Ecology

Research areaThe YREB covers Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Hubei, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan. It includes the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomerations (YRDUA), Yangtze River midstream urban agglomeration (YRMUA), and Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration (CCUA). With a regional area of 2.05 million km2, the YREB runs through the eastern, central and western regions in China32. In 2019, the total GDP of YREB is 45.8 trillion yuan, accounting for 46.2% of the national GDP. The YREB plays a pivotal strategic support and leading role in the overall situation of stable economic growth in China33. At the same time, the contradiction between the shortage of land resources and economic growth in the YREB is very prominent. Therefore, this paper selects 107 cities in YREB as the research sample. The specific geographic locations are shown in Fig. 2. This article uses ARCGIS 10.2 version to draw the map. The URL link is http://demo.domain.com:6080/arcgis/services.Figure 2The geographic location of the YREB in China.Full size imageResearch methodsGlobal Malmquist–Luenberger indexUGLUE refers to the effective utilization degree of land elements under certain input of other elements. The green utilization of urban land mainly comes from three aspects: first, improve the utilization intensity of the existing actual input land, that is, increase the input intensity of other elements of the unit land area. Second, reduce the input of land in the production process to avoid excessive waste of land. Third, promote the optimal allocation of land elements among production units. Technical efficiency refers to the maximum degree that all factor inputs need to expand or shrink in equal proportion when all production units reach the production frontier. However, for production units with high technical efficiency, the factor allocation structure may not be reasonable. The land factors may still have the problem of under-input or over-input, resulting in the reduction of UGLUE.Pastor and Lovell34 proposed a global index, which uses all the inspection periods of each decision-making unit as a benchmark to construct the production frontier. According to the current benchmark construction period t, the production possibility set reference set is defined as follows:$$P_{C}^{t} (x^{t} ) = left{ {left. {(y^{t} ,b^{t} )} right|x^{t} {kern 1pt} can{kern 1pt} , produce{kern 1pt} , b^{t} ,y^{t} } right}$$
(1)
The global benchmark is defined as: (P_{G} = P_{C}^{1} , cup ,P_{C}^{2} , cup , cdots ,P_{C}^{t}), The subscripts C and G represent the current benchmark and the global benchmark respectively. The ML index of decision-making unit i is calculated based on the current reference benchmark:$$ML^{S} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} ,x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} ) = frac{{1 + D_{C}^{S} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} )}}{{1 + D_{C}^{S} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} )}}$$
(2)
Among them, the superscript S indicates two adjacent periods, t period and t + 1 period. The subscript C indicates the current benchmark, which is a simplified directional distance function. (ML^{s} > 1), indicates that the productivity increases. (ML^{s} < 1), indicates that the productivity decreases.According to Hofmann et al.35, the GMLI is defined as follows:$$GMLI^{t,t + 1} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} ,x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} ) = frac{{1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} )}}{{1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} )}}$$ (3) Among them, (D_{G}^{T} (x,y,b) = max left{ {alpha |(y - alpha y,b - alpha b) in P_{G} (x)} right}). (GMLI^{t,t + 1} > 1) indicates that the productivity has increased. (GMLI^{t,t + 1} < 1) indicates that the productivity decreases. The GMLI is further broken down as follows:$$begin{aligned} & GMLI^{t,t + 1} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} ,x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} ) = frac{{1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} )}}{{1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} )}} \ & quad = frac{{1 + D_{G}^{t} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} )}}{{1 + D_{G}^{t + 1} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} )}} times left[ {frac{{(1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} ))/(1 + D_{C}^{T} (x^{t} ,y^{t} ,b^{t} ))}}{{(1 + D_{G}^{T} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} ))/(1 + D_{C}^{T} (x^{t + 1} ,y^{t + 1} ,b^{t + 1} ))}}} right] \ & quad = frac{{TE^{t + 1} }}{{TE^{t} }} times left( {frac{{BPG_{t + 1}^{t + 1} }}{{BPG_{t}^{t + 1} }}} right) = EC_{t}^{t + 1} times BPC_{t}^{t + 1} \ end{aligned}$$ (4) Among them, TE is the change of technological progress. EC is the change of technological efficiency. The change of technological progress reflects the change of the highest technical level. The improvement of the highest technical level often requires the introduction and innovation of advanced technology, which often requires a large amount of investment. The change of technical efficiency reflects the gap with the highest technical level. Narrowing the gap with the highest technical level often requires improvements in internal management and governance structures. (BPG_{t}^{t + 1}) is the “best practitioner gap” between the current period and overall technological frontier. (BPC_{t}^{t + 1}) measures the changes in the “best practitioner gap” between two periods (technological changes). (BPC_{t}^{t + 1} , > , 1 ,) indicates technological progress. (BPC_{t}^{t + 1} < 1) indicates technology regress.Econometric techniques of industrial agglomeration on UGLUEIn recent years, many scholars used the traditional SPM for empirical analysis, which is a basic measurement model suitable for panel data. Therefore, this article firstly uses the traditional SPM to analyze the impact of industrial agglomeration on UGLUE. The formula is:$$begin{aligned} ln UGLUE_{it} & = alpha_{0} + alpha_{1} ln RZI_{it} + alpha_{2} ln RZI_{it} *ln RZI_{it} + alpha_{3} ln RDI_{it} + alpha_{4} ln EC_{it} \ & quad + alpha_{5} ln GDP_{it} + alpha_{6} ln TEC_{it} + alpha_{7} ln ROAD_{it} + alpha_{8} ln GOV_{it} + varepsilon_{it} \ end{aligned}$$ (5) Among them, ε is the disturbance term. i represents the city, i in this paper involves 107 cities in YREB. t represents the time, and the range of t in this paper is from 2007 to 2016. UGLUE is the explained variable, which represents the UGLUE. RZI and RDI are explanatory variables, representing industrial specialization agglomeration and industrial diversification agglomeration. EC is the industrial structure. GDP is the level of economic development. TEC is the level of technology. ROAD is the level of infrastructure. GOV is the degree of government intervention. (alpha_{1}) to (alpha_{8}) is the coefficient of each variable.Formula (5) assumes that the UGLUE changes with the changes of various influencing factors in the current period. That is, there is no time lag effect. But in reality, land use often has a time lag effect. The previous level has a non-negligible impact on the current results. Therefore, this paper selects the dynamic panel model for empirical analysis. However, there is often a two-way causal relationship between industrial agglomeration and UGLUE, which may cause endogenous bias. For example, cities with higher UGLUE levels tend to have higher levels of economic development, which promotes industrial agglomeration in this city. Therefore, this paper adopts the method of system GMM for regression analysis of dynamic panel model. Compared with mixed OLS, system GMM can make full use of sample information, select appropriate lag terms as instrumental variables36. It can effectively solve the endogeneity problem between industrial agglomeration and UGLUE. Based on the above analysis, this paper introduces the first-order lag term of UGLUE on the basis of formula (5). The DPM is as follows:$$begin{aligned} ln UGLUE_{it} & = beta_{0} + tau ln UGLUE_{i(t - 1)} + beta_{1} ln RZI_{it} + beta_{2} ln RZI_{it} times ln RZI_{it} + beta_{3} ln RDI_{it} \ & quad + beta_{4} ln EC_{it} + beta_{5} ln GDP_{it} + beta_{6} ln TEC_{it} + beta_{7} ln ROAD_{it} + beta_{8} ln GOV_{it} + varepsilon_{{{text{it}}}} \ end{aligned}$$ (6) Among them, (tau) is the first-order lag coefficient of UGLUE, reflecting the time lag effect of UGLUE.Variable descriptionExplained variableThe GMLI is used to measure the UGLUE of 107 cities in YREB. According to existing research37, the following core evaluation index of UGLUE are selected (see Table 1). Regarding input indicators, we mainly choose land element input M, labor element input L, and capital element input K as input indicators. Regarding output indicators, we choose the added value of the secondary and tertiary industries in the municipal area as the expected output, and use the GDP deflator to convert it into a comparable value. At the same time, pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater emissions, industrial sulfur dioxide emissions, and industrial smoke (dust) emissions are selected as undesired output. Since the GMLI reflects the growth rate of UGLUE, this paper assumes that the GMLI in 2006 is 1, and then multiplies the calculated GMLI year by year to obtain the development level of UGLUE in each city from 2007 to 2016.Table 1 Input and output index.Full size tableExplanatory variablesIndustrial specialization index ZI is usually used to measure the specialization level of urban industries. The specialization index is represented by the share of the employment of the industry in the total employment of the city:$$ZI_{i} = Max_{j} (S_{ij} )$$ (7) Nextly, we use the relative specialization index to make a horizontal comparison of the specialization level between different cities:$$RZI_{i} = Max(S_{ij} /S_{j} )$$ (8) The most common measure of the level of industrial diversification is the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI). For city i, the HHI is the sum of the square sum of employment shares of all industries in the city. The diversification index is the reciprocal of the HHI:$$DZ_{i} = frac{1}{{sumlimits_{j} {S_{ij}^{2} } }}$$ (9) The expression of relative diversification index is as follows:$$RDI_{i} = {1 mathord{left/ {vphantom {1 {sumlimits_{j} {left| {S_{ij} - S_{j} } right|} }}} right. kern-0pt} {sumlimits_{j} {left| {S_{ij} - S_{j} } right|} }}$$ (10) Among them, Sij is the employment proportion of j industry in city i, and Sj is the proportion of the total employment of the national j industry. The greater value of RZI and RDI, the higher level of industrial specialization and diversification.Control variablesRegarding control variables, we choose the following variables as control variables.Industrial structure (EC): The continuous optimization of industrial structure promotes the improvement of UGLUE through three aspects: saving land, increasing land income and promoting the optimal allocation of land resources. This paper selects the added value of the tertiary industry as a percentage of GDP (take the logarithm) to express.Technological level (TEC): The higher the technological innovation level of a city is, the more it promotes the use of input elements and the transformation of innovation results, thereby improving the UGLUE. This paper selects the proportion of science and technology expenditure to fiscal expenditure (take the logarithm) to represent.Economic development level (GDP): The continuous economic development promote the rational allocation of various production factors and increase the level of urban land output, thereby improving the UGLUE. This paper selects GDP per capita (take the logarithm) to express.Road infrastructure level (ROAD): The continuous improvement of infrastructure reduces transportation costs and transaction costs, and promotes communication externalities between producers, consumers, and between producers and consumers. This paper selects the average road area per capita (take the logarithm) to express.Government behavior (GOV): Fiscal expenditure is an important means for the government to carry out macro-control. Appropriate fiscal expenditure makes up for market shortages, improves factor flow and resource allocation efficiency, and realizes positive economic externalities. This paper selects the proportion of fiscal expenditure to GDP (take the logarithm) to express. We can see the meaning of specific variables from Table 2.Table 2 The descriptive statistics of variables.Full size tableData sourceThe object of this thesis is the 107 cities in YREB from 2007 to 2016. The urban construction land area data comes from the "China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook", and the rest of the index data all come from the "China City Statistical Yearbook". The URL link is https://www.cnki.net/. In order to maintain the integrity of the data, this article uses the average method to fill in the missing values. In addition, because Chaohu City began to be under the jurisdiction of Hefei City in 2011, Bijie City and Tongren City in Guizhou Province only became prefecture-level cities in 2011. The three cities and Pu'er City are taken from the sample to maintain the continuity of data. More

