More stories

  • in

    Most abundant metabolites in tissues of freshwater fish pike-perch (Sander lucioperca)

    In the present work, we performed quantitative metabolomic analysis for eleven biological tissues of S. lucioperca. The advantage of the quantitative approach over commonly used semi-quantitative measurements is that the obtained data on the metabolite concentrations expressed in nmoles per gram of a tissue can be directly used by any researcher as a reference to the baseline level of metabolites in that tissue. Quantitative data also allow for the comparing the tissues with very dissimilar metabolomic compositions.
    The metabolomic analysis performed in the present work demonstrates that although the majority of metabolites are common for all tissues, their concentrations in tissues may vary at a large scale. Moreover, there are some tissue-specific compounds with very high abundance in only 1–2 types of tissue. The examples of such metabolites are glycine, histidine, creatine, and betaine in muscle, ovothiol A in lens, NAA in lens and brain, glucose in liver. Apparently, these compounds are important for biological functions specific for these particular tissues.
    Two groups of metabolites, osmolytes and antioxidants, play the key role in the cell protection against osmotic and oxidative stresses. In this work, the following compounds were conventionally assigned to osmolytes: taurine, myo-inositol, NAH, NAA, betaine, threonine-phosphoethanolamine (Thr-PETA), and Ser-PETA. Obviously, this assignment is rather arbitrary: some of these compounds, besides osmotic protection, perform other cellular functions, including cell signaling, providing substrate for biosynthesis, and so on17,18,19. At the same time, the tissues under study contain metabolites with concentrations of the same level or even higher than the concentrations of compounds assigned to osmolytes: lactate, glucose, acetate, creatine. These metabolites are mostly related to the reactions of cellular energy generation, and their concentrations should strongly depend on the fish activity. For that reason, in this work we did not include them into the list of osmolytes. Figure 6 shows the concentrations of osmolytes in different fish tissues (excluding acellular tissues AH and VH), and demonstrates that the composition of osmolytes in tissues strongly depends on the cell type.
    Figure 6

    Concentrations of major osmolytes (in µmol/g) in S. lucioperca tissues.

    Full size image

    We found in the fish tissues the following compounds with antioxidative properties: glutathione (GSH), ascorbate, OSH, and NADH. The detection of minor amounts of one more well-known thiol antioxidant, ergothioneine, in the gills of another freshwater fish, R. rutilus lacustris, has recently been reported15; however, in the present work ergothioneine was not found neither by NMR nor by LC–MS in any of the studied tissues of S. lucioperca. NADH was found only in NMR spectra of liver, muscle, heart, and lens, and its concentration in these tissues does not exceed 15 nmol/g. GSH, OSH, and ascorbate are present in much higher concentrations in the majority of the fish tissues, so these three compounds play the main role in the cellular defense against the oxidative stress. The presence and the relative abundance of GSH and OSH in the fish tissues were confirmed by LC–MS data.
    The metabolomic features of particular fish tissues are discussed below.
    AH and VH
    AH and VH are acellular fluids with minimal metabolic activity. AH is produced in the ciliary epithelium through both the active secretion and the passive diffusion/ultrafiltration of blood plasma20,21,22,23. Consequently, the metabolomic composition of AH is similar to that of plasma10. VH is also connected with blood via the hematoophthalmic barrier24 and with AH, and one can see (Table 1, Fig. 2) that the metabolomic compositions of AH and VH are close to each other. Thus, it is safe to assume that the levels of metabolites in AH and VH reflect their levels in blood plasma, which circulates through the majority of fish tissues. Significant deviations of metabolite levels in tissue as compared to plasma should be attributed to the intracellular metabolic activity specific for this particular tissue.
    Lens
    The eye lens is one of the most anatomically isolated tissues. The lens mostly consists of metabolically inert fiber cells without nuclei and organelles with the exception of metabolically active epithelial monolayer. The data present in Table 1 indicate that the lens contains very high levels of proteinogenic amino acids: for some amino acids (for example, branched-chain amino acids, glutamine, aspartate) their levels in the lens are more than ten-fold higher than that in AH. Moreover, the concentrations of the majority of amino acids in the lens are higher than in any other fish tissue. The elevated levels of amino acids in the lens has been noticed many years ago25, and it was attributed to the active amino acid transport from AH to lens26,27,28,29. These amino acids are presumably needed to synthesize high protein content (up to 40% of the total lens weight), which is in turn needed to provide high refraction coefficient.
    The fish lens contains a unique set of osmolytes and antioxidants. The lens osmolytes are myo-inositol, NAH, NAA, Thr-PETA, and Ser-PETA. We have previously shown15 that the concentrations of osmolytes in the fish lens undergo significant seasonal variations. At the late winter time, when the fish was caught for this study, the most abundant lens osmolyte is myo-inositol. High concentrations of this compound are also found in other fish tissues, including brain, gill, and spleen. Thr-PETA and Ser-PETA are also among the most abundant metabolites in the majority of the fish tissues. In opposite, NAH and NAA are present in high concentrations only in the fish lens and brain. At the same time, the concentration of taurine, which is the most abundant osmolyte in all other fish tissues, in the lens is rather low.
    The major antioxidant of the fish lens is OSH12. It has been shown that the level of OSH in S. lucioperca lens vary from 3 µmol/g at autumn to 1.5 µmol/g at winter15, which is in a good agreement with our present data (Table 1). The concentration of the second most abundant lens antioxidant, GSH, is 3–4 times lower than that of OSH. Taking into account the properties of OSH30,31,32,33, it has been proposed12,34 that OSH is a primary protector against the oxidative stress, while the main function of GSH in the lens is the maintenance of OSH in the reduced state. It should be noticed that although OSH was also found in other fish tissues (Table 1, Fig. 2), its concentration in these tissues is significantly lower than in the lens. Therefore, in respect to fish, OSH can truly be called “lenticular antioxidant”.
    High concentrations of amino acids, osmolytes, antioxidants and some other compounds in the lens indicate that these metabolites are either synthesized in metabolically active epithelial cells, or pumped into the lens from AH against the concentration gradient with the use of specific transporters also located in the epithelial layer. The fiber cells of the lens are metabolically passive, and fresh metabolites can appear in these cells only due to the diffusion from the epithelial layer toward the lens center. Therefore, one can expect that the concentrations of the most important metabolites decrease from the lens cortex toward the lens nucleus. To check this assumption, we measured the metabolomic profiles for cortex and nucleus separately. The measurements were performed for three lenses; then the ratios of the metabolite concentrations in the cortex to that in the nucleus were calculated and averaged. The results of the calculations are shown in Fig. 7 (only for metabolites with the highest and the lowest cortex/nucleus ratios) and Supplementary Table S2 (for all metabolites). Indeed, the levels of the majority of metabolites in the lens nucleus are significantly lower than in the cortex. For five metabolites, namely ATP, NAA, inosinate, ADP, and GSH the difference exceeds the factor of thirty; that means that these compounds are almost completely depleted during their diffusion toward the lens nucleus.
    Figure 7

    Barplot for statistically significant differences in the metabolomic content of lens cortex and nucleus. Bars show the averaged ratio of metabolite concentrations in the cortex to that in the nucleus of the S. lucioperca lens.

