Skip to main content

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

  • Article
  • Published:

Understanding diversity–synchrony–stability relationships in multitrophic communities

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 8, pages 1259–1269 (2024) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Understanding how species loss impacts ecosystem stability is critical given contemporary declines in global biodiversity. Despite decades of research on biodiversity–stability relationships, most studies are performed within a trophic level, overlooking the multitrophic complexity structuring natural communities. Here, in a global analysis of diversity–synchrony–stability (DSS) studies (n = 420), we found that 74% were monotrophic and biased towards terrestrial plant communities, with 91% describing stabilizing effects of asynchrony. Multitrophic studies (26%) were representative of all biomes and showed that synchrony had mixed effects on stability. To explore potential mechanisms, we applied a multitrophic framework adapted from DSS theory to investigate DSS relationships in algae–herbivore assemblages across five long-term tropical and temperate marine system datasets. Both algal and herbivore species diversity reduced within-group synchrony in both systems but had different interactive effects on species synchrony between systems. Herbivore synchrony was positively and negatively influenced by algal diversity in tropical versus temperate systems, respectively, and algal synchrony was positively influenced by herbivore diversity in temperate systems. While herbivore synchrony reduced multitrophic stability in both systems, algal synchrony only reduced stability in tropical systems. These results highlight the complexity of DSS relationships at the multitrophic level and emphasize why more multitrophic assessments are needed to better understand how biodiversity influences community stability in nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Global systematic review of monotrophic and multitrophic assessments of DSS relationships.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2: Conceptual approach for exploring consumer–resource DSS relationships in multitrophic systems.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3: Variation in patterns of diversity, synchrony and stability in the synthesis of long-term marine datasets.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 4: The influences of trophic group diversity on within and across group synchrony and multitrophic stability.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Marine monitoring datasets in the synthesis component (except for the AIMS LTMP dataset) can be accessed via their respective databases outlined in the references section. Access to the AIMS LTMP dataset may be provided by contacting the Australian Institute of Marine Science Long-Term Monitoring Program. The anonymized systematic review data in support of the findings of this study are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10852483 (ref. 94). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code supporting the findings of this study are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10852483 (ref. 94).

References

  1. McCann, K. S. The diversity–stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity as insurance: from concept to measurement and application. Biol Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12756 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pimm, S. L. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307, 321–326 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Bristow, C. E. Diversity–stability relationships: statistical inevitability or ecological consequence? Am. Nat. 151, 277–282 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Species synchrony and its drivers: neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 172, E48–E66 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wang, S. & Loreau, M. Ecosystem stability in space: α, β and γ variability. Ecol. Lett. 17, 891–901 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shanafelt, D. W. et al. Biodiversity, productivity, and the spatial insurance hypothesis revisited. J. Theor. Biol. 380, 426–435 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamy, T. et al. The dual nature of metacommunity variability. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08517 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilcox, K. R. et al. Asynchrony among local communities stabilises ecosystem function of metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1534–1545 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hubbell, S. P. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Ecology 83, 48–75 (2002).

  13. Xu, Q. et al. Consistently positive effect of species diversity on ecosystem, but not population, temporal stability. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2256–2266 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yan, H. F., Casey, J. M., Knowlton, N., Duffy, J. E. & Brandl, S. J. Examining the diversity, stability and functioning of marine fish communities across a latitudinal gradient. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13611 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling‐up biodiversity‐ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 23, 757–776 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Quevreux, P. & Loreau, M. Synchrony and stability in trophic metacommunities: when top predators navigate in a heterogeneous world. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 865398 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thébault, E. & Loreau, M. Trophic interactions and the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem stability. Am. Nat. 166, E95–E114 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stenseth, N. C., Falck, W., Bjornstad, O. N. & Krebs, C. J. Population regulation in snowshoe hare and canadian lynx: asymmetric food web configurations between hare and lynx. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 5147–5152 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Downing, A. L., Brown, B. L. & Leibold, M. A. Multiple diversity–stability mechanisms enhance population and community stability in aquatic food webs. Ecology 95, 173–184 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Firkowski, C. R., Thompson, P. L., Gonzalez, A., Cadotte, M. W. & Fortin, M. Multi‐trophic metacommunity interactions mediate asynchrony and stability in fluctuating environments. Ecol. Monogr. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1484 (2022).

  21. Neff, F. et al. Changes in plant–herbivore network structure and robustness along land-use intensity gradients in grasslands and forests. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf3985 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang, J., Grimm, N. B., Lawler, S. P. & Dong, X. Changing climate and reorganized species interactions modify community responses to climate variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2218501120 (2023).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. McNaughton, S. J. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: the Serengeti. Ecol. Monogr. 55, 259–294 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tylianakis, J. M., Tscharntke, T. & Klein, A.-M. Diversity, ecosystem function, and stability of parasitoid–host interactions across a tropical habitat gradient. Ecology 87, 3047–3057 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilby, A. & Shachak, M. Shrubs, granivores and annual plant community stability in an arid ecosystem. Oikos 106, 209–216 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Franssen, N. R., Tobler, M. & Gido, K. B. Annual variation of community biomass is lower in more diverse stream fish communities. Oikos 120, 582–590 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hunter, M. D. & Price, P. W. Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom‐up and top‐down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73, 724–732 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Poloczanska, E. S., Skirving, W. & Dove, S. Coral reef ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00158 (2017).