Steffen, W. Introducing the Anthropocene: The human epoch. Ambio 50, 1784–1787 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keys, P. W. et al. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2, 667–673 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell, G. Evolutionary rescue and the limits of adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120080 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Byrne, M. & Przeslawski, R. Multistressor impacts of warming and acidification of the ocean on marine invertebrates’ life histories. Integr. Comp. Biol. 53, 582–596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Feely, R. A. et al. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305, 362–366 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A. & Kleypas, J. A. Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 169–192 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, T. S. & Hoogenboom, M. O. The indirect effects of ocean acidification on corals and coral communities. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-022-02286-z (2022).Biagi, E. et al. Patterns in microbiome composition differ with ocean acidification in anatomic compartments of the Mediterranean coral Astroides calycularis living at CO2 vents. Sci. Total Environ. 724, 138048 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, B. et al. Microbiome community and complexity indicate environmental gradient acclimatisation and potential microbial interaction of endemic coral holobionts in the South China Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 765, 142690 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palumbi, S. R., Barshis, D. J., Traylor-Knowles, N. & Bay, R. A. Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change. Science 344, 895–898 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wood, R. The ecological evolution of reefs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 179–206 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, J. L. et al. How corals made rocks through the ages. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 31–53 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanley, G. D. Photosymbiosis and the evolution of modern coral reefs. Science 312, 857–858 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kitahara, M. V., Cairns, S. D., Stolarski, J., Blair, D. & Miller, D. J. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the scleractinia (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) based on mitochondrial CO1 sequence data. PLoS One. 5, e11490 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dubinsky, Z. & Jokiel, P. Ratio of energy and nutrient fluxes regulates symbiosis between zooxanthellae and corals. Pac. Sci. 48, 313–324 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Falkowski, P. G., Dubinsky, Z., Muscatine, L. & Porter, J. W. Light and the bioenergetics of a symbiotic coral. Bioscience 34, 705–709 (1984).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Frankowiak, K., Roniewicz, E. & Stolarski, J. Photosymbiosis in Late Triassic scleractinian corals from the Italian Dolomites. PeerJ 9, e11062 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davy, S. K., Allemand, D. & Weis, V. M. Cell biology of cnidarian-dinoflagellate symbiosis. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 76, 229–261 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kremer, P. Ingestion and elemental budgets for Linuche unguiculata, a scyphomedusa with zooxanthellae. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 85, 613–625 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Welsh, D. T., Dunn, R. J. K. & Meziane, T. Oxygen and nutrient dynamics of the upside down jellyfish (Cassiopea sp.) and its influence on benthic nutrient exchanges and primary production. Hydrobiologia 635, 351–362 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muscatine, L., McCloskey, L. R. & Marian, R. E. Estimating the daily contribution of carbon from zooxanthellae to coral animal respiration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 601–611 (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferrier‐Pagès, C. & Leal, M. C. Stable isotopes as tracers of trophic interactions in marine mutualistic symbioses. Ecol. Evol. 9, 723–740 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixidó, N. et al. Ocean acidification causes variable trait shifts in a coral species. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 6813–6830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fantazzini, P. et al. Gains and losses of coral skeletal porosity changes with ocean acidification acclimation. Nat. Commun. 6, 7785 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Prada, F. et al. Coral micro- and macro-morphological skeletal properties in response to life-long acclimatization at CO2 vents in Papua New Guinea. Sci. Rep. 11, 19927 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kerrison, P., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Suggett, D. J., Hepburn, L. J. & Steinke, M. Assessment of pH variability at a coastal CO2 vent for ocean acidification studies. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 94, 129–137 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, V. R., Russell, B. D., Fabricius, K. E., Brownlee, C. & Hall-Spencer, J. M. Temperate and tropical brown macroalgae thrive, despite decalcification, along natural CO2 gradients. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 2792–2803 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caroselli, E. et al. Low and variable pH decreases recruitment efficiency in populations of a temperate coral naturally present at a CO2 vent. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1059–1069 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
González-Delgado, S. & Hernández, J. C. The importance of natural acidified systems in the study of ocean acidification: what have we learned? Adv. Mar. Biol. 80, 57–99 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Capaccioni, B., Tassi, F., Vaselli, O., Tedesco, D. & Poreda, R. Submarine gas burst at Panarea Island (southern Italy) on 3 November 2002: A magmatic versus hydrothermal episode. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B05201 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Reggi, M. et al. Biomineralization in mediterranean corals: The role of the intraskeletal organic matrix. Cryst. Growth Des. 14, 4310–4320 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Prada, F. et al. Ocean warming and acidification synergistically increase coral mortality. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goffredo, S. et al. Biomineralization control related to population density under ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 593–597 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wall, M. et al. Linking internal carbonate chemistry regulation and calcification in corals growing at a Mediterranean CO2 vent. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 699 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zohary, T., Erez, J., Gophen, M., Berman-Frank, I. & Stiller, M. Seasonality of stable carbon isotopes within the pelagic food web of Lake Kinneret. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39, 1030–1043 (1994).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, S. et al. Spatial variations in the trophic status of Favia palauensis corals in the South China Sea: Insights into their different adaptabilities under contrasting environmental conditions. Sci. China Earth Sci. 64, 839–852 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horwitz, R., Borell, E. M., Yam, R., Shemesh, A. & Fine, M. Natural high pCO2 increases autotrophy in Anemonia viridis (Anthozoa) as revealed from stable isotope (C, N) analysis. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, B., Zou, D., Zhu, M. & Yang, Y. Effects of CO2 levels and light intensities on growth and amino acid contents in red seaweed Gracilaria lemaneiformis. Aquac. Res. 48, 2683–2690 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winters, G., Beer, S., Zvi, B., Brickner, I. & Loya, Y. Spatial and temporal photoacclimation of Stylophora pistillata: zooxanthella size, pigmentation, location and clade. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 107–119 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitt, W. K., McFarland, F. K., Warner, M. E. & Chilcoat, G. C. Seasonal patterns of tissue biomass and densities of symbiotic dinoflagellates in reef corals and relation to coral bleaching. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 677–685 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wangpraseurt, D., Larkum, A. W. D., Ralph, P. J. & Kühl, M. Light gradients and optical microniches in coral tissues. Front. Microbiol. 3, 1–9 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krief, S. et al. Physiological and isotopic responses of scleractinian corals to ocean acidification. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 74, 4988–5001 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scucchia, F., Malik, A., Zaslansky, P., Putnam, H. M. & Mass, T. Combined responses of primary coral polyps and their algal endosymbionts to decreasing seawater pH. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20210328 (2021).Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
LaJeunesse, T. C. et al. Systematic revision of Symbiodiniaceae highlights the antiquity and diversity of coral endosymbionts. Curr. Biol. 28, 2570–2580.e6 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Howells, E. J. et al. Coral thermal tolerance shaped by local adaptation of photosymbionts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 116–120 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brading, P. et al. Differential effects of ocean acidification on growth and photosynthesis among phylotypes of Symbiodinium (Dinophyceae). Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 927–938 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi, T., Broecker, W. S. & Langer, S. Redfield ratio based on chemical data from isopycnal surfaces. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 6907 (1985).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, Z. et al. Changes of carbon to nitrogen ratio in particulate organic matter in the marine mesopelagic zone: A case from the South China Sea. Mar. Chem. 231, 103930 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, D. W. et al. Low particulate carbon to nitrogen ratios in marine surface waters of the Arctic. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. 29, 2021–2033 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kikumoto, R. et al. Nitrogen isotope chemostratigraphy of the Ediacaran and Early Cambrian platform sequence at Three Gorges, South China. Gondwana Res. 25, 1057–1069 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
DeNiro, M. J. & Epstein, S. Influence of diet on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 495–506 (1978).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benavides, M., Bednarz, V. N. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Diazotrophs: Overlooked key players within the coral symbiosis and tropical reef ecosystems? Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wannicke, N., Frey, C., Law, C. S. & Voss, M. The response of the marine nitrogen cycle to ocean acidification. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 5031–5043 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bourne, D. G., Morrow, K. M. & Webster, N. S. Insights into the coral microbiome: underpinning the health and resilience of reef ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 70, 317–340 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Palladino, G. et al. Metagenomic shifts in mucus, tissue and skeleton of the coral Balanophyllia europaea living along a natural CO2 gradient. ISME Commun. 2, 65 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muscatine, L. et al. Stable isotopes (δ13C and δ15N) of organic matrix from coral skeleton. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 102, 1525–1530 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lesser, M. P. et al. Nitrogen fixation by symbiotic cyanobacteria provides a source of nitrogen for the scleractinian coral Montastraea cavernosa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 346, 143–152 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alamaru, A., Loya, Y., Brokovich, E., Yam, R. & Shemesh, A. Carbon and nitrogen utilization in two species of Red Sea corals along a depth gradient: Insights from stable isotope analysis of total organic material and lipids. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 73, 5333–5342 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lesser, M. P., Mazel, C. H., Gorbunov, M. Y. & Falkowski, P. G. Discovery of symbiotic nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in corals. Science 305, 997–1000 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lesser, M. P., Morrow, K. M., Pankey, S. M. & Noonan, S. H. C. Diazotroph diversity and nitrogen fixation in the coral Stylophora pistillata from the Great Barrier Reef. ISME J. 12, 813–824 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marcelino, V. R., Morrow, K. M., Oppen, M. J. H., Bourne, D. G. & Verbruggen, H. Diversity and stability of coral endolithic microbial communities at a naturally high pCO2 reef. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5344–5357 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rädecker, N., Pogoreutz, C., Voolstra, C. R., Wiedenmann, J. & Wild, C. Nitrogen cycling in corals: the key to understanding holobiont functioning? Trends Microbiol. 23, 490–497 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santos, H. F. et al. Climate change affects key nitrogen-fixing bacterial populations on coral reefs. ISME J. 8, 2272–2279 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olson, N. D., Ainsworth, T. D., Gates, R. D. & Takabayashi, M. Diazotrophic bacteria associated with Hawaiian Montipora corals: Diversity and abundance in correlation with symbiotic dinoflagellates. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 371, 140–146 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, X. et al. Effects of ocean acidification on carbon and nitrogen fixation in the hermatypic coral Galaxea fascicularis. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 644965 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, E. & Wallace, D. Program developed for CO2 system calculations. Ornl/Cdiac-105 1–21 (1998).Dickson, A. G. & Millero, F. J. A comparison of the equilibrium constants for the dissociation of carbonic acid in seawater media. Deep Sea Res. Part A. Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 34, 1733–1743 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dickson, A. G. Thermodynamics of the dissociation of boric acid in potassium chloride solutions from 273.15 to 318.15 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 35, 253–257 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mehrbach, C., Culberson, C. H., Hawley, J. E. & Pytkowicx, R. M. Measurement of the apparent dissociation constants of carbonic acid in seawater at atmospheric pressure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18, 897–907 (1973).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ivancic, I. & Degobbis, D. An optimal manual procedure for ammonia analysis in natural waters by the indophenol blue method. Water Res. 18, 1143–1147 (1984).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parson, T. R., Maita, Y. & Llli, C. M. A manual of chemical & biological methods for seawater analysis. (Elsevier, 1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-07774-5Schreiber, U. Pulse-Amplitude-Modulation (PAM) fluorometry and saturation pulse method: an overview. in Chlorophyll a Fluorescence 1367, 279–319 (Springer Netherlands, 2004).Grover, R., Maguer, J. F., Reynaud-Vaganay, S. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Uptake of ammonium by the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata: Effect of feeding, light, and ammonium concentrations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 782–790 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, P., Grover, R., Maguer, J. F., Hoogenboom, M. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Carbon translocation from symbiont to host depends on irradiance and food availability in the tropical coral Stylophora pistillata. Coral Reefs. 33, 1–13 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pupier, C. A. et al. Productivity and carbon fluxes depend on species and symbiont density in soft coral symbioses. Sci. Rep. 9, 17819 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ritchie, R. J. Universal chlorophyll equations for estimating chlorophylls a, b, c, and d and total chlorophylls in natural assemblages of photosynthetic organisms using acetone, methanol, or ethanol solvents. Photosynthetica 46, 115–126 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goffredo, S., Arnone, S. & Zaccanti, F. Sexual reproduction in the Mediterranean solitary coral Balanophyllia europaea (Scleractinia, Dendrophylliidae). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 229, 83–94 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barshis, D. J. et al. Genomic basis for coral resilience to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 1387–1392 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moore, R. B. Highly organized structure in the non-coding region of the psbA minicircle from clade C Symbiodinium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 53, 1725–1734 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