    Full size image

    Brain
    The brain tissue similarly to the lens is isolated from the vascular system by means of the hematoencephalic barrier. However, in opposite to the lens, brain is very metabolically active tissue, as in particular indicated by the high level of lactate (14 µmol/g). Similar lactate concentrations were found only in muscle and heart (Table 1). Besides lactate, the most abundant metabolites of the fish brain are osmolytes myo-inositol, Ser-PETA, taurine, Thr-PETA, NAH, and NAA; the concentrations of these compounds in brain are in the range from 2.5 to 13 µmol/g (Table 1). The brain tissue also contains high levels of glutamate and creatine, which are used by brain cells for the cellular energy generation. The level of antioxidant ascorbate in brain (400 nmol/g) is significantly higher than in other fish tissues, which indicates the importance of ascorbate for the brain correct operation. Besides ascorbate, the brain tissue also contains OSH and GSH, but at significantly lower concentrations (100–200 nmol/g).
    Blood-rich organs: liver, spleen, milt, muscle, heart, gill, kidney
    Figure 4 demonstrates that from the metabolomic viewpoint, gill, kidney, milt, and spleen are the most similar tissues. However, the quantitative analysis indicates significant differences. In particular, spleen does not contain measurable by NMR amounts of antioxidants OSH and GSH. The levels of osmolytes are also different: the concentration of taurine in spleen is threefold higher than in gill and milt, while the level of myo-inositol in milt is much lower than in spleen and gill (Fig. 6). Significant differences are also found for some amino acids (alanine, creatine), organic acids (lactate, GABA), and nucleosides (ATP, ADP, AMP, inosine).
    One of the important liver functions is the maintaining the glucose level in blood regulated by producing glucose from stored glycogen. Correspondingly, the level of glucose in liver is extremely high (40 µmol/g), which is higher than in any other tissue by at least an order of magnitude. Liver also contains elevated (as compared to other tissues) concentrations of threonine, glutamate, succinate, fumarate, AMP, and nicotinamide.
    The biological functions of muscle and heart are relatively similar; however, the metabolomic compositions of these tissues differ significantly. The main osmolyte in muscle cells is taurine (30 µmol/g), while in heart the osmotic protection is shared between taurine (15 µmol/g) and Ser-PETA (12 µmol/g). Muscle contains very high levels of glycine and histidine. Glycine is known to protect muscles from wasting under various wasting conditions35,36, while histidine and histidine-related compounds were reported to play the role of intracellular proton buffering constituents in vertebrate muscle37. Very likely that both glycine and histidine also participate in the osmotic protection of the muscle cells. The level of creatine—the energy source—in muscle (23 µmol/g) is five-fold higher than in heart. More

  • in

    Transcriptome sequencing of cochleae from constant-frequency and frequency-modulated echolocating bats

    Quality control of the full-length transcriptomes
    The FL transcriptomes for R. a. hainanus, R. a. himalayanus and Myotis ricketti were constructed based on sequencing data of three separated libraries on the PacBio Sequel platform. Specifically, a total of 3,444,947 subreads with 6,448,987,299 nucleotides, 3,255,638 subreads with 6,504,282,447 nucleotides and 3,403,451 subreads with 7,190,237,257 nucleotides were generated for R. a. hainanus, R. a. himalayanus and Myotis ricketti respectively. After quality control, we obtained 137,159 circular consensus sequencing (CCS) reads for R. a. hainanus, 137,160 CCS reads for R. a. himalayanus and 152,251 CCS reads for Myotis ricketti. With the standard IsoSeq. 3 classification and clustering pipeline, we identified 111,806 FLNC for R. a. hainanus, 105,713 FLNC for R. a. himalayanus and 122,222 FLNC for Myotis ricketti. After isoform-level polishing, 10384, 9984 and 10932 high quality isoforms were retained in R. a. hainanus, R. a. himalayanus and Myotis ricketti respectively. After removing redundancy with CD-HIT-EST and filtering isoforms shorter than 200 bp, the final FL transcriptomes for R. a. hainanus, R. a. himalayanus and Myotis ricketti (FL-CF-Rhai, FL-CF-Rhim and FL-FM-Myo, respectively) contain 10103, 9676 and 10504 FL isoforms with an average length of 2251, 2370 and 2530 bp, respectively (Table 2). Finally, the FL transcriptome from both CF and FM bats (FL-CF-FM) contains 26,342 transcripts with an average length of 2,405 bp (Table 2). BUSCO analysis revealed that a total of 2,354 (57.4%) BUSCOs were included in FL-CF-FM. We also found 39.9%, 38.1% and 41.9% BUSCOs in FL-CF-Rhai, FL-CF-Rhim and FL-FM-Myo, respectively (Table 4). Given the highly specialized function of the cochlea, we should not expect a high level of BUSCO value in FL transcriptome of cochlea. A recent single cell RNA-seq study has identified a similar number of genes expressed in the murine cochlea (a total of 12,944)30.
    Table 4 Completeness of each of the four FL transcriptomes assessed by benchmarking universal single-copy ortholog (BUSCO) analysis.
    Full size table

    Quality control of annotation
    Four FL transcriptomes (FL-CF-Rhai, FL-CF-Rhim, FL-FM-Myo, and FL-CF-FM) were functionally annotated by performing DIAMOND and BLASTx searches against the Nr and UniProt databases separately. For FL-CF-FM, 24,793 and 24,198 transcripts were annotated by Nr database and UniProt database, respectively (Table 3). After combining the annotation results from the two databases, a total of 24,833 transcripts were annotated in at least one database. We obtained similar annotation results for FL-CF-Rhai, FL-CF-Rhim and FL-FM-Myo (Table 3). Transcripts without annotations might be novel isoforms of echolocating animals or due to the lack of representative sequences for cochlea in public databases. More

  • in

    GalliForm, a database of Galliformes occurrence records from the Indo-Malay and Palaearctic, 1800–2008

    These methods are an expanded version of those in our related work, Boakes et al.15.
    The database was compiled over the period 2005–2008. Data collection equates to around 1500 person-days and data were gathered by a team of 21 people. Between them, team members were fluent in English, French, German, Mandarin, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. These languages were extremely helpful in transcribing museum specimen labels and in translating publications. However, the majority of publications were in English and we acknowledge that the database will be biased toward records published in English-language publications.
    Our study focuses on the 130 galliform species that occur within the Palaearctic and Indo-Malay biogeographic realms22 (see Online-only Table 1). We have additionally included records of the Imperial Pheasant (Lophura imperialis) although it is now recognised that this is a hybrid and not a species. The geographic range of two of the species in the database, the Red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus) and the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), extends to North America. North American data was often included in the information which museums sent us and in these instances we entered those records into the database since we thought they might be of use to researchers studying these species. However, it should be noted that we did not search exhaustively for records of these species in North America, we have merely included those that we came across.
    We attempted to gather all species distribution data that could be accessed from five different sources; museum collections, literature records, banding (ringing) data, ornithological atlases and birdwatchers’ trip report websites. For each data source, exhaustive and systematic search strategies were adopted.
    Museum collections
    Using web-based searches and Roselaar23, 377 natural history collections were identified. We found contact details for 338 of these collections and requested by email or letter a list of the Galliformes in their holdings along with collection localities and dates. Non-respondents were recontacted. 135 museums were able to share data with us (see Online-only Table 2). Museum records were obtained through publicly available online databases e.g. ORNIS, electronic or paper catalogues sent to us by the museums or by visiting the museums and transcribing data directly from specimens or card catalogues. Almost half of the museums we contacted did not respond despite at least one follow-up enquiry, and there was substantial variation in the amount and format of data contributed by those that did reply. Altogether, over 50% of the records came from just six museums (Natural History Museum, London; Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg; Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University; Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; American Museum of Natural History, New York; National Museum of Natural History, Leiden), a single museum (the Natural History Museum, London) contributing nearly 20% of the museum records that could be georeferenced and dated15. Following databasing and/or georeferencing, records were returned to larger collections and to those who had requested the data.
    Literature
    Data from the literature were added to those previously collected by McGowan24. Entire series of key English-language international and regional ornithological journals such as Ibis, Bird Conservation International, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, and Kukila were scanned for relevant information, availability allowing. We began at the library of the Zoological Society of London and followed up missing journal issues at the BirdLife International library, Cambridge UK; the British Library, London, UK; the Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, UK. Relevant Chinese literature was also scanned. Additionally, data were obtained from regional reports, personal diaries, letters, newsletters etc stored in the archives of BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK; the World Pheasant Association, Newcastle, UK; the Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford, UK. Several of the species/regional experts we consulted also contributed their personal records which were recorded in the database as ‘personal communications’. As far as it were possible, records were classed as primary or secondary data within the ‘dynamicProperties’ field of GalliForm14. It is important to note that some primary records or museum specimens will be duplicated within the database in the secondary data.
    Banding records
    Eighty-three ornithological banding groups were identified using web-based searches and were contacted via email. Thirty of these groups replied and only seven were able to provide us with data (see Table 1). The majority of galliform species tend not to be banded due to their large body sizes and spurs. Additionally, many of the banding groups kept their records on paper and were not able to send them to us. Nevertheless, we were able to access and georeference 15,152 banding records.
    Table 1 The ringing groups that shared data with GalliForm.
    Full size table