  30. Nixon, S. W., Oviatt, C. A., Frithsen, J. & Sullivan, B. Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. J. Limnol. Soc. South Afr. 12, 43–71 (1986).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson, J. B. C. Adaptation and diversity of reef corals. BioScience 41, 475–482 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Floeter, S. R., Behrens, M. D., Ferreira, C. E. L., Paddack, M. J. & Horn, M. H. Geographical gradients of marine herbivorous fishes: patterns and processes. Mar. Biol. 147, 1435–1447 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yamamura, K. Biodiversity and stability of herbivore populations: influences of the spatial sparseness of food plants. Popul. Ecol. 44, 33–40 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Duffy, J. E. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection. Oikos 99, 201–219 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang, L. & Pu, Z. Different effects of species diversity on temporal stability in single‐trophic and multitrophic communities. Am. Nat. 174, 651–659 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. González-Bergonzoni, I. et al. Meta-analysis shows a consistent and strong latitudinal pattern in fish omnivory across ecosystems. Ecosystems 15, 492–503 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vázquez, D. P. & Stevens, R. D. The latitudinal gradient in niche breadth: concepts and evidence. Am. Nat. 164, E1–E19 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. MacArthur, R. H. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species (Princeton Univ. Press, 1984).

  39. Thébault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853–856 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gross, T., Rudolf, L., Levin, S. A. & Dieckmann, U. Generalized models reveal stabilizing factors in food webs. Science 325, 747–750 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Namba, T., Tanabe, K. & Maeda, N. Omnivory and stability of food webs. Ecol. Complex. 5, 73–85 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lehman, C. L. & Tilman, D. Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities. Am. Nat. 156, 534–552 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Loreau, M. & Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thibaut, L. M. & Connolly, S. R. Understanding diversity–stability relationships: towards a unified model of portfolio effects. Ecol. Lett 16, 140–150 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsang, T. P. N., Ponisio, L. C. & Bonebrake, T. C. Increasing synchrony opposes stabilizing effects of species richness on terrestrial communities. Divers. Distrib. 29, 849–861 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vos, M., Berrocal, S. M., Karamaouna, F., Hemerik, L. & Vet, L. E. M. Plant‐mediated indirect effects and the persistence of parasitoid–herbivore communities. Ecol. Lett. 4, 38–45 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tirok, K. & Gaedke, U. Internally driven alternation of functional traits in a multispecies predator–prey system. Ecology 91, 1748–1762 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ramus, A. P. & Long, Z. T. Producer diversity enhances consumer stability in a benthic marine community. J. Ecol. 104, 572–579 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bolser, R. C. & Hay, M. E. Are tropical plants better defended? Palatability and defenses of temperate vs. tropical seaweeds. Ecology 77, 2269–2286 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Demko, A. M. et al. Declines in plant palatability from polar to tropical latitudes depend on herbivore and plant identity. Ecology 98, 2312–2321 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Yeager, M. E., Gouhier, T. C. & Hughes, A. R. Predicting the stability of multitrophic communities in a variable world. Ecology 101, e02992 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Srednick, G., Cohen, A., Diehl, O., Tyler, K. & Swearer, S. E. Habitat attributes mediate herbivory and influence community development in algal metacommunities. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3976 (2023).

  53. Allesina, S., Bodini, A. & Pascual, M. Functional links and robustness in food webs. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 364, 1701–1709 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Johnson, S., Domínguez-García, V., Donetti, L. & Muñoz, M. A. Trophic coherence determines food-web stability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17923–17928 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. McCauley, D. J. et al. On the prevalence and dynamics of inverted trophic pyramids and otherwise top‐heavy communities. Ecol. Lett. 21, 439–454 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kuiper, J. J., Kooi, B. W., Peterson, G. D. & Mooij, W. M. Bridging theories for ecosystem stability through structural sensitivity analysis of ecological models in equilibrium. Acta Biotheor. 70, 18 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Morton, D. N. et al. A food web including parasites for kelp forests of the Santa Barbara channel, California. Sci. Data 8, 99 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Fortin, M.-J., Dale, M. R. T. & Brimacombe, C. Network ecology in dynamic landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20201889 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hunter, M. D., Varley, G. C. & Gradwell, G. R. Estimating the relative roles of top-down and bottom-up forces on insect herbivore populations: a classic study revisited. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 9176–9181 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hampton, S. E. et al. Quantifying effects of abiotic and biotic drivers on community dynamics with multivariate autoregressive (mar) models. Ecology 94, 2663–2669 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sugihara, G. et al. Detecting causality in complex ecosystems. Science 338, 496–500 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Liu, O. R. & Gaines, S. D. Environmental context dependency in species interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2118539119 (2022).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhao, Q. et al. Relationships of temperature and biodiversity with stability of natural aquatic food webs. Nat. Commun. 14, 3507 (2023).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. May, R. M. Stability in multispecies community models. Math. Biosci. 12, 59–79 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Solé, R. & Levin, S. Ecological complexity and the biosphere: the next 30 years. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377, 20210376 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

  69. Malone, D. P. et al. Large scale, multi‐decade monitoring data from kelp forest ecosystems in California and Oregon (USA). Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3630 (2022).