LaJeunesse, T. C. & Thornhill, D. J. Improved resolution of reef-coral endosymbiont (Symbiodinium) species diversity, ecology, and evolution through psbA non-coding region genotyping. PLoS One. 6, e29013 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
LaJeunesse, T. C. et al. Revival of Philozoon Geddes for host-specialized dinoflagellates, ‘zooxanthellae’, in animals from coastal temperate zones of northern and southern hemispheres. Eur. J. Phycol. 57, 166–180 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, M. J. PERMANOVA: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online (2005). More

Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 560–564 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. & Tebaldi, C. More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305, 994–997 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harris, R. M. et al. Biological responses to the press and pulse of climate trends and extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 579–587 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Till, A., Rypel, A. L., Bray, A. & Fey, S. B. Fish die-offs are concurrent with thermal extremes in north temperate lakes. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 637–641 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vasseur, D. A. et al. Increased temperature variation poses a greater risk to species than climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132612 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Rudolf, V. H. & Ma, C. Extreme temperature events alter demographic rates, relative fitness, and community structure. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1794–1808 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vázquez, D. P., Gianoli, E., Morris, W. F. & Bozinovic, F. Ecological and evolutionary impacts of changing climatic variability. Biol. Rev. 92, 22–42 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tewksbury, J. J., Huey, R. B. & Deutsch, C. A. Putting the heat on tropical animals. Science 320, 1296–1297 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, M. E., Wang, G. & Huey, R. B. Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming. Nature 467, 704–706 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Power, S. B. & Delage, F. P. Setting and smashing extreme temperature records over the coming century. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 529–534 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, E. M., Sippel, S. & Knutti, R. Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 689–695 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 367, 685–688 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E. & Wolf, B. O. Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves. Biol. Lett. 6, 253–256 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events. Divers. Distrib. 25, 613–625 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 11, 1571–1759 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Mora, C. et al. Global risk of deadly heat. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 501–506 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Battisti, D. S. & Naylor, R. L. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323, 240–244 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R., Price, J., Graham, E., Forstenhaeusler, N. & VanDerWal, J. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. Science 360, 791–795 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trisos, C. H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A. L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580, 496–501 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C. A. et al. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6668–6672 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Hoffmann, A. A. & Ma, C.-S. Daily temperature extremes play an important role in predicting thermal effects. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2289–2296 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Paaijmans, K. P. et al. Temperature variation makes ectotherms more sensitive to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2373–2380 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bütikofer, L. et al. The problem of scale in predicting biological responses to climate. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6657–6666 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Knutti, R. & Wilby, R. L. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529, 477–483 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buckley, L. B. & Huey, R. B. Temperature extremes: geographic patterns, recent changes, and implications for organismal vulnerabilities. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3829–3842 (2016).Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Vogel, M. M. et al. Regional amplification of projected changes in extreme temperatures strongly controlled by soil moisture-temperature feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1511–1519 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tamarin-Brodsky, T., Hodges, K., Hoskins, B. J. & Shepherd, T. G. Changes in Northern Hemisphere temperature variability shaped by regional warming patterns. Nat. Geosci. 13, 414–421 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schär, C. et al. The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Nature 427, 332–336 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M. Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms. Nature 569, 108–111 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sinervo, B. et al. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328, 894–899 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perkins, S. E. & Alexander, L. V. On the measurement of heat waves. J. Clim. 26, 4500–4517 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. et al. Thermal tolerance patterns across latitude and elevation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190036 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. A. Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 870–880 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buckley, L. B. & Huey, R. B. How extreme temperatures impact organisms and the evolution of their thermal tolerance. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56, 98–109 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Fink, D. & Zuckerberg, B. Avian responses to extreme weather across functional traits and temporal scales. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4240–4250 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19656–19657 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jentsch, A., Kreyling, J. & Beierkuhnlein, C. A new generation of climate-change experiments: events, not trends. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 365–374 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riddell, E. A. et al. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 371, 633–636 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Welbergen, J. A., Klose, S. M., Markus, N. & Eby, P. Climate change and the effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 419–425 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKechnie, A. E., Rushworth, I. A., Myburgh, F. & Cunningham, S. J. Mortality among birds and bats during an extreme heat event in eastern South Africa. Austral Ecol. 46, 687–691 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, R. M., Beardall, J., Beringer, J., Grace, M. & Sardina, P. Means and extremes: building variability into community-level climate change experiments. Ecol. Lett. 16, 799–806 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perez, T. M., Stroud, J. T. & Feeley, K. J. Thermal trouble in the tropics. Science 351, 1392–1393 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. et al. Why tropical forest lizards are vulnerable to climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1939–1948 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsolver, J. G., Diamond, S. E. & Buckley, L. B. Heat stress and the fitness consequences of climate change for terrestrial ectotherms. Funct. Ecol. 27, 1415–1423 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
R. Kearney, M. Activity restriction and the mechanistic basis for extinctions under climate warming. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1470–1479 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezende, E. L., Bozinovic, F., Szilágyi, A. & Santos, M. Predicting temperature mortality and selection in natural Drosophila populations. Science 369, 1242–1245 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J. & Rohr, J. R. A global synthesis of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 224–228 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Levy, O., Dayan, T., Porter, W. P. & Kronfeld-Schor, N. Time and ecological resilience: can diurnal animals compensate for climate change by shifting to nocturnal activity? Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01334 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faurby, S. & Araújo, M. B. Anthropogenic range contractions bias species climate change forecasts. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 252–256 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M. et al. Thermal-safety margins and the necessity of thermoregulatory behavior across latitude and elevation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5610–5615 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffers, B. R., Edwards, D. P., Diesmos, A., Williams, S. E. & Evans, T. A. Microhabitats reduce animal’s exposure to climate extremes. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 495–503 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. et al. Predicting organismal vulnerability to climate warming: roles of behaviour, physiology and adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1665–1679 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearney, M., Shine, R. & Porter, W. P. The potential for behavioral thermoregulation to buffer “cold-blooded” animals against climate warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3835–3840 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morley, S. A., Peck, L. S., Sunday, J. M., Heiser, S. & Bates, A. E. Physiological acclimation and persistence of ectothermic species under extreme heat events. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 1018–1037 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cahill, A. E. et al. How does climate change cause extinction? Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20121890 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, F. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 147–1926 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Thakur, M. P., Bakker, E. S., Veen, G. C. & Harvey, J. A. Climate extremes, rewilding, and the role of microhabitats. One Earth 2, 506–509 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Albright, T. P. et al. Mapping evaporative water loss in desert passerines reveals an expanding threat of lethal dehydration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2283–2288 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thrasher, B. et al. NASA Global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Sci. Data 9, 262 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thrasher, B., Maurer, E. P., McKellar, C. & Duffy, P. B. Bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 3309–3314 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Z. et al. Do maize models capture the impacts of heat and drought stresses on yield? Using algorithm ensembles to identify successful approaches. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3112–3126 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L., Yang, B., Li, S., Hou, Y. & Huang, D. Potential rice exposure to heat stress along the Yangtze River in China under RCP8.5 scenario. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 248, 185–196 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Bakri, J. et al. Assessment of climate changes and their impact on barley yield in Mediterranean environment using NEX-GDDP downscaled GCMs and DSSAT. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 751–766 (2021).Semakula, H. M. et al. Prediction of future malaria hotspots under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Change 143, 415–428 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iwamura, T., Guzman-Holst, A. & Murray, K. A. Accelerating invasion potential of disease vector Aedes aegypti under climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 2130 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, A. E. et al. Bluetongue risk under future climates. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 153–157 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Obradovich, N. & Fowler, J. H. Climate change may alter human physical activity patterns. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0097 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Obradovich, N., Migliorini, R., Mednick, S. C. & Fowler, J. H. Nighttime temperature and human sleep loss in a changing climate. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601555 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. et al. Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1981 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W. & Zelinka, M. Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature 605, 26–29 (2022).O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2017, 3 (IUCN, 2017).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13384–13389 (2007).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maclean, I. M. Predicting future climate at high spatial and temporal resolution. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1003–1011 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R. et al. Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 678–682 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jiguet, F. et al. Thermal range predicts bird population resilience to extreme high temperatures. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1321–1330 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobday, A. J. et al. A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves. Prog. Oceanogr. 141, 227–238 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laufkötter, C., Zscheischler, J. & Frölicher, T. L. High-impact marine heatwaves attributable to human-induced global warming. Science 369, 1621–1625 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Coumou, D. & Rahmstorf, S. A decade of weather extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 491–496 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, E. C. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9, 1324 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).Woolway, R. I. et al. Lake heatwaves under climate change. Nature 589, 402–407 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gruber, N., Boyd, P. W., Frölicher, T. L. & Vogt, M. Biogeochemical extremes and compound events in the ocean. Nature 600, 395–407 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cahill, A. E. et al. Causes of warm-edge range limits: systematic review, proximate factors and implications for climate change. J. Biogeogr. 41, 429–442 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. J. Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biol. 14, e2001104 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valladares, F. et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1351–1364 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, J. M. et al. The evolution of critical thermal limits of life on Earth. Nat. Commun. 12, 1198 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G. & Dawson, T. P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 361–371 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louthan, A. M., Doak, D. F. & Angert, A. L. Where and when do species interactions set range limits? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 780–792 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbarossa, V. et al. Threats of global warming to the world’s freshwater fishes. Nat. Commun. 12, 1701 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clusella-Trullas, S., Blackburn, T. M. & Chown, S. L. Climatic predictors of temperature performance curve parameters in ectotherms imply complex responses to climate change. Am. Nat. 177, 738–751 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y.-F. & Wiens, J. J. Higher temperatures lower rates of physiological and niche evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200823 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pither, J. Climate tolerance and interspecific variation in geographic range size. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 475–481 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, J. M. et al. GlobTherm, a global database on thermal tolerances for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Sci. Data 5, 180022 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019); http://www.R-project.org/Chen, H., Sun, J., Lin, W. & Xu, H. Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes. Sci. Bull. 65, 1415–1418 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Battin, T. J. et al. The boundless carbon cycle. Nat. Geosci. 2, 598–600 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503, 355–359 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hotchkiss, E. R. et al. Sources of and processes controlling CO2 emissions change with the size of streams and rivers. Nat. Geosci. 8, 696–699 (2015). Important study conceptualizing (on the basis of a data synthesis) how the sources and magnitude of CO2 evasion flux change along a stream–river continuum.Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1917–2005 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, J. J. et al. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10, 172–185 (2007). A pioneering study showing the role of inland waters for large-scale carbon fluxes and highlighting them as ‘reactors’ rather than ‘passive pipes’.Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, T. W., Raymond, P. A. & Spencer, R. G. M. Terrestrial carbon inputs to inland waters: a current synthesis of estimates and uncertainty. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 132–142 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Odum, H. T. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1, 102–117 (1956).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, E. S. et al. The metabolic regimes of flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 99–118 (2018). A synthesis of the predominant drivers and constraints on metabolic regimes of stream and river ecosystems.Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, A. D. et al. Energy flux: the link between multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 186–197 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Costanza, R. & Mageau, M. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat. Ecol. 33, 105–115 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blöschl, G. et al. Changing climate both increases and decreases European river floods. Nature 573, 108–111 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gudmundsson, L. et al. Globally observed trends in mean and extreme river flow attributed to climate change. Science 371, 1159–1162 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X., Pavelsky, T. M. & Allen, G. H. The past and future of global river ice. Nature 577, 69–73 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grill, G. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Belletti, B. et al. More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers. Nature 588, 436–441 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cooley, S. W., Ryan, J. C. & Smith, L. C. Human alteration of global surface water storage variability. Nature 591, 78–81 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jaramillo, F. & Destouni, G. Local flow regulation and irrigation raise global human water consumption and footprint. Science 350, 1248–1251 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quinton, J. N., Govers, G., Oost, K. V. & Bardgett, R. D. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 311–314 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Global anthropogenic phosphorus loads to freshwater and associated grey water footprints and water pollution levels: a high‐resolution global study. Water Resour. Res. 54, 345–358 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnier, P. et al. Anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon fluxes from land to ocean. Nat. Geosci. 6, 597–607 (2013). The first study showing the extent to which human activities have altered the magnitude of contemporary lateral carbon fluxes from land to ocean.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rüegg, J. et al. Thinking like a consumer: linking aquatic basal metabolism and consumer dynamics. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 1–17 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444, 752–755 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, J. S. Time‐varying responses of lake metabolism to light and temperature. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 652–666 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uehlinger, U. Annual cycle and inter‐annual variability of gross primary production and ecosystem respiration in a floodprone river during a 15‐year period. Freshw. Biol. 51, 938–950 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uehlinger, U. & Naegeli, M. W. Ecosystem metabolism, disturbance, and stability in a prealpine gravel bed river. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 17, 165–178 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mulholland, P. J. et al. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw. Biol. 46, 1503–1517 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, B. J., Mulholland, P. J. & Hill, W. R. Multiple scales of temporal variability in ecosystem metabolism rates: results from 2 years of continuous monitoring in a forested headwater stream. Ecosystems 10, 588–606 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Appling, A. P., Hall, R. O., Yackulic, C. B. & Arroita, M. Overcoming equifinality: leveraging long time series for stream metabolism estimation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 624–645 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Appling, A. P. et al. The metabolic regimes of 356 rivers in the United States. Sci. Data 5, 180292 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Canadell, M. B. et al. Regimes of primary production and their drivers in Alpine streams. Freshw. Biol. 66, 1449–1463 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myrstener, M., Gómez‐Gener, L., Rocher‐Ros, G., Giesler, R. & Sponseller, R. A. Nutrients influence seasonal metabolic patterns and total productivity of Arctic streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, S182–S196 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savoy, P. et al. Metabolic rhythms in flowing waters: an approach for classifying river productivity regimes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1835–1851 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirk, L., Hensley, R. T., Savoy, P., Heffernan, J. B. & Cohen, M. J. Estimating benthic light regimes improves predictions of primary production and constrains light-use efficiency in streams and rivers. Ecosystems 24, 825–839 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, E. S. et al. Light and flow regimes regulate the metabolism of rivers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2121976119 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Savoy, P. & Harvey, J. W. Predicting light regime controls on primary productivity across CONUS river networks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL092149 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Julian, J. P., Stanley, E. H. & Doyle, M. W. Basin-scale consequences of agricultural land use on benthic light availability and primary production along a sixth-order temperate river. Ecosystems 11, 1091–1105 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, R. O. et al. Turbidity, light, temperature, and hydropeaking control primary productivity in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 512–526 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hosen, J. D. et al. Enhancement of primary production during drought in a temperate watershed is greater in larger rivers than headwater streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 1458–1472 (2019).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Demars, B. O. L. et al. Temperature and the metabolic balance of streams. Freshw. Biol. 56, 1106–1121 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Song, C. et al. Continental-scale decrease in net primary productivity in streams due to climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 11, 415–420 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hood, J. M. et al. Increased resource use efficiency amplifies positive response of aquatic primary production to experimental warming. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1069–1084 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schindler, D. E., Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Kitchell, J. F. & Pace, M. L. Influence of food web structure on carbon exchange between lakes and the atmosphere. Science 277, 248–251 (1997).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iannucci, F. M., Beneš, J., Medvedeff, A. & Bowden, W. B. Biogeochemical responses over 37 years to manipulation of phosphorus concentrations in an Arctic river: The Upper Kuparuk River Experiment. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14075 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosemond, A. D. et al. Experimental nutrient additions accelerate terrestrial carbon loss from stream ecosystems. Science 347, 1142–1145 (2015). A key study explaining how nutrient excess can accelerate terrestrial carbon loss from stream ecosystems.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Arroita, M., Elosegi, A. & Hall, R. O. Jr Twenty years of daily metabolism show riverine recovery following sewage abatement. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 77–92 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Battin, T. J. et al. Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks. Nat. Geosci. 1, 95–100 (2008). An important article conceptualizing how physical and biological processes combine to shape metabolic dynamics and carbon fluxes in fluvial networks.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoellein, T. J., Bruesewitz, D. A. & Richardson, D. C. Revisiting Odum (1956): a synthesis of aquatic ecosystem metabolism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 2089–2100 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzolf, N. S. & Ardón, M. Ecosystem metabolism in tropical streams and rivers: a review and synthesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 1627–1638 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gounand, I., Little, C. J., Harvey, E. & Altermatt, F. Cross-ecosystem carbon flows connecting ecosystems worldwide. Nat. Commun. 9, 4825 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ciais, P. et al. Empirical estimates of regional carbon budgets imply reduced global soil heterotrophic respiration. Natl Sci. Rev. 8, nwaa145 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bauer, J. E. et al. The changing carbon cycle of the coastal ocean. Nature 504, 61–70 (2013). Important review on the sources, exchange and fates of carbon in the coastal ocean and how human activities have altered the coastal carbon cycle.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reichert, P., Uehlinger, U. & Acuña, V. Estimating stream metabolism from oxygen concentrations: effect of spatial heterogeneity. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 114, G03016 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koenig, L. E. et al. Emergent productivity regimes of river networks. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 4, 173–181 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Castillo, T., Estévez, E., González-Ferreras, A. M. & Barquín, J. Estimating ecosystem metabolism to entire river networks. Ecosystems 22, 892–911 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Segatto, P. L., Battin, T. J. & Bertuzzo, E. The metabolic regimes at the scale of an entire stream network unveiled through sensor data and machine learning. Ecosystems 24, 1792–1809 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Holt, R. D. Meta‐ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol. Lett. 6, 673–679 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mastrandrea, M. D. et al. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2010).Tank, S. E., Fellman, J. B., Hood, E. & Kritzberg, E. S. Beyond respiration: controls on lateral carbon fluxes across the terrestrial‐aquatic interface. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 76–88 (2018). Important synthesis on the mechanisms and controls of organic and inorganic carbon flows across terrestrial–aquatic interfaces.Article 

Google Scholar 
Aitkenhead, J. A. & McDowell, W. H. Soil C:N ratio as a predictor of annual riverine DOC flux at local and global scales. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 127–138 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnier, P., Resplandy, L., Najjar, R. G. & Ciais, P. The land-to-ocean loops of the global carbon cycle. Nature 603, 401–410 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Hoek, W. J. et al. Exploring spatially explicit changes in carbon budgets of global river basins during the 20th century. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 16757–16769 (2021). A global quantitative assessment of river carbon fluxes in the twentieth century, highlighting the combined influence of environmental and anthropogenic controls on the long-term patterns of global carbon export.Article 

Google Scholar 
Abril, G. & Borges, A. V. Ideas and perspectives: carbon leaks from flooded land: do we need to replumb the inland water active pipe? Biogeosciences 16, 769–784 (2019). Important review emphasizing the role of flooding for inland water carbon cycling at the global scale.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lauerwald, R., Regnier, P., Guenet, B., Friedlingstein, P. & Ciais, P. How simulations of the land carbon sink are biased by ignoring fluvial carbon transfers: a case study for the Amazon Basin. One Earth 3, 226–236 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A., Saiers, J. E. & Sobczak, W. V. Hydrological and biogeochemical controls on watershed dissolved organic matter transport: pulse‐shunt concept. Ecology 97, 5–16 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Catalán, N., Marcé, R., Kothawala, D. N. & Tranvik, L. J. Organic carbon decomposition rates controlled by water retention time across inland waters. Nat. Geosci. 9, 501–504 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maavara, T., Lauerwald, R., Regnier, P. & Cappellen, P. V. Global perturbation of organic carbon cycling by river damming. Nat. Commun. 8, 15347 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mendonça, R. et al. Organic carbon burial in global lakes and reservoirs. Nat. Commun. 8, 1694–1697 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Downing, J. A. et al. Sediment organic carbon burial in agriculturally eutrophic impoundments over the last century. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1018 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deemer, B. R. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoir water surfaces: a new global synthesis. Bioscience 66, 949–964 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abril, G. et al. Amazon River carbon dioxide outgassing fuelled by wetlands. Nature 505, 395–398 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. et al. Abiotic controls and temporal variability of river metabolism: multiyear analyses of Mississippi and Chattahoochee River data. Freshw. Sci. 32, 1073–1087 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ros, G. R., Sponseller, R. A., Bergström, A. K., Myrstener, M. & Giesler, R. Stream metabolism controls diel patterns and evasion of CO2 in Arctic streams. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1400–1413 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasilo, T., Hutchins, R. H. S., Ruiz-González, C. & Del Giorgio, P. A. Transport and transformation of soil-derived CO2, CH4 and DOC sustain CO2 supersaturation in small boreal streams. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 902–912 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aho, K. S., Hosen, J. D., Logozzo, L. A., McGillis, W. R. & Raymond, P. A. Highest rates of gross primary productivity maintained despite CO2 depletion in a temperate river network. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 200–206 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wehrli, B. Conduits of the carbon cycle. Nature 503, 346–347 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sarmiento, J. L. & Sundquist, E. T. Revised budget for the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Nature 356, 589–593 (1992).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lacroix, F., Ilyina, T., Laruelle, G. G. & Regnier, P. Reconstructing the preindustrial coastal carbon cycle through a global ocean circulation model: was the global continental shelf already both autotrophic and a CO2 sink? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 35, e2020GB006603 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jacobson, A. R., Fletcher, S. E. M., Gruber, N., Sarmiento, J. L. & Gloor, M. A joint atmosphere‐ocean inversion for surface fluxes of carbon dioxide: 1. Methods and global‐scale fluxes. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB1019 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Resplandy, L. et al. Revision of global carbon fluxes based on a reassessment of oceanic and riverine carbon transport. Nat. Geosci. 11, 504–509 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee, L.-C. et al. Unusual roles of discharge, slope and SOC in DOC transport in small mountainous rivers, Taiwan. Sci. Rep. 9, 1574 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reddy, S. K. K. et al. Export of particulate organic carbon by the mountainous tropical rivers of Western Ghats, India: variations and controls. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 142115 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X., Tarpley, D. & Sullivan, J. T. Diverse responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L19405 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Heathcote, A. J., Anderson, N. J., Prairie, Y. T., Engstrom, D. R. & del Giorgio, P. A. Large increases in carbon burial in northern lakes during the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 6, 10016 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guillemette, F., Berggren, M., Giorgio, P. Adel. & Lapierre, J.-F. Increases in terrestrially derived carbon stimulate organic carbon processing and CO2 emissions in boreal aquatic ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 4, 2972 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hastie, A., Lauerwald, R., Ciais, P., Papa, F. & Regnier, P. Historical and future contributions of inland waters to the Congo Basin carbon balance. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12, 37–62 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakhavali, M. et al. Leaching of dissolved organic carbon from mineral soils plays a significant role in the terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1083–1096 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tian, H. et al. Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: current status and future directions. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 775–792 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Öquist, M. G. et al. The full annual carbon balance of boreal forests is highly sensitive to precipitation. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1, 315–319 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. B.Jr, Stanley, E. H. & Mulholland, P. J. Long‐term decline in carbon dioxide supersaturation in rivers across the contiguous United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1495 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. & Oh, N.-H. Long term changes of chemical weathering products in rivers heavily impacted from acid mine drainage: insights on the impact of coal mining on regional and global carbon and sulfur budgets. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 284, 50–56 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ran, L. et al. Substantial decrease in CO2 emissions from Chinese inland waters due to global change. Nat. Commun. 12, 1730 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zarnetske, J. P., Bouda, M., Geophysical, B. A., Saiers, J. & Raymond, P. Generality of hydrologic transport limitation of watershed organic carbon flux across ecoregions of the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11,702–11,711 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu, S. et al. The importance of hydrology in routing terrestrial carbon to the atmosphere via global streams and rivers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2106322119 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nydahl, A. C., Wallin, M. B. & Weyhenmeyer, G. A. No long‐term trends in pCO2 despite increasing organic carbon concentrations in boreal lakes, streams, and rivers. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 985–995 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. & Hamilton, S. K. Anthropogenic influences on riverine fluxes of dissolved inorganic carbon to the oceans. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 3, 143–155 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ulseth, A. J., Bertuzzo, E., Singer, G. A., Schelker, J. & Battin, T. J. Climate-induced changes in spring snowmelt impact ecosystem metabolism and carbon fluxes in an Alpine stream network. Ecosystems 21, 373–390 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berghuijs, W. R., Woods, R. A. & Hrachowitz, M. A precipitation shift from snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 583–586 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, T. W. et al. Mobilization of aged and biolabile soil carbon by tropical deforestation. Nat. Geosci. 12, 541–546 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wit, F. et al. The impact of disturbed peatlands on river outgassing in Southeast Asia. Nat. Commun. 6, 10155 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moore, S., Gauci, V., Evans, C. D. & Page, S. E. Fluvial organic carbon losses from a Bornean blackwater river. Biogeosciences 8, 901–909 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Masese, F. O., Salcedo-Borda, J. S., Gettel, G. M., Irvine, K. & McClain, M. E. Influence of catchment land use and seasonality on dissolved organic matter composition and ecosystem metabolism in headwater streams of a Kenyan river. Biogeochemistry 132, 1–22 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bernot, M. J. et al. Inter‐regional comparison of land‐use effects on stream metabolism. Freshw. Biol. 55, 1874–1890 (2010). Among the first studies showing how land use alters ecosystem metabolism across geographic regions.Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffiths, N. A. et al. Agricultural land use alters the seasonality and magnitude of stream metabolism. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 1513–1529 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sweeney, B. W. et al. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 101, 14132–14137 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roley, S. S., Tank, J. L., Griffiths, N. A., Hall, R. O. Jr & Davis, R. T. The influence of floodplain restoration on whole-stream metabolism in an agricultural stream: insights from a 5-year continuous data set. Freshw. Sci. 33, 1043–1059 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crawford, J. T., Stanley, E. H., Dornblaser, M. M. & Striegl, R. G. CO2 time series patterns in contrasting headwater streams of North America. Aquat. Sci. 79, 473–486 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blackburn, S. R. & Stanley, E. H. Floods increase carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in agricultural streams. Freshw. Biol. 66, 62–77 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, G. P., Paul, E. A. & Harwood, R. R. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289, 1922–1925 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Min, S.-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Hegerl, G. C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470, 378–381 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yin, J. et al. Large increase in global storm runoff extremes driven by climate and anthropogenic changes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4389 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Myhre, G. et al. Sensible heat has significantly affected the global hydrological cycle over the historical period. Nat. Commun. 9, 1922 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Messager, M. L. et al. Global prevalence of non-perennial rivers and streams. Nature 594, 391–397 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, A. S., Wondzell, S. M., Schmadel, N. M. & Herzog, S. P. Climate change causes river network contraction and disconnection in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon, USA. Front. Water 2, 7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sabater, S., Timoner, X., Borrego, C. & Acuña, V. Stream biofilm responses to flow intermittency: from cells to ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Gener, L., Lupon, A., Laudon, H. & Sponseller, R. A. Drought alters the biogeochemistry of boreal stream networks. Nat. Commun. 11, 1795 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marcé, R. et al. Emissions from dry inland waters are a blind spot in the global carbon cycle. Earth Sci. Rev. 188, 240–248 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blaszczak, J. R., Delesantro, J. M., Urban, D. L., Doyle, M. W. & Bernhardt, E. S. Scoured or suffocated: urban stream ecosystems oscillate between hydrologic and dissolved oxygen extremes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 877–894 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reisinger, A. J. et al. Recovery and resilience of urban stream metabolism following Superstorm Sandy and other floods. Ecosphere 8, e01776 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, B. & Hotchkiss, E. R. Coupling concentration‐ and process‐discharge relationships integrates water chemistry and metabolism in streams. Water Resour. Res. 55, 10179–10190 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thellman, A. et al. The ecology of river ice. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2021JG006275 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maavara, T. et al. River dam impacts on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 103–116 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosentreter, J. A. et al. Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources. Nat. Geosci. 14, 225–230 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barros, N. et al. Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat. Geosci. 4, 593–596 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keller, P. S., Marcé, R., Obrador, B. & Koschorreck, M. Global carbon budget of reservoirs is overturned by the quantification of drawdown areas. Nat. Geosci. 14, 402–408 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Calamita, E. et al. Unaccounted CO2 leaks downstream of a large tropical hydroelectric reservoir. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2026004118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J.-H. et al. Reviews and syntheses: anthropogenic perturbations to carbon fluxes in Asian river systems – concepts, emerging trends, and research challenges. Biogeosciences 15, 3049–3069 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rosamond, M. S., Thuss, S. J. & Schiff, S. L. Dependence of riverine nitrous oxide emissions on dissolved oxygen levels. Nat. Geosci. 5, 715–718 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stanley, E. H. et al. The ecology of methane in streams and rivers: patterns, controls, and global significance. Ecol. Monogr. 86, 146–171 (2016). Key paper highlighting the role of streams and rivers for methane production and emissions and developing a conceptual framework on the environmental drivers of methane dynamics in fluvial ecosystems.Article 

Google Scholar 
Breitburg, D. et al. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 359, eaam7240 (2018).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Triska, F. J., Kennedy, V. C., Avanzino, R. J., Zellweger, G. W. & Bencala, K. E. Retention and transport of nutrients in a third‐order stream in northwestern California: hyporheic processes. Ecology 70, 1893–1905 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, A. M., Blaszczak, J. R., Heffernan, J. B. & Bernhardt, E. S. Hypoxia dynamics and spatial distribution in a low gradient river. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 2251–2265 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kadygrov, N. et al. On the potential of the ICOS atmospheric CO2 measurement network for estimating the biogenic CO2 budget of Europe. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 12765–12787 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, P. C., Weathers, K. C. & Kratz, T. K. Networked lake science: how the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) works to understand, predict, and communicate lake ecosystem response to global change. Inland Waters 6, 543–554 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Claustre, H., Johnson, K. S. & Takeshita, Y. Observing the global ocean with biogeochemical-Argo. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 23–48 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jankowski, K. J., Mejia, F. H., Blaszczak, J. R. & Holtgrieve, G. W. Aquatic ecosystem metabolism as a tool in environmental management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 8, e1521 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, F. et al. Moving beyond the technology: a socio-technical roadmap for low-cost water sensor network applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 9145–9158 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J., Kim, K. T. & Lee, W. H. Recent advances in information and communications technology (ICT) and sensor technology for monitoring water quality. Water 12, 510 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yamazaki, D. et al. MERIT Hydro: a high‐resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset. Water Resour. Res. 55, 5053–5073 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, P., Pan, M., Wood, E. F., Yamazaki, D. & Allen, G. H. A new vector-based global river network dataset accounting for variable drainage density. Sci. Data 8, 28 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, G. H. & Pavelsky, T. M. Global extent of rivers and streams. Science 361, 585–587 (2018).Article 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Durand, M. et al. An intercomparison of remote sensing river discharge estimation algorithms from measurements of river height, width, and slope. Water Resour. Res. 52, 4527–4549 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frasson, R. P. M. et al. Exploring the factors controlling the error characteristics of the surface water and ocean topography mission discharge estimates. Water Resour. Res. 57, e2020WR028519 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dethier, E. N., Renshaw, C. E. & Magilligan, F. J. Rapid changes to global river suspended sediment flux by humans. Science 376, 1447–1452 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, A. D. et al. A review of carbon monitoring in wet carbon systems using remote sensing. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 025009 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, G. H. et al. Similarity of stream width distributions across headwater systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 610 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. & Rinaldo, A. Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-organization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001). Game-changing oeuvre formalizing the structure and function of river networks.Bertuzzo, E., Helton, A. M., Hall, Robert, O. & Battin, T. J. Scaling of dissolved organic carbon removal in river networks. Adv. Water Resour. 110, 136–146 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzadri, A., Dee, M. M., Tonina, D., Bellin, A. & Tank, J. L. Role of surface and subsurface processes in scaling N2O emissions along riverine networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4330–4335 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzadri, A. et al. Global riverine nitrous oxide emissions: the role of small streams and large rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145148 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Botter, G. & Durighetto, N. The stream length duration curve: a tool for characterizing the time variability of the flowing stream length. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2020WR027282 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wollheim, W. M. et al. River network saturation concept: factors influencing the balance of biogeochemical supply and demand of river networks. Biogeochemistry 141, 503–521 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durighetto, N., Vingiani, F., Bertassello, L. E., Camporese, M. & Botter, G. Intraseasonal drainage network dynamics in a headwater catchment of the Italian Alps. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR02556 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Montgomery, D. R. & Dietrich, W. E. Source areas, drainage density, and channel initiation. Water Resour. Res. 25, 1907–1918 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fatichi, S., Ivanov, V. Y. & Caporali, E. A mechanistic ecohydrological model to investigate complex interactions in cold and warm water‐controlled environments: 1. Theoretical framework and plot‐scale analysis. J. Adv. Model. Earth. Syst. 4, M05002 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Ulseth, A. J. et al. Distinct air–water gas exchange regimes in low- and high-energy streams. Nat. Geosci. 12, 259–263 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hall, R. O. in Streams and Ecosystems in a Changing Environment (eds. Jones, J. J. & Stanley, E. H.) 151–180 (Academic, 2016).Butman, D. & Raymond, P. A. Significant efflux of carbon dioxide from streams and rivers in the United States. Nat. Geosci. 4, 839–842 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Duvert, C., Butman, D. E., Marx, A., Ribolzi, O. & Hutley, L. B. CO2 evasion along streams driven by groundwater inputs and geomorphic controls. Nat. Geosci. 11, 813–818 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L. et al. Significant methane ebullition from alpine permafrost rivers on the East Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Nat. Geosci. 13, 349–354 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Nature Clim. Change 5, 560–564 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ma, G., Hoffmann, A. A. & Ma, C.-S. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2289–2296 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dillon, M. E., Wang, G. & Huey, R. B. Nature 467, 704–706 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y. & Reynolds, J. D. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish Fish. 4, 25–64 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fowler S. L. et al. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK (2005).Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife 3, e00590 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lack M. & Sant G. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Shark Catch: A review of current knowledge and action. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and TRAFFIC, Canberra http://www.traffic.org/fish/ (2008).Rose D.A. An Overview of World Trade in Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fishes. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK (1996).Lam, V. Y. & Sadovy, M. Y. The sharks of South East Asia–unknown, unmonitored and unmanaged. Fish Fish 12, 51–74 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kessel S.T. Investigation into the behaviour and population dynamics of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris). Cardiff University (United Kingdom) (2010).Morrissey, J. F. & Gruber, S. H. Habitat selection by juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris. Environ. Biol. Fishes 38, 311–319 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filmalter, J. D., Dagorn, L. & Cowley, P. D. Spatial behaviour and site fidelity of the sicklefin lemon shark Negaprion acutidens in a remote Indian Ocean atoll. Mari. Biol. 160, 2425–2436 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
DiBattista, J. D. et al. A genetic assessment of polyandry and breeding site fidelity in lemon sharks. Mol. Ecol. 17, 3337–3351 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wetherbee, B. M., Gruber, S. H. & Rosa, R. S. Movement patterns of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris within Atol das Rocas, Brazil: A nursery characterized by tidal extremes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Seri. 343, 283–293 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A. et al. Two decades of genetic profiling yields first evidence of natal philopatry and long-term fidelity to parturition sites in sharks. Mol. Ecol. 23, 110–117 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevens J. D. et al. Diversity, abundance and habitat utilisation of sharks and rays: Final report to West Australian Marine Science Institute. CSIRO, editor. Hobart (2009).Schultz, J. K. et al. Global phylogeography and seascape genetics of the lemon sharks (genus Negaprion). Mol. Ecol. 17, 5336–5348 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mourier, J., Buray, N., Schultz, J. K., Clua, E. & Planes, S. Genetic network and breeding patterns of a sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens) population in the Society Islands, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 8, e73899 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Speed, C. W. et al. Reef shark movements relative to a coastal marine protected area. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 3, 58–66 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Huang, Z. Marine Species and Their Distribution in China’s Seas (Krieger Publishing Company, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Chang, C. W., Huang, C. S. & Wang, S. I. Species composition and sizes of fish in the lagoon of dongsha island (Pratas Island), Dongsha Atoll of the South China sea. Platax 2012, 25–32 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Pillans, R. D. et al. Long-term acoustic monitoring reveals site fidelity, reproductive migrations, and sex specific differences in habitat use and migratory timing in a large coastal shark (Negaprion acutidens). Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 616633 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daly-Engel, T. S. et al. Global phylogeography with mixed-marker analysis reveals male-mediated dispersal in the endangered scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). PLoS ONE 7, e29986 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Félix-López, D. G. et al. Possible female philopatry of the smooth hammerhead shark Sphyrna zygaena revealed by genetic structure patterns. J. Fish Biol. 94, 671–679 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nosal, A. P., Caillat, A., Kisfaludy, E. K., Royer, M. A. & Wegner, N. C. Aggregation behavior and seasonal philopatry in male and female leopard sharks Triakis semifasciata along the open coast of southern California, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 499, 157–175 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jirik, K. E. & Lowe, C. G. An elasmobranch maternity ward: Female round stingrays Urobatis halleri use warm, restored estuarine habitat during gestation. J. Fish. Biol. 80(5), 1227–1245 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jacoby, D. M., Croft, D. P. & Sims, D. W. Social behaviour in sharks and rays: Analysis, patterns and implications for conservation. Fish Fish 13(4), 399–417 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, S. H., Liu, S. Y. V., Liu, K. M. & Tsai, W. P. Development and characterization of novel microsatellite loci for an endangered hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini by using shotgun sequencing. Taiwania 65(2), 261–263 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Dieringer, D. & Schlötterer, C. Microsatellite analyser (MSA): A platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 3, 167–169 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. & Shipley, P. Micro-checker: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Falush, D., Stephens, M. & Pritchard, J. K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Dominant markers and null alleles. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 574–578 (2007).Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23(14), 1801–1806 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. POPPR: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalinowski, S. T., Wagner, A. P. & Taper, M. L. ML-Relate: A computer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 6, 576–579 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Do, C. et al. NeEstimator v2: Re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 209–214 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oh, B. Z. et al. Contrasting patterns of residency and space use of coastal sharks within a communal shark nursery. Mar. Freshw. Res. 68, 1501–1517 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClelland J. Genetic Assessment of Breeding Patterns and Population Size of the Sicklefin Lemon Shark Negaprion acutidens in a Tropical Marine Protected Area: Implications for Conservation and Management (Doctoral dissertation, University of York) (2020).Compagno L. J .V. FAO species catalogue Sharks of the world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. No. 125 Rome 4, 1–655 (1984).Stevens, J. D. Life-history and ecology of sharks at aldabra Atoll. Indian Ocean. Proc R Soc. B 222, 79–106 (1984).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kool, J. T., Moilanen, A. & Treml, E. A. Population connectivity: Recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 165–185 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruzzante, D. E. et al. Effective number of breeders, effective population size and their relationship with census size in an iteroparous species Salvelinus fontinalis. Proc. R Soc. B 283, 20152601 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Wyngaarden, M. et al. Identifying patterns of dispersal, connectivity and selection in the sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, using RADseq-derived SNPs. Evol. Appl. 10, 102–117 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R., Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Brook, B. W. Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red list criteria and population viability analyses. Biol. Conserv. 170, 56–63 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pazmiño, D. A., Maes, G. E., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Salinas-de-León, P. & van Herwerden, L. Genome-wide SNPs reveal low effective population size within confined management units of the highly vagile Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis). Conserv. Genet. 18, 1151–1163 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waples, R. S. & Do, C. Linkage disequilibrium estimates of contemporary Ne using highly variable genetic markers: A largely untapped resource for applied conservation and evolution. Evol. Appl. 3, 244–262 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudgeon, C. L. & Ovenden, J. R. The relationship between abundance and genetic effective population size in elasmobranchs: An example from the globally threatened zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum within its protected range. Conserv. Genet. 16, 1443–1454 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A., Gruber, S. H. & Ashley, M. V. Population genetic structure of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) in the western Atlantic: DNA microsatellite variation. Mol. Ecol. 10, 295–303 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Feldheim, K. A., Gruber, S. H. & Ashley, M. V. The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1471–2954 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Portnoy, D., McDowell, J. R., Thompson, K., Musick, J. A. & Graves, J. E. Isolation and characterization of five dinucleotide microsatellite loci in the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 431–433 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Data collectionWe obtained trade data from two different sources: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS)31 and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List32. We used the former to obtain data on the live wildlife trade in general and the latter for data on the pet trade specifically. We then matched trade data with our previously compiled global scale datasets of life history traits and introductions in mammals, reptiles and amphibians25,26.We obtained data on the US live wildlife trade from LEMIS by a Freedom of Information Act Request on 12/08/2019. We requested summary data on all US imports and exports of wildlife across all available years (1999-2019) and all trade purposes, including information on species identities and shipment contents (e.g. live individuals, meat, skins, etc.). For each species, we summed the total number of recorded shipments of live individuals (including individuals that died in transit, and live eggs) as a measure of trade frequency. We classified species as in trade if there was at least one shipment of live individuals recorded in the LEMIS database, and as not traded otherwise. The LEMIS dataset is geographically limited to trade by the US, and therefore may not capture the full diversity of species involved in the wildlife trade. For example, the LEMIS database may be missing some species involved in the substantial trade in live wildlife between South–East Asian countries50. However, the US represents one of the most dominant players in the global market for live wildlife16, and by summing both imports and exports we capture demand for species in countries beyond the US to some extent. Supplementary Fig. 2 illustrates the frequency of trade between the US and countries represented in the US LEMIS dataset. LEMIS data should be considered a minimum estimate of the diversity of species involved in the wildlife trade since they mostly record only legal trade (although confiscated shipments are recorded), and shipments are sometimes not identified to the species level16,51,53,53. The LEMIS database also contains some mis-spelled and incorrectly identified species due to human input errors52. To minimise the effect of misidentified shipments on our species level classifications of US trade status, we discarded all LEMIS records that were not identified to the species level (i.e. those identified using genus, common or generic names only), and manually checked the LEMIS data for synonyms and alternate spellings when we could not automatically match any records in LEMIS with species in our life history datasets. Species classified as traded on the basis of a single recorded live shipment in LEMIS are most vulnerable to species level misclassification due to misidentified shipments. The vast majority of traded species have multiple shipments recorded in LEMIS (259/312 [83%] of traded mammals, 265/285 [93%] of traded reptiles and 72/75 [96%] of traded amphibians), reducing the potential impact of shipment level misidentification over the reliability of species level trade classifications. However, to investigate the robustness of our findings to possible errors in species identification in LEMIS, we re-ran our key analyses excluding species classified as traded on the basis of a single live shipment. We found qualitatively the same effects of life history traits on the probability of trade when removing these species as in our full sample (Supplementary Tables 25–27). Despite its limitations, LEMIS is an invaluable resource for identifying broad scale trends in the wildlife trade since few other countries maintain such detailed records, and it is the only large-scale international trade dataset that includes both CITES- and non-CITES-listed species16,41. Including non-CITES listed species in our analyses is important because CITES-listed species represent only a small minority of those in trade14 and are likely to be a biased sample in terms of life history traits, since species vulnerable to extinction typically have slower life histories40.We obtained separate data on the pet trade from the IUCN Red List. The IUCN has assessed the vast majority of mammal, reptile and amphibian species (91%, 79% and 86% respectively54). Here, we classified a species as involved in the pet trade if the IUCN species account included at least one clear description of involvement in the pet trade. Otherwise, we considered a species as not involved in the pet trade. Although LEMIS records the purpose of trade, it uses broad categories (e.g. ‘Commercial’, ‘Personal’, ‘Breeding in captivity’), none of which refers specifically to nor necessarily equates to trade for pets. Therefore, we sought this additional data on the pet trade from the IUCN Red List instead of following the approach of some previous studies which have used LEMIS data as a proxy for the pet trade (e.g. Refs. 15,19). In contrast, the IUCN Red List contains clear textual descriptions of use and trade for many species, allowing us to identify which species are traded specifically for pets32. The IUCN data has further complementary strengths compared with LEMIS in that it is global in scope and includes both legal and illegal trade. We obtained data from the IUCN Red List by manually searching the binomial name of each species in our samples and consulting the ‘Threats’ and ‘Use and Trade’ sections of the species accounts. We classified species as in the pet trade if the information clearly stated this was the case (e.g. “It has been recorded in the pet trade”, “This species appears in the international pet trade”). We discounted descriptions where the information was uncertain (e.g. the species is described as “probably” or “possibly” traded for pets). We did not count as pets those species that the IUCN categorises as used for “Pets/display animals, horticulture” but which are used only for zoos or captive display, such as beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). All species described as pets by the IUCN are ‘exotic’, i.e. those without a long history of domestication14, since the IUCN does not list domesticated species.We matched trade data with our previously published global scale datasets on life history traits and introductions25,26. Internationally traded species may or not be released in the wild outside their native range: some may remain in the confines of captivity (e.g. in zoos or kept by private owners). We defined a species as introduced if there was at least one reliable record of its release, by humans, into the wild outside of its native range, either accidentally or intentionally25,26. We included only species with complete data for the same life history traits as used in our prior analyses (mammals: body mass, gestation period, weaning age, neonatal body mass, litter size, litters per year, age at first reproduction and reproductive lifespan; reptiles: body mass, hatchling mass, clutch size, clutches per year, age of sexual maturity, reproductive lifespan and parity; amphibians: snout-vent length, egg size, clutch size, age of sexual maturity and reproductive lifespan) to facilitate direct comparisons with previous results and to allow us to account for covariation between life history traits55. Species with complete life history data represent 7.8%, 3.5% and 1.6% of the total estimated number of species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians respectively56,57,58. These samples are not random as they over-represent orders containing many species of interest and utility to humans (e.g. ungulates, primates, crocodilians) (Supplementary Tables 28–30). However, these biases are unlikely to undermine our results since we examine life history effects on trade and introduction within these samples. Trade and introduction data do not necessarily cover the same time periods: the US dataset covers only the years 1999-present and the IUCN descriptions also typically refer to recent trade. In contrast, our introduction dataset includes both historical and recent introductions25,26. Therefore, the goal of our analyses is not to test causal hypotheses on the direct relationship between trade and introduction but rather to investigate whether the same life history traits predispose species towards both trade and introduction across diverse taxa, locations and circumstances. When combining the datasets and phylogenies59,60,61,62,63, we resolved species name mis-matches by referring to taxonomic information from the IUCN Red List32, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF33) and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS64). Table 1 summarises final sample sizes and Supplementary Table 1 the degree of overlap between the trade datasets. Most species in the pet trade are also in the general live wildlife trade, but many more species are traded by the US for general purposes than are involved in the pet trade specifically.Finally, we obtained data for a proxy measure of species detectability in order to control for a potential confounding effect on relationships between life history traits and introduction: larger bodied and longer-lived species may be more likely to be recorded by human observers when introduced compared with smaller and shorter-lived species. We obtained data on species occurrence records, geographic range size and population density, assuming that highly detectable species will have a disproportionately large number of recorded observations than expected based on the size of their geographic ranges and average population densities, following similar approaches by e.g. Refs. 65,66. We obtained occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF33) via the R package rgbif67 selecting only records resulting from human observation. We obtained range sizes (in decimal degrees squared) from the IUCN Red List32 and processed them for analysis using functions from the rgdal package68, excluding areas of uncertain presence (i.e. limiting range to presence code 1, ‘extant’). We obtained population density estimates from the TetraDENSITY database (version 134), a global database of population density estimates for terrestrial vertebrates. Most species in the TetraDENSITY dataset are represented by estimates from multiple different studies (median = 3, range 1–408). We collapsed density estimates to the species level by taking the median value across studies, including all estimates regardless of sampling method to maximise sample size, and converting all units to individuals/km2 to ensure comparability.Statistical analysesTo investigate relationships between life history traits and trade, we run models treating US or pet trade as the outcome variable and life history traits as the predictors. For all analyses, all life history variables were included in the same models to account for covariation among life history traits55. For US trade, where data on trade frequency are available, we run models both in which trade is treated as a binary variable (traded vs. not traded) and as a count variable (frequency of live shipments, including zero values), while for the pet trade, we have no data on trade frequency and so we treat pet trade as a binary variable only. To investigate the effects of life history traits on introduction, we run models in which introduction is the outcome variable and life history traits are the predictors. In introduction models, we only include traded species (running separate models for the set of species in US trade and the set of species in the pet trade). This approach allows us to disentangle effects associated with trade and introduction and thus identify at which stage(s) life history biases emerge. We also run introduction models in which frequency of US trade is included as an additional predictor alongside life history traits, anticipating that highly traded species are more likely to be introduced. Finally, to investigate possible confounding effects of species detectability on relationships between life history traits and introduction, we investigate effects of number of observations, geographic range size and, where sample sizes allowed, population density on the probability of introduction. If highly detectable species are more likely to be recorded as introduced, we expect to find a positive effect of the number of observations (while