    Ornithological atlases
    We digitised location data from 20 ornithological atlases (see Table 2). Data from several other atlases were not used since the range of dates for the records was wider than 20 years.
    Table 2 The atlases that were digitised to be included in GalliForm.
    Full size table

    Trip report website data
    We used the two trip report websites that were popular with birders during the data recording period (2005–2008), www.travellingbirder.com and www.birdtours.co.uk. At that time, eBird (probably the most relevant current online source today) did not cover the majority of the countries within our study region, and our intention with the deposition of this dataset is to focus on pre-eBird data that are more difficult and time consuming to access. We extracted data from all trip reports of birdwatching visits to European, Asian and North African countries. Care was taken to enter reports that featured on both websites once only.
    Criteria for data inclusion
    To be included in the database, records had to meet the following criteria:
    1.
    The record identified the species of the bird concerned.

    2.
    The record contained either a verbal description of the locality at which the bird concerned was observed or the co-ordinates at which the bird was observed.

    Records of captive birds were excluded. Records relating to non-native occurrences were included but were flagged in the ‘establishmentMeans’ field as “introduced”.
    Data entry
    GalliForm14 was originally compiled in the programme Microsoft Access 2003. To maximise uniformity in data entry, all data recorders were given thorough and consistent training and each was provided with a set of database guidelines. An Access Database form was created to standardise data entry and to enable multiple members of the team to collect data simultaneously.
    Each entry in GalliForm14 corresponds to a single record of a single species recorded in a specific location. The data fields of GalliForm14 are described in Online-only Table 3. The taxonomy used has been updated to be consistent with the BirdLife International 2019 taxonomy (datazone.birdlife.org). All information was entered exactly as it was described in the data source, with as much information extracted as possible. Multiple records from different sources which recorded the same information were still included in the interest of completeness. The only exception to this is the trip report data in which we did not enter identical records which occurred on both the Travelling Birder and Bird Tours websites.
    The source of the data, i.e. literature, museum, atlas, ringing or website trip report is recorded in the ‘dynamicProperties’ field under the code “dataSource”. For literature data, (where known) the nature of the record, i.e. primary or secondary, is recorded under the code “datatype”.
    Taxonomy has of course changed considerably over time. To allow for this we recorded the taxonomy as it was described in the data source in the ‘originalNameUsage’ field. The current taxonomy was then selected from a look-up table. If at the time of data entry, the data compiler was unsure which species the synonym referred to, the species was tagged as “unknown” and the species was designated at a later date following further research on the synonym.
    Identical localities can also be described in multiple ways. We recorded the locality as it was given in the data source in the ‘verbatimLocality’ field. If the ‘verbatimLocality’ clearly tallied with a locality already within the database, the record was linked to that locality in order to increase georeferencing efficiency.
    It was rare for a source to record absence of evidence, i.e. a survey for a species at a particular locality which failed to find that species. However, in the few cases where we did come across such records, the locality and date of the survey were recorded and “absent” was recorded in the ‘occurrenceStatus’ field.
    Each record refers to an independent observation. For museum and ringing records, this means a single individual. For literature, atlas or trip report records this may refer to a group of birds observed in one particular locality, on one particular day. If given, the number of total individuals is recorded in the ‘individualCount’ field. The number of males and females is recorded in the ‘sex’ field and the number of juveniles and adults in the ‘lifeStage’ field. If the ‘lifeStage’ field is blank, it is reasonable to assume the individual(s) is an adult.
    Occasionally, additional information about the observation might be included in the data source, for example the habitat the bird was observed in or whether the bird was common or rare in that locality. These data are recorded in the ‘habitat’ and ‘organismQuantity’ fields, respectively. Any additional information which did not fit within the structure of the database was recorded in the ‘occurrenceRemarks’ field, along with any notes found on museum labels.
    For the purposes of data deposition, the database was converted to a tab-delimited CSV file with all fields following Darwin Core format. A full summary of these fields is given in Online-only Table 3.
    Georeferencing
    Locality descriptions were converted to geographic co-ordinates using a wide range of atlases and gazetteers, co-ordinates generally only being assigned if accurate to one degree (although in the majority of cases the locations were accurate to within 30 minutes, Table 3). We would initially search for a locality within the gazetteers available to us at the time. If the locality was not listed within those gazetteers we would search for the locality using atlases. Since this fieldwork was conducted, MaNIS standards have become widely used for studies of this kind, but these weren’t fully developed at the time of data collection25. Named places, e.g. towns or counties, were georeferenced using their geographic centre and georeferencing uncertainty measured from the centre to the edge of the named place. Often localities were given simply as the name of a river, mountain or Protected Area. In these instances we used the midpoint of the river between source and mouth (uncertainty measured as distance from midpoint to source/mouth), the summit of the mountain (uncertainty measured as distance from summit to approximate mountain foot) and the rough centre of the Protected Area (uncertainty measured as distance from centre to Protected Area edge). If a particular locality description matched two or more places their midpoint was taken (uncertainty measured as distance from midpoint to place). Offsets from localities (e.g. “50 km N of Kuala Lumpur”; “8 miles along the road from Sheffield to Chesterfield”) were measured using a digital atlas (uncertainty was approximated at the georeferencer’s discretion in these instances, usually between 3 and 10 arc-minutes, depending on the vagueness of the offset.) For georeferencing done ‘in house’, the gazeteer/atlas used was recorded.
    Table 3 Georeference and date completeness of the records.
    Full size table

    When possible, localities we could not georeference ourselves were sent to regional experts.
    92% of our localities are georeferenced to an accuracy of 30 minutes, corresponding to 82% of occurrence records (see Table 3).
    We had less success at georeferencing museum records than literature records15, due in part to difficulties in reading hand-writing on specimen labels. Older records were also harder to georeference, presumably due to changes in place names over time, and to some early ornithologists failing to document the collection locality. As might be expected, localities from countries that do not use the Roman alphabet were also harder to georeference.
    Some records were excluded from the database based on their locality: records which we thought were trading localities, notably Malacca in Malaysia and Leadenhall Market in the UK; records from captive specimens, e.g. zoological gardens.
    Dating
    49% of records are dated to within an accuracy of one year. Where possible, we assigned date ranges to undated records. For example, if the name of the collector was given on a museum specimen and we knew when that collector was active in that region, we assigned a date range covering that period. There remain undated records which could perhaps be dated in this way. Undated literature records were designated as occurring before their publication date. We were able to date 89% of records to within 10 years. More