  70. Edgar, Graham, J. & Barrett, N. S. An assessment of population responses of common inshore fishes and invertebrates following declaration of five Australian marine protected areas. Environ. Conserv. 39, 271–281 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Edgar, G. J. & Stuart-Smith, R. D. Systematic global assessment of reef fish communities by the reef life survey program. Sci. Data 1, 140007 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Edgar, G. J. et al. Reef life survey: establishing the ecological basis for conservation of shallow marine life. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108855 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Carpenter, R. MCR LTER: coral reef: long-term population and community dynamics: benthic algae and other community components, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.8.35. Environ. Data Initiat. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/2fcfcee8370bc92f9a518003cfe56de4 (2023).

  74. Brooks, A. MCR LTER: coral reef: long-term population and community dynamics: fishes, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.6.62. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/75644add7e7f90c568bf5045264d359a (2023)

  75. Carpenter, R. MCR LTER: coral reef: long-term population and community dynamics: other benthic invertebrates, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.7.34. Environmental Data Initiative https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/2dbd9e24a4880a1574ce4c726b3710ab (2023).

  76. Ennis, R. et al. The United States Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program. 2020 Annual Report (Univ. of the Virgin Islands, 2020).

  77. AIMS long-term monitoring program. AIMS https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/monitoring-and-discovery/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/long-term-monitoring-program (2015).

  78. Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.6-4 (2022).

  79. Hallett, L. M. et al. Codyn: an r package of community dynamics metrics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1146–1151 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).

  81. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. LmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lenth, R. V. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.8 (2023).

  83. Lüdecke, D. Ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Open Source Softw. 10.21105/joss.00772 (2018).

  84. Kline, R. B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Guilford Press, 2016).

  85. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: an r package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Pedersen, T. L. Ggraph: an implementation of grammar of graphics for graphs and networks. R package version 2.1.0 (2022).

  87. Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst. https://igraph.org. (2006).

  88. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).

  89. Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wickham, H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J. Stat. Softw. 21, 1–20 (2007).

  91. Grolemund, G. & Wickham, H. Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J. Stat. Softw. 40, 1–25 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Attali, D. & Baker, C. ggExtra: add marginal histograms to ggplot2, and more ggplot2 enhancements. R package version 0.10.1 (2023).

  93. Pedersen, T. Patchwork: the composer of plots. R package version 1.1.2 (2024).

  94. gsrednick/asynchrony_synthesis: code and data in support of Article In Nature Ecology & Evolution. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10852483 (2024)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded by a Melbourne Research Scholarship to G.S. This is a publication of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate, funded through the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. We thank the Australian Institute of Marine Science Long-Term Monitoring Program for providing access to the Great Barrier Reef monitoring data. We also thank members of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate and J. Morrongiello for helpful discussions and comments on previous versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Coasts and Climate, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Griffin Srednick

  2. Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Stephen E. Swearer

Authors
  1. Griffin Srednick
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen E. Swearer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.S. reviewed literature and accessed data. G.S. and S.E.S. analysed the data and generated figures. G.S. and S.E.S. wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approve of the completed manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Griffin Srednick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Figs. 1–4 (download XLSX )

Summary data from systematic review of diversity–synchrony–stability literature. Data are expressed as counts and proportions (when relevant). Data are products of statistical analyses. Fig. 3a. Time-averaged Shannon–Weiner diversity calculated for each trophic group (n = 2) at each site (n = 223 temperate and n = 189 tropical). Fig. 3b. Temporal species synchrony (following Loreau and Mazancourt 2008) calculated for each trophic group (n = 2) at each site (n = 223 temperate and n = 189 tropical). Fig. 3c. Temporal community stability (following Tilman et al. 1998) calculated for aggregate (multitrophic) community at each site (n = 223 temperate and n = 189 tropical). Data are products of statistical analyses. Results of SEMs assessing the relationships between within trophic group diversity and synchrony, and multitrophic stability. Direction of paths (from, to) is indicated for individual path lines, with respective standardized coefficient estimates and P values. Data are provided for the separate tropical and temperate SEMs that are presented in Fig. 4a,b, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srednick, G., Swearer, S.E. Understanding diversity–synchrony–stability relationships in multitrophic communities. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 1259–1269 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02419-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02419-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing