density regulation of mixed and mono-specific forest stands as a continuum: A new concept based on species-specific coefficients for density equivalence and density modification. For. Int. J. For. Res. 93, 1–15 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Senf, C., Buras, A., Zang, C. S., Rammig, A. & Seidl, R. Excess forest mortality is consistently linked to drought across Europe. Nat. Commun. 11, 6200 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Woodall, C. W., Perry, C. H. & Miles, P. D. The relative density of forests in the United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 226, 368–372 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Venturas, M. D., Todd, H. N., Trugman, A. T. & Anderegg, W. R. L. Understanding and predicting forest mortality in the western United States using long-term forest inventory data and modeled hydraulic damage. New Phytol. 230, 1896–1910 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Higuera, P. E. & Abatzoglou, J. T. Record-setting climate enabled the extraordinary 2020 fire season in the western United States. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1–2 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
31.Peters, M. P. & Iverson, L. R. Projected drought for the conterminous United States in the 21st century. In Effects of Drought on Forests and Rangelands in the United States (eds Vose, J. M., Peterson, D. L., Luce, C. H. & Patel-Weynand, T.) vol. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-98 19–39 (USDA Forest Service, 2019).32.Coulston, J. W., Woodall, C. W., Domke, G. M. & Walters, B. F. Refined forest land use classification with implications for United States national carbon accounting. Land Use Policy 59, 536–542 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Wear, D. N. & Coulston, J. W. From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Senf, C., Sebald, J. & Seidl, R. Increasing canopy mortality affects the future demographic structure of Europe’s forests. One Earth 4, 749–755 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Morin, X., Fahse, L., Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Bugmann, H. Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1211–1219 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 11645–11650 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Gunn, J. S., Ducey, M. J. & Belair, E. Evaluating degradation in a North American temperate forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 432, 415–426 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Domke, G. M., Oswalt, S. N., Walters, B. F. & Morin, R. S. Tree planting has the potential to increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010840117 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.King, D. I. & Schlossberg, S. Synthesis of the conservation value of the early-successional stage in forests of eastern North America. For. Ecol. Manag. 324, 186–195 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Stephens, S. L. et al. Forest restoration and fuels reduction: Convergent or divergent?. Bioscience 71, 85–101 (2020).
Google Scholar 
41.Berner, L. T., Law, B. E., Meddens, A. J. H. & Hicke, J. A. Tree mortality from fires, bark beetles, and timber harvest during a hot and dry decade in the western United States (2003–2012). Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 065005 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Stanke, H., Finley, A. O., Domke, G. M., Weed, A. S. & MacFarlane, D. W. Over half of western United States’ most abundant tree species in decline. Nat. Commun. 12, 451 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
43.Weiskittel, A. R., Gould, P. J. & Temesgen, H. Sources of variation in the self-thinning boundary line for three species with varying levels of shade tolerance. For. Sci. 55, 84–93 (2009).
Google Scholar 
44.Ducey, M. J. & Knapp, R. A. A stand density index for complex mixed species forests in the northeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 260, 1613–1622 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C. & Neilson, E. T. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105, 1551–1555 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J. & Lexer, M. J. Unraveling the drivers of intensifying forest disturbance regimes in Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2842–2852 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Nelson, M. D. et al. Defining the United States land base: A technical document supporting the USDA Forest Service 2020 RPA assessment. In Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-191, Vol. 191, 1–70 (2020).48.Patterson, P. L. & Reams, G. A. Combining panels for forest inventory and analysis estimation. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 79–84 (2005).49.Bailey, R. G. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environ. Manag. 7, 365–373 (1983).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
50.Salas-Eljatib, C. & Weiskittel, A. R. Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self-thinning behavior and carrying capacity. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10768–10779 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Geraci, M. Linear quantile mixed models: The lqmm package for Laplace quantile regression. J. Stat. Softw. 57(13), 1–29. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v57/i13/ (2013).