  • in

    Author Correction: Soil carbon loss by experimental warming in a tropical forest

    Affiliations

    School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
    Andrew T. Nottingham & Patrick Meir

    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama
    Andrew T. Nottingham, Esther Velasquez & Benjamin L. Turner

    Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Patrick Meir

    Authors
    Andrew T. Nottingham

    Patrick Meir

    Esther Velasquez

    Benjamin L. Turner

    Corresponding author
    Correspondence to Andrew T. Nottingham. More

  • in

    Individual species provide multifaceted contributions to the stability of ecosystems

    1.
    Worm, B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790 (2006).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Naeem, S., Duffy, J. E. & Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 336, 1401–1406 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13596–13602 (2020).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Lefcheck, J. S. et al. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6, 6936 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Donohue, I. et al. On the dimensionality of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 16, 421–429 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Macdougall, A. S., McCann, K. S., Gellner, G. & Turkington, R. Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse. Nature 494, 86–89 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Isbell, F. et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526, 574–577 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Kéfi, S. et al. Advancing our understanding of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1349–1356 (2019).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Donohue, I. et al. Loss of predator species, not intermediate consumers, triggers rapid and dramatic extinction cascades. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2962–2972 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Sanders, D., Thébault, E., Kehoe, R. & Frank van Veen, F. J. Trophic redundancy reduces vulnerability to extinction cascades. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2419–2424 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    15.
    O’Connor, N. E., Bracken, M. E., Crowe, T. P. & Donohue, I. Nutrient enrichment alters the consequences of species loss. J. Ecol. 103, 862–870 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    O’Connor, N. E. & Donohue, I. Environmental context determines multi-trophic effects of consumer species loss. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 431–440 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    O’Connor, N. E. & Crowe, T. P. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem functioning: distinguishing between number and identity of species. Ecology 86, 1783–1796 (2005).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448, 188–190 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    O’Gorman, E. J. & Emmerson, M. C. Perturbations to trophic interactions and the stability of complex food webs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 13393–13398 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    22.
    May, R. M. Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238, 413–414 (1972).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    23.
    May, R. M. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems (Princeton Univ. Press, 1973).

    24.
    McCann, K. S. The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Ives, A. R. & Carpenter, S. R. Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317, 58–62 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Allesina, S. & Tang, S. Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483, 205–208 (2012).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Pennekamp, F. et al. Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability. Nature 563, 109–112 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Paine, R. T. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100, 65–75 (1966).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Terborgh, J. et al. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294, 1923–1927 (2001).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Díaz, S., Symstad, A. J., Chapin, F. S., Wardle, D. A. & Huenneke, L. F. Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 140–146 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Borrvall, C. & Ebenman, B. Early onset of secondary extinctions in ecological communities following the loss of top predators. Ecol. Lett. 9, 435–442 (2006).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Petchey, O. L., Eklöf, A., Borrvall, C. & Ebenman, B. Trophically unique species are vulnerable to cascading extinction. Am. Nat. 171, 568–579 (2008).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Kardol, P., Fanin, N. & Wardle, D. A. Long-term effects of species loss on community properties across contrasting ecosystems. Nature 557, 710–713 (2018).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Donohue, I. et al. Navigating the complexity of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1172–1185 (2016).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Pimm, S. L. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307, 321–326 (1984).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    de Mazancourt, C. et al. Predicting ecosystem stability from community composition and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 16, 617–625 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Neubert, M. & Caswell, H. Alternatives to resilience for measuring the responses of ecological systems to perturbations. Ecology 78, 653–665 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Arnoldi, J. F., Loreau, M. & Haegeman, B. Resilience, reactivity and variability: a mathematical comparison of ecological stability measures. J. Theor. Biol. 389, 47–59 (2016).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Naeem, S. Advancing realism in biodiversity research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 414–416 (2008).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Mrowicki, R. J., Maggs, C. A. & O’Connor, N. E. Consistent effects of consumer species loss across different habitats. Oikos 124, 1555–1563 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Hillebrand, H. et al. Decomposing multiple dimensions of stability in global change experiments. Ecol. Lett. 21, 21–30 (2018).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Hillebrand, H. & Kunze, C. Meta-analysis on pulse disturbances reveals differences in functional and compositional recovery across ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 23, 575–585 (2020).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Hoover, D. L., Knapp, A. K. & Smith, M. D. Resistance and resilience of a grassland ecosystem to climate extremes. Ecology 95, 2646–2656 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Johns, K. A., Osborne, K. O. & Logan, M. Contrasting rates of coral recovery and reassembly in coral communities on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 33, 553–563 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Gülzow, N., Muijsers, F., Ptacnik, R. & Hillebrand, H. Functional and structural stability are linked in phytoplankton metacommunities of different connectivity. Ecography 40, 719–732 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Garnier, A., Pennekamp, F., Lemoine, M. & Petchey, O. L. Temporal scale dependent interactions between multiple environmental disturbances in microcosm ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5237–5248 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Yang, Q., Fowler, M. S., Jackson, A. L. & Donohue, I. The predictability of ecological stability in a noisy world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 251–259 (2019).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Pimm, S. L., Donohue, I., Montoya, J. M. & Loreau, M. Measuring resilience is essential to understand it. Nat. Sustain. 2, 895–897 (2019).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Mrowicki, R. J., O’Connor, N. E. & Donohue, I. Temporal variability of a single population can determine the vulnerability of communities to perturbations. J. Ecol. 104, 887–897 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Griffin, J. N. et al. Spatial heterogeneity increases the importance of species richness for an ecosystem process. Oikos 118, 1335–1342 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Emmerson, M. C., Solan, M., Emes, C., Paterson, D. M. & Raffaelli, D. Consistent patterns and the idiosyncstatic effects of biodiversity in marine ecosystems. Nature 411, 73–77 (2001).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Baert, J. M., Eisenhauer, N., Janssen, C. R. & de Laender, F. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning respond unimodally to environmental stress. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1191–1199 (2018).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Vye, S., Dick, J. T. A., Emmerson, M. C. & O’Connor, N. E. Cumulative effects of an invasive species and nutrient enrichment on rock pool communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 594, 39–50 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    56.
    Thiébaut, E. et al. Changes in a benthic system exposed to multiple stressors: a 40-year time-series in the English Channel. PeerJ Prepr. 6, e26745v1 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Houbin, C., Thiébaut, E. & Hoebeke, M. Study of specific diversity of macrobenthic communities in the ‘Pierre Noire’ site: Dataset/Sampling event (Station Biologique de Roscoff – Sorbonne Université-CNRS, 2018); https://doi.org/10.21411/kfms-pq29