accounting for geographic range size and population density) on the probability of introduction. If this effect confounds relationships between body mass/lifespan and introduction, the effect of these life history traits on the probability of introduction should disappear when detectability measures are included in the models alongside life history traits. All analyses were conducted using the R statistical programming environment (Version 4.2.069). Plots were coloured using palettes from the viridis package70.To estimate effects of predictor variables, we fit generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) using Markov chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) estimation, implemented in the MCMCglmm package35,36. For analyses with binary outcome variables (traded vs. not traded, introduced vs. not introduced) we fit probit models, while for analyses with US trade frequency as the outcome variable we fit hurdle models. Hurdle models estimate two latent variables: the probability that the outcome is zero (on the logit scale), and the probability of the outcome modelled as a Poisson distribution for non-zero values71. This method therefore allows us to estimate effects of life history traits on the probability and frequency of trade in the same model. While the binary component of a hurdle model estimates the probability that outcomes are zero, when reporting results we reverse the sign of coefficients from the binary model for ease of interpretation, so that effects can be interpreted as the probability that the outcome is not zero. Therefore, here predictors with consistent effects on the probability and frequency of trade in hurdle models will have the same sign (so that if, for example, litter size has a positive effect on both the probability and frequency of trade, both coefficients for litter size from the hurdle model will be positive).Datasets comprising biological measures from multiple related species violate the fundamental statistical assumption that observations are independent of one another, since closely related species are more phenotypically similar than expected by chance due to their shared evolutionary history72. To account for the non-independence of species due to shared ancestry, we included a phylogenetic random effect in all models, represented by a variance-covariance (VCV) matrix derived from the phylogeny. The off-diagonal elements of the VCV matrix contain the amount of shared evolutionary history for each pair of species35,37,38 based on the branch lengths of the phylogeny (here proportional to time)59,61,62,63,63. This approach allows us to estimate phylogenetic signal using the heritability (H2) parameter, which measures the proportion of total variance in the latent variable attributable to the phylogeny35,37,38. Heritability is interpreted in the same way as Pagel’s λ in phylogenetic generalized least squares regression35,37,38,72. Specifically, phylogenetic signal is constrained between 0, indicating no phylogenetic effect so that species can be treated as independent, and 1, indicating that similarity between species is directly proportional to their amount of shared evolutionary history35,38,72. As hurdle models estimate two latent variables, for each hurdle model we report two heritability estimates, one for the binary and one for the Poisson component. All continuous independent variables were log-10 transformed due to positively skewed distributions. Although GLMMs do not require normally distributed predictor variables, log-transforming positively skewed life history predictors in phylogenetic comparative analyses allows us to model life history evolution on proportional rather than absolute scales. This is important as it facilitates biologically meaningful comparisons between species across large scales of life history variation73. Further, log-transforming positively skewed predictors helps to meet assumptions of the underlying Brownian motion model of evolutionary change, which assumes that phenotypic change along branches of the phylogeny is normally distributed74.We calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) using functions from the car R package75 to check for multicollinearity between predictor variables. Where any model reported a variance inflation factor of 5 or above, indicating potentially problematic levels of collinearity76, we re-ran the model removing the variable with the highest VIF iteratively until all the remaining variables had VIFs of More

Study siteThe field experiment was conducted at Namco Station (30°47’N, 90°58’E, altitude 4730 m) of the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ITPCAS), which is located in the alpine steppes of TP in China. The experiment was permitted by ITPCAS, complied with local and national guidelines and regulations. From 2006 to 2017, the mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) was about − 0.6 °C and 406 mm, respectively. Monthly mean temperature varied from − 10.8 °C in January to 9.1 °C in July and most of the precipitation occurred from May to October37,38. During our six-year observations (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017), climate change during the growing season from May to September varied differently, with the annual precipitation ranged from 255.9 mm to 493.8 mm and the MAT from 6.7 to 7.4 °C. Androsace tapete, Kobresia pygmaea, Stipa purpurea and Leontopodium pusillum were the dominant plant species at the alpine steppe.Experimental design and treatmentsThe long-term experiment began in May, 2010. Three homogenous plots were randomly arranged as replicates at the alpine steppe and six subplots (~ 13 m2) were distributed in each plot by a cycle, with a 2 m buffer zone between each adjacent subplot (Appendix S1: Fig. S1). In this experiment, six treatments of N fertilization rate (0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 g N m−2 yr−1) were clockwise applied in each subplot. The subplots of 0 g N m−2 yr−1 were control group. We sprayed NH4NO3 solution on the first day of each month in the growing season (from May to September) each year. After fertilizing, we rinsed plant residual fertilizer with a little deionized water (no more than 2 mm rainfall). For the control groups, we added equivalent amount of water. The experiment was conducted from 2010 to 2017 (it should be pointed out that there was no fertilization in 2014 and 2016).Sampling and measurementsThe samples were collected with the training and permission of ITPCAS and involved plants that are common species and not endangered or protected. The identification of the plants was done by referring to a book of Chen and Yang39. Pictures of the corresponding specimens can be seen on the website of ITPCAS (http://itpcas.cas.cn/kxcb/kxtp/nmc_normal_plant/).Vegetation samples were collected in August in 2011 and repeated at the same time in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017. We established one 50 × 50 cm quadrat in each subplot, clipped aboveground biomass (AGB) and sorted species by families. The biomass was used to measure ANPP (g m−2 yr−1). Following aboveground portion collected, we used three soil cores (5 cm diameter) to collect the belowground roots at 0–30 cm depth and mixed into one sample, which were used to assess belowground net primary productivity (BNPP, g m−2 yr−1). The roots were cleaned with running water to remove sand and stones.Both plant and root samples were dried at 75 °C for 48 h and then ground into powder (particle size ~ 5 μm) by a laboratory mixer mill (MM400, Retsch). To determine N and C content of plants, we weighed the samples into tin capsules and measured with the elemental analyzer (MAT253, Finnigan MAT GmbH, Germany).Estimation of the critical N rate (Ncr), N retention fraction (NRF), N retention capacity and N-induced C gainAccording to the N saturation hypothesis, plant productivity increases gradually during N addition, reaches a maximum at the Ncr, and eventually declines16,17. We considered the Ncr to be the rate where ANPP no longer remarkably changed with N addition (Fig. 1).We defined plant N retention fraction (NRF, %; Eq. 1) as the aboveground N storage caused by unit N addition rate, and N retention capacity (g N m−2 yr−1; Eq. 2) was the increment of N storage due to exogenous N addition compared to the control40. The equations are as following:$$N;retention;fraction = frac{{ANPP_{tr} times N;content_{tr} – ANPP_{ck} times N;content_{ck} }}{N;rate}$$
(1)
$$N;retention;capacity = ANPP_{tr} times N;content_{tr} – ANPP_{ck} times N;content_{ck}$$
(2)
where ANPPtr and N contenttr (%) refer to those in the treatment (tr) groups, and ANPPck and N contentck refer to those in the control (ck) groups. These expressions are also used in the following equations (Eqs. 3–5).The N-induced C gain (g C m−2 yr−1; Eq. 3) was estimated by the increment of C storage owing to exogenous N addition compared to the control40. Maximum N retention capacity (MNRC, Eq. 4) and maximum N-induced C gain (Eq. 5) mean the maximum N and C storage increment in plant caused by exogenous N input at Ncr, respectively. The formulas are as following:$$N{text{-}}induced;C;gain = ANPP_{tr} times C;content_{tr} – ANPP_{ck} times C;content_{ck}$$
(3)
$$MNRC = ANPP_{max } times N;content_{max } – ANPP_{ck} times N;content_{ck}$$
(4)
$$Maximum;N{text{-}}induced;C;gain = ANPP_{max } times C;content_{max } – ANPP_{ck} times C;content_{ck}$$
(5)
where ANPPmax, N contentmax and C contentmax refer to the value of ANPP, N content and C content at Ncr, respectively.Data synthesisTo evaluate N limitation and saturation on the TP more accurately, we searched papers from the Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com) and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (https://www.cnki.net). The keywords used by article searching were: (a) N addition, N deposition or N fertilization, (b) grassland, steppe or meadow. Article selection was based on the following conditions. First, the experimental site must be conducted in a grassland ecosystem. Second, the experiment had at least three N addition levels and a control group. Third, if the experiment lasted for many years, we analyzed data with multi-year average. Based on the above, we collected 89 independent experimental cases. Among these, 27 cases were located on the TP alpine grasslands, 25 in the Inner Mongolia (IM) grasslands and 37 in other terrestrial grasslands (detailed information sees Appendix S2: Table S1).We extracted ANPP data and N addition rate of these cases and estimated Ncr and ANPPmax (Appendix S2: Fig. S2). We then calculated NRF, N retention and C gain of each group of data for further analysis (Appendix S2: Table S2). Most of the 89 cases did not have data on N and C content. To facilitate the calculation, we summarized N and C content from 40 articles in the neighboring areas of the cases and divided the N and C content into seven intervals according to the N addition rate (Appendix S2: Table S3 and Fig. S3). The unit of N addition rate was unified to “g N m−2 yr−1”. All the original data were obtained directly from texts and tables of published papers. If the data were displayed only in graphs, Getdata 2.20 was used to digitize the numerical data. For the estimation of N retention and C gain of the TP at current N deposition rates and future at Ncr, we fitted the exponential relationship to the data from 27 cases on the TP, and then substituted N rates into the fitted equations (Eq. 6):$$y = a times left[ {1 – exp left( { – bx} right)} right].$$
(6)
We also included MAT, MAP, soil C:N ratio, fencing management (fencing or grazing) and grassland type (meadow, steppe and desert steppe) of the experiment sites for exploring the drivers affecting N limitation (Appendix S2: Table S1). When climatic data were missing from the article, MAT and MAP were obtained from the WorldClim (http://www.worldclim.org).Species were usually divided into four functional groups (grasses, sedges, legumes and forbs) to study the response of species composition to N addition in previous study41. We synthesized 13 TP experimental cases (including our field experiment) from the data synthesis and each case included at least three functional groups (detailed references see Appendix S2).Statistical analysisThere were 42 species in our field experiment. We divided them by family into eleven groups: Asteraceae (forbs), Poaceae (grasses), Leguminosae (legumes), Rosaceae (forbs), Boraginaceae (forbs), Caryophyllaceae (forbs), Cyperaceae (sedges), Labiatae (forbs), Primulaceae (forbs), Scrophulariaceae (forbs) and Others. Due to species in the group of Others contributed only 1.22% of AGB, we analyzed AGB and foliar stoichiometry among other ten families (Appendix S1: Table S1). In Namco steppe, forbs, grasses, sedges and legumes accounted for 78.0%, 7.4%, 8.2% and 5.2% of the AGB respectively (Appendix S1: Table S1 and Fig. S2). Such a large number of forbs suggested that our experiment was conducted on a severely degraded grassland.For our field data, two-way ANOVAs were used to analyze the effects of year, N fertilization rate and their interactions on species AGB. One-way ANOVAs were used to test the response of ANPP, BNPP, root:shoot ratio, species foliar C content, N content and C:N ratio to N addition rate. Duncan’s new multiple range test was used to compare the fertilization influences at each rate in these ANOVAs. Prior to the above ANOVAs, we performed homogeneity of variance test and transformed the data logarithmically when necessary. Simple regression was used to estimate the relevance among ANPP, NRF, N retention capacity and C gain with N addition rates.Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explore complex relationships among multiple variables. To quantify the contribution of drivers such as climate and soil to Ncr, ANPP, NRF and MNRC, we constructed SEM based on existing ecological knowledge and the possible relationships between variables. We considered environmental factors (MAT, MAP and soil C:N) and ANPPck as explanatory variables, and Ncr, NRF and MNRC as response variables. We included the ANPPck in the SEM rather than the ANPPmax because we wonder whether there was a relationship between ANPP in the absence of exogenous N input and the ecosystem N retention in the presence of N saturation. This has important implications for assessing N input. Before constructing the SEM, we excluded collinearity between the factors. In addition, Student’s t-test and one-way ANOVAs were performed to explain the effect of fencing management and grassland type on above response variables, respectively. The SEM was constructed using the R package “piecewiseSEM”42. Fisher’s C was used to assess the goodness-of-model fit, and AIC was for model comparison.Given the influence of extreme values in the data synthesis, we calculated the geometric mean of Ncr, NRF, N retention and N-induced C gain. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 26.0 and RStudio (Version 1.2.1335) based on R version 3.6.2 (R Core Team, 2019). More