Google Scholar 
52.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D. & Carroll, C. Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS ONE 11, e0156720 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Omernik, J. M. & Griffith, G. E. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environ. Manag. 54, 1249–1266 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.De’ath, G. Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology 88, 243–251 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Long, J. N. & Daniel, T. W. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-age stands. West. J. Appl. For. 11, 59–61 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 146, 108–123 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

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

Google Scholar 
2.Duarte, C. M. et al. Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580, 39–51 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Darling, E. S. et al. Relationships between structural complexity, coral traits, and reef fish assemblages. Coral Reefs 36, 561–575 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.McWilliam, M., Chase, T. J. & Hoogenboom, M. O. Neighbor diversity regulates the productivity of coral assemblages. Curr. Biol. 28, 3634–3639 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Graham, N. A. J., Jennings, S., MacNeil, M. A., Mouillot, D. & Wilson, S. K. Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature 518, 94–97 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
7.Cornwall, C. E. et al. Global declines in coral reef calcium carbonate production under ocean acidification and warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2015265118 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Gardner, T. A. Long-term region-wide declines in caribbean corals. Science 301, 958–960 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.De’ath, G., Fabricius, K. E., Sweatman, H. & Puotinen, M. The 27—year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208909109 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Madin, J. S. et al. Cumulative effects of cyclones and bleaching on coral cover and species richness at Lizard Island. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 604, 263–268 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Dietzel, A., Bode, M., Connolly, S. R. & Hughes, T. P. Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef: Demographic change in Australia’s corals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20201432 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Claar, D. C. et al. Dynamic symbioses reveal pathways to coral survival through prolonged heatwaves. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–10 (2020).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Claar, D. C. & Baum, J. K. Timing matters: Survey timing during extended heat stress can influence perceptions of coral susceptibility to bleaching. Coral Reefs 38, 559–565 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Edmunds, P. J. Vital rates of small reef corals are associated with variation in climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 901–913 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Hall, T. E. et al. Stony coral populations are more sensitive to changes in vital rates in disturbed environments. Ecol. Appl. 31, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Madin, J. S., Baird, A. H., Dornelas, M. & Connolly, S. R. Mechanical vulnerability explains size-dependent mortality of reef corals. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1008–1015 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Edmunds, P. J. & Riegl, B. Urgent need for coral demography in a world where corals are disappearing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 635, 233–242 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hughes, T. P. et al. Ecological memory modifies the cumulative impact of recurrent climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 40–43 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Pratchett, M. et al. Spatial, temporal and taxonomic variation in coral growth—Implications for the structure and function of coral reef ecosystems. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 53, 215–295 (2015).
Google Scholar 
20.Cantin, N. E. & Lough, J. M. Surviving coral bleaching events: Porites growth anomalies on the great barrier reef. PLoS ONE 9, e88720 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Linares, C., Pratchett, M. S. & Coker, D. J. Recolonisation of Acropora hyacinthus following climate-induced coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 438, 97–104 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Victor, S., Golbuu, Y., Yukihira, H. & Van Woesik, R. Acropora size-frequency distributions reflect spatially variable conditions on coral reefs of Palau. Bull. Mar. Sci. 85, 149–157 (2009).
Google Scholar 
23.Wilson, S. K., Robinson, J. P. W., Chong-Seng, K., Robinson, J. & Graham, N. A. J. Boom and bust of keystone structure on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 38, 625–635 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Pratchett, M. S., McWilliam, M. J. & Riegl, B. Contrasting shifts in coral assemblages with increasing disturbances. Coral Reefs 39, 783–793 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Loya, Y. et al. Coral bleaching: The winners and the losers. Ecol. Lett. 4, 122–131 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Van Woesik, R., Sakai, K., Ganase, A. & Loya, Y. Revisiting the winners and the losers a decade after coral bleaching. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 434, 67–76 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.McWilliam, M., Pratchett, M. S., Hoogenboom, M. O. & Hughes, T. P. Deficits in functional trait diversity following recovery on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287, 20192628 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Marshall, P. A. & Baird, A. H. Bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef: Differential susceptibilities among taxa. Coral Reefs 19, 155–163 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Graham, N. A. J., Cinner, J. E., Norström, A. V. & Nyström, M. Coral reefs as novel ecosystems: Embracing new futures. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 7, 9–14 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Sully, S., Burkepile, D. E., Donovan, M. K., Hodgson, G. & van Woesik, R. A global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–5 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Gilmour, J. P., Smith, L. D., Heyward, A. J., Baird, A. H. & Pratchett, M. S. Recovery of an isolated coral reef system following severe disturbance. Science 340, 69–71 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming impairs stock–recruitment dynamics of corals. Nature 568, 387–390 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Vercelloni, J. et al. Forecasting intensifying disturbance effects on coral reefs. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 2785–2797 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).35.Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Evans, R. D. et al. Early recovery dynamics of turbid coral reefs after recurring bleaching events. J. Environ. Manag. 268, 110666 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Carlot, J. et al. Juvenile corals underpin coral reef carbonate production after disturbance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2623–2632 (2021).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
39.Baird, A., Emslie, M. & Lewis, A. Extended periods of coral recruitment on the Great Barrier Reef. In Proc. 12th Int. Coral Reef Symp. (2012).40.Foster, N. L., Baums, I. B. & Mumby, P. J. Sexual vs. asexual reproduction in an ecosystem engineer: The massive coral Montastraea annularis. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 384–391 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Edmunds, P. J. Patterns in the distribution of juvenile corals and coral reef community structure in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 202, 113–124 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Hughes, T. P., Linares, C., Dakos, V., van de Leemput, I. A. & van Nes, E. H. Living dangerously on borrowed time during slow, unrecognized regime shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 149–155 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
44.Wismer, S., Tebbett, S. B., Streit, R. P. & Bellwood, D. R. Spatial mismatch in fish and coral loss following 2016 mass coral bleaching. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 1487–1498 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Wismer, S., Tebbett, S. B., Streit, R. P. & Bellwood, D. R. Young fishes persist despite coral loss on the Great Barrier Reef. Commun. Biol. 2, 1–7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Abràmoff, M. D., Hospitals, I., Magalhães, P. J. & Abràmoff, M. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36–42 (2004).
Google Scholar  More