    58.
    O’Connor, N. E., Donohue, I., Crowe, T. P. & Emmerson, M. C. Importance of consumers on exposed and sheltered rocky shores. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 443, 65–75 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    O’Connor, N. E., Emmerson, M. C., Crowe, T. P. & Donohue, I. Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of predators in complex ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 438–448 (2013).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    60.
    Byrnes, J. E. & Stachowicz, J. J. The consequences of consumer diversity loss: different answers from different experimental designs. Ecology 90, 2879–2888 (2009).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Firth, L. B. & Crowe, T. P. Competition and habitat suitability: small-scale segregation underpins large-scale coexistence of key species on temperate rocky shores. Oecologia 162, 163–174 (2010).
    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Crowe, T. P. et al. Large-scale variation in combined impacts of canopy loss and disturbance on community structure and ecosystem functioning. PLoS ONE 8, e66238 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    63.
    Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Tamburello, L., Maggi, E. & Bulleri, F. Experimental perturbations modify the performance of early warning indicators of regime shift. Curr. Biol. 25, 1867–1872 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Griffin, J. N. et al. Consumer effects on ecosystem functioning in rock pools: roles of species richness and composition. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 420, 45–56 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Griffin, J. N., Méndez, V., Johnson, A. F., Jenkins, S. R. & Foggo, A. Functional diversity predicts overyielding effect of species combination on primary productivity. Oikos 118, 37–44 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    66.
    Anderson, M. J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 26, 32–46 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    67.
    McArdle, B. H. & Anderson, M. J. Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82, 290–297 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Clarke, K. R. Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    69.
    White, L., O’Connor, N., Yang, Q., Emmerson, M. & Donohue, I. Individual species provide multifaceted contributions to the stability of ecosystems_Dataset (Version 1). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3974299 (2020).

    70.
    Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Whittaker, F. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21, 213–251 (1972).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Lande, R. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76, 5–13 (1996).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Olden, J. D., Poff, N. L. R., Douglas, M. R., Douglas, M. E. & Fausch, K. D. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 18–24 (2004).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    France, K. E. & Duffy, J. E. Diversity and dispersal interactively affect predictability of ecosystem function. Nature 441, 1139–1143 (2006).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    75.
    Wang, S. et al. An invariability-area relationship sheds new light on the spatial scaling of ecological stability. Nat. Commun. 8, 15211 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Wang, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability across scales in metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 19, 510–518 (2016).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    77.
    Gravel, D., Massol, F. & Leibold, M. A. Stability and complexity in model meta-ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 12457 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science

    1.
    IPBES Summary for Policymakers. In Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).
    2.
    Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A. M., Sutton-Grier, A. & Lubchenco, J. Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7383–7389 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1 (2019).

    4.
    Olander, L. et al. So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 170–182 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Polasky, S., Tallis, H. & Reyers, B. Setting the bar: standards for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406490112 (2015).

    6.
    Rieb, J. et al. When, where and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Natural Capital Protocol (Natural Capital Coalition, 2016).

    8.
    Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. Green Growth that Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from the World (Island Press, 2019).

    9.
    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

    10.
    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Arkema, K. K. et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Van Wensem, J. et al. Identifying and assessing the application of ecosystem services approaches in environmental policies and decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13, 41–51 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Ricketts, T. H. & Lonsdorf, E. Mapping the margin: comparing marginal values of tropical forest remnants for pollination services. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1113–1123 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Mandle, L., Tallis, H., Sotomayor, L. & Vogl, A. L. Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 309–315 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E. J., Satterfield, T. & Chan, K. M. A. Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: the fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecol. Econ. 121, 175–180 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Polasky, S. & Segerson, K. Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1, 409–434 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Keeler, B. L. et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18619–18624 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    Vogl, A. L. et al. Valuing investments in sustainable land management in the Upper Tana River basin, Kenya. J. Environ. Manag. 195, 78–91 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Arkema, K., Guannel, G. & Verutes, G. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 913–918 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Plummer, M. L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 38–45 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Tallis, H., Polasky, S., Lozano, J. S. & Wolny, S. in Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability 195–214 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

    22.
    Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).

    23.
    Granek, E. F. et al. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv. Biol. 24, 207–216 (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Ruckelshaus, M. et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009 (2013).

    25.
    Ellis, A. M., Myers, S. S. & Ricketts, T. H. Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health? PLoS ONE 10, e114805 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Hughes, T. P. Navigating the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9489–9494 (2008).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    28.
    SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision (System of Environmental Economic Accounting, 2020); https://go.nature.com/2sqGqFn

    29.
    Aburto-Oropeza, O. et al. Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105 (2008).

    30.
    Keeler, B. L. et al. The social costs of nitrogen. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600219 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Kenter, J. O. et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 111, 86–99 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Samberg, L. H., Gerber, J. S., Ramankutty, N., Herrero, M. & West, P. C. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124010 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Jean, N. et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353, 790–794 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E. & Verburg, P. H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 55, 159–171 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Dawson, N. & Martin, A. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: a disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 117, 62–72 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. & Pomeroy, R. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Ruhl, J. B. & Salzman, J. The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. Natl Wetl. Newsl. 28, 7–13 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    39.
    Kabisch, N. & Haase, D. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Farley, K. A. & Bremer, L. L. ‘Water Is Life’: local perceptions of páramo grasslands and land management strategies associated with payment for ecosystem services. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 371–381 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Mastrangelo, M. E. & Laterra, P. From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol. Soc. 20, 20 (2015).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7348–7355 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Rieb, J. T. et al. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W. & Portela, R. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e91001 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (Island Press, 2003).

    48.
    Fleiss, J. L. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76, 378–382 (1971).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I. & Singh, P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement (2012).

    50.
    Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Tallis, H. et al. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62, 977–986 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Size-specific recolonization success by coral-dwelling damselfishes moderates resilience to habitat loss

    1.
    Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515 (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Nee, S. & May, R. M. Dynamics of metapopulations: Habitat destruction and competitive coexistence. J. Anim. Ecol. 1, 37–40 (1992).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Petit, S., Moilanen, A., Hanski, I. & Baguette, M. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: Movements between habitat patches. Oikos 292, 491–500 (2001).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Munday, P. L. Does habitat availability determine geographical-scale abundances of coral-dwelling fishes?. Coral Reefs 21, 105–116 (2002).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Wong, M. Y., Fauvelot, C., Planes, S. & Buston, P. M. Discrete and continuous reproductive tactics in a hermaphroditic society. Anim. Behav. 84, 897–906 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Chase, T. J., Pratchett, M. S., Walker, S. P. & Hoogenboom, M. O. Small-scale environmental variation influences whether coral-dwelling fish promote or impede coral growth. Oecologia 176, 1009–1022 (2014).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Kuwamura, T., Yogo, Y. & Nakashima, Y. Population dynamics of goby Paragobiodon echinocephalus and host coral Stylophora pistillata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 6, 17–23 (1994).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Holbrook, S. J., Forrester, G. E. & Schmitt, R. J. Spatial patterns in abundance of a damselfish reflect availability of suitable habitat. Oecologia 122, 109–120 (2000).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Boström-Einarsson, L., Bonin, M. C., Munday, P. L. & Jones, G. P. Strong intraspecific competition and habitat selectivity influence abundance of a coral-dwelling damselfish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 448, 85–92 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Munday, P. L. Habitat loss, resource specialization, and extinction on coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1642–1647 (2004).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Wilson, S. K. et al. Habitat utilization by coral reef fish: Implications for specialists vs. generalists in a changing environment. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 220–228 (2008).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Emslie, M. J., Cheal, A. J. & Johns, K. A. Retention of habitat complexity minimizes disassembly of reef fish communities following disturbance: A large-scale natural experiment. PLoS ONE 9, e105384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384 (2014).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Bellwood, D. R. et al. Coral recovery may not herald the return of fishes on damaged coral reefs. Oecologia 170, 567–573 (2012).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Pratchett, M. S., Coker, D. J., Jones, G. P. & Munday, P. L. Specialization in habitat use by coral reef damselfishes and their susceptibility to habitat loss. Ecol. Evol. 2, 2168–2180 (2012).
    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Ortiz, J. C. et al. Impaired recovery of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative stress. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar6127. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar6127 (2018).
    ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    17.
    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 

    18.
    Gilmour, J. P. et al. The state of Western Australia’s coral reefs. Coral Reefs 38, 651–667 (2019).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Pisapia, C., Burn, D. & Pratchett, M. S. Changes in the population and community structure of corals during recent disturbances (February 2016–October 2017) on Maldivian coral reefs. Sci. Rep. 9, 8402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44809-9 (2019).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Bruno, J. F. & Valdivia, A. Coral reef degradation is not correlated with local human population density. Sci. Rep. 6, 29778. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29778 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    22.
    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  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Bruno, J. F. & Selig, E. R. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2, e711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000711 (2017).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Kayal, M. et al. Predator crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreak, mass mortality of corals, and cascading effects on reef fish and benthic communities. PLoS ONE 7, e47363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047363 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Mellin, C. et al. Spatial resilience of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative disturbance impacts. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2431–2445 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    26.
    Chesher, R. H. Destruction of Pacific corals by sea star Acanthaster planci. Science 165, 280–283 (1969).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Pratchett, M. S., Schenk, T. J., Baine, M., Syms, C. & Baird, A. H. Selective coral mortality associated with outbreaks of Acanthaster planci L. in Bootless Bay, Papua New Guinea. Mar. Environ. Res. 67, 230–236 (2009).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Kayal, M., Lenihan, H. S., Pau, C., Penin, L. & Adjeroud, M. Associational refuges among corals mediate impacts of a crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci outbreak. Coral Reefs 30, 827–837 (2011).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Pratchett, M. S., Caballes, C. F., Rivera-Posada, J. A. & Sweatman, H. P. A. Limits to understanding and managing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns stafish (Acanthaster spp.). Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 52, 133–199 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Glynn, P. W. Some ecological consequences of coral-crustacean guard mutualisms in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Symbiosis 4, 301–323 (1987).
    Google Scholar 

    31.
    Pratchett, M. S. Influence of coral symbionts on feeding preferences of crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci in the western Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 214, 111–119 (2001).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    McKeon, C. S., Stier, A. C., McIlroy, S. E. & Bolker, B. M. Multiple defender effects: Synergistic coral defense by mutualist crustaceans. Oecologia 169, 1095–1103 (2012).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Weber, J. N. & Woodhead, P. M. Ecological studies of coral predator Acanthaster planci in South Pacific. Mar. Biol. 6, 12–17 (1970).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Birkeland, C. & Lucas, J. S. Acanthaster planci: Major Management Problem of Coral Reefs (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1990).
    Google Scholar 

    35.
    Lassig, B. R. Communication and coexistence in a coral community. Mar. Biol. 42, 85–92 (1977).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Cowan, Z. L., Dworjanyn, S. A., Caballes, C. F. & Pratchett, M. S. Predation on crown-of-thorns starfish larvae by damselfishes. Coral Reefs 35, 1253–1262 (2016).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Cowan, Z. L., Ling, S. D., Caballes, C. F., Dworjanyn, S. A. & Pratchett, M. S. Crown-of-thorns starfish larvae are vulnerable to predation even in the presence of alternative prey. Coral Reefs 39, 293–303 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Bonin, M. C. Specializing on vulnerable habitat: Acropora selectivity among damselfish recruits and the risk of bleaching-induced habitat loss. Coral Reefs 31, 287–297 (2012).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Wilson, S. K., Graham, N. A. J., Pratchett, M. S., Jones, G. P. & Polunin, N. V. C. Multiple disturbances and the global degradation of coral reefs: Are reef fishes at risk or resilient?. Global Change Biol. 12, 2220–2234 (2006).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Pratchett, M. S. et al. Effects of climate-induced coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes—Ecological and economic consequences. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 46, 257–302 (2008).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Pratchett, M. S., Thompson, C. A., Hoey, A. S., Cowman, P. F. & Wilson, S. K. Effects of coral bleaching and coral loss on the structure and function of reef fish assemblages. In Coral Bleaching (eds. van Oppen, M. J. & Lough, J. M.) 265–293 (Springer, Berlin, 2018).

    42.
    Bernal, M. A. et al. Species-specific molecular responses of wild coral reef fishes during a marine heatwave. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay3423. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3423 (2020).
    ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Magel, J. M., Dimoff, S. A. & Baum, J. K. Direct and indirect effects of climate change-amplified pulse heat stress events on coral reef fish communities. Ecol. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2124 (2020).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Booth, D. J. Opposing climate-change impacts on poleward-shifting coral-reef fishes. Coral Reefs 39, 577–581 (2020).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Coker, D. J., Walker, S. P., Munday, P. L. & Pratchett, M. S. Social group entry rules may limit population resilience to patchy habitat disturbance. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 493, 237–242 (2013).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Thompson, C. A., Matthews, S., Hoey, A. S. & Pratchett, M. S. Changes in sociality of butterflyfishes linked to population declines and coral loss. Coral Reefs 38, 527–537 (2019).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Sano, M., Shimizu, M. & Nose, Y. Long-term effects of destruction of hermatypic corals by Acanthaster planci infestation on reef fish communities at Iriomote Island, Japan. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37, 191–199 (1987).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Jones, G. P., McCormick, M. I., Srinivasan, M. & Eagle, J. V. Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8251–8253 (2004).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Feary, D. A., Almany, G. R., McCormick, M. I. & Jones, G. P. Habitat choice, recruitment and the response of coral reef fishes to coral degradation. Oecologia 153, 727–737 (2007).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    50.
    McCormick, M. I. Lethal effects of habitat degradation on fishes through changing competitive advantage. Proc. R. Soc. B. 279, 3899–3904 (2012).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Coker, D. J., Pratchett, M. S. & Munday, P. L. Coral bleaching and habitat degradation increase susceptibility to predation for coral-dwelling fishes. Behav. Ecol. 20, 1204–1210 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    52.
    Coker, D. J., Wilson, S. K. & Pratchett, M. S. of live coral habitat for reef fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 24, 89–126 (2014).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Pratchett, M. S., Hoey, A. S., Wilson, S. K., Hobbs, J. P. & Allen, G. R. Habitat-use and specialisation among coral reef damselfishes. In Biology of Damselfishes (ed. Frederich, B. & Parmentier, E.) 84–121 (Taylor & Francis, London, 2016).

    54.
    Sale, P. F. Extremely limited home range in a coral reef fish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Copeia 1971, 324–327 (1971).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    55.
    Robertson, D. R. & Lassig, B. Spatial distribution patterns and coexistence of a group of territorial damselfishes from the Great Barrier Reef. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30, 187–203 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    D’Agostino, D. et al. The influence of thermal extremes on coral reef fish behaviour in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Coral Reefs 39, 733–744 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    57.
    Adam, T. C. et al. How will coral reef fish communities respond to climate-driven disturbances? Insight from landscape-scale perturbations. Oecologia 176, 285–296 (2014).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    58.
    Coker, D. J., Pratchett, M. S. & Munday, P. L. Influence of coral bleaching, coral mortality and conspecific aggression on movement and distribution of coral-dwelling fish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 414, 62–68 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    59.
    Chase, T. J., Pratchett, M. S., Frank, G. E. & Hoogenboom, M. O. Coral-dwelling fish moderate bleaching susceptibility of coral hosts. PLoS ONE 13, e0208545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208545 (2018).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    60.
    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. 50, 1487–1498 (2019).
    ADS  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

    61.
    Wilson, S. K. et al. Maintenance of fish diversity on disturbed coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 3–14 (2009).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    62.
    Wilson, S. K., Robinson, J. P., Chong-Seng, K., Robinson, J. & Graham, N. A. Boom and bust of keystone structure on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 38, 625–635 (2019).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    63.
    Schmidt-Roach, S. et al. Assessing hidden species diversity in the coral Pocillopora damicornis from Eastern Australia. Coral Reefs 32, 161–172 (2013).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    64.
    Booth, D. J. & Beretta, G. A. Changes in a fish assemblage after a coral bleaching event. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 245, 205–212 (2002).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    65.
    Sano, M., Shimizu, M. & Nose, Y. Changes in structure of coral reef fish communities by destruction of hermatypic corals: Observational and experimental views. Pac. Sci. 38, 51–79 (1984).
    Google Scholar 

    66.
    Bonin, M. C., Munday, P. L., McCormick, M. I., Srinivasan, M. & Jones, G. P. Coral-dwelling fishes resistant to bleaching but not to mortality of host corals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 394, 215–222 (2009).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    67.
    Paddack, M. J. et al. Recent region-wide declines in Caribbean reef fish abundance. Curr. Biol. 19, 590–595 (2009).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    68.
    Booth, D. J. Larval settlement patterns and preferences by domino damselfish Dascyllus albisella Gill. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 155, 85–104 (1992).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    69.
    Sweatman, H. P. A. The influence of adults of some coral reef fishes on larval recruitment. Ecol. Monogr. 55, 469–485 (1985).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Karplus, I., Katzenstein, R. & Goren, M. Predator recognition and social facilitation of predator avoidance in coral reef fish Dascyllus marginatus juveniles. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 319, 215–223 (2006).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Forrester, G. E. Social rank, individual size and group composition as determinants of food consumption by humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus. Anim. Behav. 42, 701–711 (1991).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Holbrook, S. J., Brooks, A. J., Schmitt, R. J. & Stewart, H. L. Effects of sheltering fish on growth of their host corals. Mar. Biol. 155, 521–530 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    73.
    Noonan, S. H., Jones, G. P. & Pratchett, M. S. Coral size, health and structural complexity: Effects on the ecology of a coral reef damselfish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 456, 127–137 (2012).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    74.
    Holbrook, S. J. & Schmitt, R. J. Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83, 2855–2868 (2002).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    75.
    Turgeon, K. & Kramer, D. L. Immigration rates during population density reduction in a coral reef fish. PLoS ONE 11, e0156417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156417 (2016).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    76.
    Shpigel, M. & Fishelson, L. Behavior and physiology of coexistence in 2 species of Dascyllus (Pomacentridae, Teleostei). Environ. Biol. Fish. 17, 253–265 (1986).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    77.
    Wong, M. Y., Buston, P. M., Munday, P. L. & Jones, G. P. The threat of punishment enforces peaceful cooperation and stabilizes queues in a coral-reef fish. Proc. R. Soc. B. 274, 1093–1099 (2007).
    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    78.
    Hixon, M. A. & Carr, M. H. Synergistic predation, density dependence, and population regulation in marine fish. Science 277, 946–949 (1997).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    79.
    Almany, G. R. Differential effects of habitat complexity, predators and competitors on abundance of juvenile and adult coral reef fishes. Oecologia 141, 105–113 (2004).
    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    80.
    Wilson, S. K. et al. Influence of nursery microhabitats on the future abundance of a coral reef fish. Proc. R. Soc. B. 283, 20160903. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0903 (2016).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    81.
    Graham, N. A. J., McClanahan, T. R., MacNeil, M. A., Wilson, S. K. & Polunin, N. V. C. Climate warming, marine protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coral reef ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3, e3039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003039 (2008).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    82.
    Hing, M. L., Klanten, O. S., Dowton, M., Brown, K. R. & Wong, M. Y. Repeated cyclone events reveal potential causes of sociality in coral-dwelling Gobiodon fishes. PLoS ONE 13, e0202407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202407 (2018).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    83.
    Hughes, et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    84.
    Emslie, M. J., Pratchett, M. S. & Cheal, A. J. Effects of different disturbance types on butterflyfish communities of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 30, 461–471 (2011).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    85.
    Buchanan, J. R. et al. Living on the edge: Vulnerability of coral-dependent fishes in the Gulf. Mar. Poll. Bull. 105, 480–488 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    86.
    Pratchett, M. S. Dynamics of an outbreak population of Acanthaster planci at Lizard Island, northern Great Barrier Reef (1995–1999). Coral Reefs 24, 453–462 (2005).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    87.
    Pratchett, M. S. 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 

    88.
    Manly, B. F., McDonald, L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L. & Erickson, W. P. Resource selection by animals (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2010).
    Google Scholar 

    89.
    Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme (2020).

    90.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org (2016). More

  • in

    Using machine learning to understand the implications of meteorological conditions for fish kills

    1.
    Burkholder, J. M., Mallin, M. A. & Glasgow, J. H. B. Fish kills, bottom-water hypoxia, and the toxic Pfiesteria complex in the Neuse River and Estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 179, 301–310. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps179301 (1999).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Ochumba, P. B. O. Massive fish kills within the Nyanza Gulf of Lake Victoria, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 208, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008448 (1990).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Thronson, A. & Quigg, A. Fifty-five years of fish kills in Coastal Texas. Estuaries Coasts 31, 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9056-5 (2008).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Wang, C. H., Hsu, C. C., Tzeng, W. N., You, C. F. & Chang, C. W. Origin of the mass mortality of the flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) in the Tanshui River, northern Taiwan, as indicated by otolith elemental signatures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1809–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.011 (2011).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Yñiguez, A. T. & Ottong, Z. J. Predicting fish kills and toxic blooms in an intensive mariculture site in the Philippines using a machine learning model. Sci. Total Environ. 707, 136173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136173 (2020).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    La, V. T. & Cooke, S. J. Advancing the Science and Practice of Fish Kill Investigations. Rev. Fish. Sci. 19, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2010.531793 (2011).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Epaphras, A. M., Gereta, E., Lejora, I. A. & Mtahiko, M. G. G. The importance of shading by riparian vegetation and wetlands in fish survival in stagnant water holes, Great Ruaha River, Tanzania. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 15, 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-007-9033-y (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Peña, M. A., Katsev, S., Oguz, T. & Gilbert, D. Modeling dissolved oxygen dynamics and hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7, 933–957. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-933-2010 (2010).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Ekau, W., Auel, H., Pörtner, H. O. & Gilbert, D. Impacts of hypoxia on the structure and processes in pelagic communities (zooplankton, macro-invertebrates and fish). Biogeosciences 7, 1669–1699. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1669-2010 (2010).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Levin, L. A. et al. Effects of natural and human-induced hypoxia on coastal benthos. Biogeosciences 6, 2063–2098. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-2063-2009 (2009).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Tyler, R. M., Brady, D. C. & Targett, T. E. Temporal and spatial dynamics of diel-cycling hypoxia in estuarine tributaries. Estuaries Coasts 32, 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9108-x (2009).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Townsend, S. A. & Edwards, C. A. A fish kill event, hypoxia and other limnological impacts associated with early wet season flow into a lake on the Mary River floodplain, tropical northern Australia. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 8, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1770.2003.00222.x (2003).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Evans, M. A. & Scavia, D. Forecasting hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico: model accuracy, precision, and sensitivity to ecosystem change. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/015001 (2011).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Yang, C. P., Lung, W. S., Liu, J. H. & Hsiao, W. P. Establishment and application of water quality model of hypoxic stream. J. Taiwan Agric. Eng. 55, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.29974/JTAE.200903.0004 (2009).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    15.
    Nelson, N. G., Muñoz-Carpena, R., Neale, P. J., Tzortziou, M. & Megonigal, J. P. Temporal variability in the importance of hydrologic, biotic, and climatic descriptors of dissolved oxygen dynamics in a shallow tidal-marsh creek. Water Resour. Res. 53, 7103–7120. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr020196 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Ouellet, V., Mingelbier, M., Saint-Hilaire, A. & Morin, J. Frequency analysis as a tool for assessing adverse conditions during a massive fish kill in the St. Lawrence River, Canada. Water Qual. Res. J. 45, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2010.006 (2010).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Chin, D. A. Water-Quality Engineering in Natural Systems: Fate and Transport Processes in the Water Environment (Wiley, New York, 2013).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Carpenter, J. H. New measurements of oxygen solubility in pure and natural water. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11, 264–277. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1966.11.2.0264 (1966).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    19.
    Gameson, A. L. H. & Robertsonn, K. G. The solubility of oxygen in pure water and sea-water. J. Appl. Chem. 5, 502. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5010050909 (1955).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    20.
    Liss, P. S. Processes of gas exchange across an air-water interface. Deep-Sea Res. Oceanogr. Abstr. 20, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-7471(73)90013-2 (1973).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    21.
    Marino, R. & Howarth, R. W. Atmospheric oxygen exchange in the Hudson River. Estuaries 16, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/1352591 (1993).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Loucks, D. P. & van Beek, E. Water Resources Systems Planning and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models and Applications (UNESCO, Paris, 2005).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Lucas, M. C. & Baras, E. Methods for studying spatial behaviour of freshwater fishes in the natural environment. Fish Fish. 1, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2000.00028.x (2000).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    24.
    Roscoe, R. W. & Hinch, S. G. Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic patterns and future directions. Fish Fish. 11, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2009.00333.x (2010).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    Townsend, S. A., Boland, K. T. & Wrigley, T. J. Factors contributing to a fish kill in the Australian wet/dry tropics. Water Res. 26, 1039–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(92)90139-U (1992).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Cheng, S. T., Hwang, G. W., Chen, C. P., Hou, W. S. & Hsieh, H. L. An integrated modeling approach to evaluate the performance of an oxygen enhancement device in the Hwajiang wetland, Taiwan. Ecol. Eng. 42, 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.02.011 (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Nakamura, Y. & Stefan, H. G. Effect of flow velocity on sediment oxygen demand: theory. J. Environ. Eng. 120, 996–1016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1994)120:5(996) (1994).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    28.
    Welcomme, R. L. Fisheries Ecology of Floodplain Rivers (Longman, Harlow, 1979).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Hsu, H. H. & Chen, C. T. Observed and projected climate change in Taiwan. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 79, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s703-002-8230-x (2002).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    30.
    Yu, P. S., Yang, T. C. & Wu, C. K. Impact of climate change on water resources in southern Taiwan. J. Hydrol. 260, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00614-X (2002).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Huang, W. C., Chiang, Y., Wu, R. Y., Lee, J. L. & Lin, S. H. The impact of climate change on rainfall frequency in Taiwan. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2012.05.03.04(WMH) (2012).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    IPCC, Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report.Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (2014).

    33.
    Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field C.B. et al.) 109–230 (A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2012).

    34.
    Altieri, A. H. & Gedan, K. B. Climate change and dead zones. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1395–1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12754 (2015).
    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Kuo, C. W. & Lee, C. T. Trend analysis of water quality in the upper watershed of the Feitsui reservoir. J. Geogr. Sci. 38, 111–128 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Turner, R. E., Rabalais, N. N., Swenson, E. M., Kasprzak, M. & Romaire, T. Summer hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and its prediction from 1978 to 1995. Mar. Environ. Res. 59, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2003.09.002 (2005).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    37.
    Urbina, W. A. & Glover, C. N. Relationship between fish size and metabolic rate in the oxyconforming inanga Galaxias maculatus reveals size-dependent strategies to withstand hypoxia. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 86, 740–749. https://doi.org/10.1086/673727 (2013).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Brett, J. R. & Groves, T. D. D. Physiological energetics. In Fish Physiology (eds Hoar, W. S. et al.) 279–352 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1979).
    Google Scholar 

    39.
    Chang, C. W., Tzeng, W. N. & Lee, Y. C. Recruitment and hatching dates of grey-mullet (Mugil cephalus L.) juveniles in the Tanshui estuary of northwest Taiwan. Zool. Stud. 39, 99–106 (2000).
    Google Scholar 

    40.
    Young, J. L. et al. Integrating physiology and life history to improve fisheries management and conservation. Fish Fish. 7, 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00225.x (2006).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Hamilton, P. B. et al. Population-level consequences for wild fish exposed to sublethal concentrations of chemicals—a critical review. Fish Fish. 17, 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12125 (2016).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Cheng, S. T., Herricks, E. E., Tsai, W. P. & Chang, F. J. Assessing the natural and anthropogenic influences on basin-wide fish species richness. Sci. Total Environ. 572, 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.120 (2016).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Radinger, J. et al. Effective monitoring of freshwater fish. Fish Fish. 20, 729–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12373 (2019).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Junninen, H., Niska, H., Tuppurainen, K., Ruuskanen, J. & Kolehmainen, M. Methods for imputation of missing values in air quality data sets. Atmos. Environ. 38, 2895–2907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.026 (2004).
    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Cheng, S. T., Tsai, W. P., Yu, T. C., Herricks, E. E. & Chang, F. J. Signals of stream fish homogenization revealed by AI-based clusters. Sci. Rep. 8, 15960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34313-x (2018).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Kohonen, T. Essentials of the self-organizing map. Neural Netw. 37, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2012.09.018 (2013).
    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Kohonen, T. The self-organizing map. Proc. IEEE 78, 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.58325 (1990).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Kohonen, T. et al. Self organization of a massive document collection. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 11, 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1109/72.846729 (2000).
    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Tsai, W. P., Huang, S. P., Cheng, S. T., Shao, K. T. & Chang, F. J. A data-mining framework for exploring the multi-relation between fish species and water quality through self-organizing map. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.071 (2017).
    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Wehrens, R. & Buydens, L. M. C. Self- and super-organizing maps in R: the kohonen package. J. Stat. Softw. 21, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i05 (2007).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Kirt, T., Vainik, E. & Võhandu, L. A method for comparing self-organizing maps: case studies of banking and linguistic data. In Proceedings of Eleventh East-European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (eds Ioannidis, Y., Novikov, B. & Rachev, B.) 107–115 (Technical University of Varna, Levski, 2007).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    Kohonen, T. Self-Organizing Maps 3rd edn. (Springer, New York, 2001).
    Google Scholar 

    53.
    Kalteh, A. M., Hjorth, P. & Berndtsson, R. Review of the self-organizing map (SOM) approach in water resources: Analysis, modelling and application. Environ. Model. Softw. 23, 835–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.10.001 (2008).
    Article  Google Scholar  More