Philippa Kaur

1.
Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Nathan, R. et al. Ecol. Lett. 14, 211–219 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Bullock, J. M. et al. J. Ecol. 100, 104–115 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Muñoz, J., FelicÍsimo, Á. M., Cabezas, F., Burgaz, A. R. & Martínez, I. Science 304, 1144–1147 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Kling, M. M. & Ackerly, D. D. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0848-3 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Clark, J. S. et al. Bioscience 48, 13–24 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Nathan, R. Science 313, 786–788 (2006).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Provan, J. & Bennett, K. D. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 564–571 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bohrer, G., Nathan, R., Katul, G. G., Walko, R. L. & Avissar, R. J. Ecol. 96, 569–580 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Katul, G. G. et al. Am. Nat. 166, 368–381 (2005).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Maurer, K. D., Bohrer, G., Medvigy, D. & Wright, S. J. Funct. Ecol. 27, 208–218 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Treep, J. et al. Oikos 127, 1330–1343 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Joos, F. & Spahni, R. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1425–1430 (2008).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Huntington, T. G. J. Hydrol. 319, 83–95 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Kremer, A. et al. Ecol. Lett. 15, 378–392 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Kroner, R. E. G. et al. The uncertain future of protected lands and waters. Science 364, 881–886 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Qin, S. et al. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1275–1285 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Allan, J. R. et al. Recent increases in human pressure and forest loss threaten many natural World Heritage sites. Biol. Conserv. 206, 47–55 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Asner, G. P. & Tupayachi, R. Accelerated losses of protected forests from gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 094004 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Morrison, T. H. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3013–3021 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
UNESCO World Heritage (UNESCO, 2019).

7.
Hølleland, H., Hamman, E. & Phelps, J. Naming, shaming and fire alarms: the compilation, development and use of the List of World Heritage in Danger. Transnatl Environ. Law 8, 35–57 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Brown, N. E., Liuzza, C. & Meskell, L. The politics of peril: UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger. J. Field Archaeol. 44, 287–303 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Bertacchini, E., Liuzza, C., Meskell, L. & Saccone, D. The politicization of UNESCO World Heritage decision making. Public Choice 167, 95–129 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
de Wit, W., Machimbarrena, M., Tench, E. & Bigaud, N. Our Natural World at Risk: How Politicization Is Limiting the Effectiveness of the World Heritage Convention (WWF, 2019).

11.
Meskell, L., Liuzza, C., Bertacchini, E. & Saccone, D. Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage: decision-making, states parties and political processes. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 21, 423–440 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Agrawal, A., Hajjar, R., Liao, C., Rasmussen, L. V. & Watkins, C. Forest governance interventions for sustainability through information, incentives, and institutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, A1–A7 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Bodin, Ö. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, eaan1114 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Niemeyer, S. Deliberation in the wilderness: displacing symbolic politics. Environ. Polit. 13, 347–372 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Lindenmayer, D., Thorn, S. & Noss, R. Countering resistance to protected-area extension. Conserv. Biol. 32, 315–321 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1115–1121 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Young, O. R. Research strategies to assess the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Nat. Sustain. 1, 461–465 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Lawless, S., Song, A., Cohen, P., & Morrison, T. H. Rights, equity and justice: a diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion in environmental governance. Earth Syst. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100052 (2020).

21.
Zimmermann, L. Same same or different? Norm diffusion between resistance, compliance, and localization in post-conflict states. Int. Stud. Perspect. 17, 98–115 (2016).
Google Scholar 

22.
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D. & Zangl, B. Competence versus control: the governor’s dilemma. Regul. Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12234 (2019).

23.
Turner, M. G. et al. Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190105 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Kates, R. W. & Clark, W. C. Environmental surprise: expecting the unexpected? Environment 38, 6–34 (1996).
Google Scholar 

25.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Sterner, T. et al. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 14–21 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Morrison, T. H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101934 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

28.
The IUCN World Heritage Outlook (IUCN, 2017).

29.
Badman, T. et al. World Heritage in Danger: A Compendium of Key Decisions on the Conservation of Natural World Heritage Properties via the List of World Heritage in Danger (IUCN, 2009).

30.
WHC/17/41.COM/7 Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda: State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties (UNESCO, 2017).

31.
Award of a $443.3 Million Grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (ANAO, 2019).

32.
Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019).

33.
Morrison, T. H. et al. Advancing coral reef governance into the Anthropocene. One Earth 2, 64–74 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

34.
Scott, J. C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (Yale Univ. Press, 1990).

35.
DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
GDP Per Capita, PPP (Current International $) (World Bank, 2018).

37.
Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank, 2018).

38.
International Tourism, Receipts (% of Total Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

39.
Exports of Goods and Services (Current US$) (World Bank, 2018).

40.
Merchandise Exports (Current US$) (World Bank, 2018).

41.
Agricultural Raw Materials Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

42.
Fuel Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

43.
Ores and Metals Exports (% of Merchandise Exports) (World Bank, 2018).

44.
Hartmann, D., Guevara, M. R., Jara-Figueroa, C., Aristaran, M. & Hidalgo, C. A. Linking economic complexity, institutions, and income inequality. World Dev. 93, 75–93 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

45.
Hertel-Fernandez, A., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. C. Legislative staff and representation in Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 1–18 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. Organizing risk: discourse, power, and “riskification”. Acad. Manage. Rev. 41, 80–108 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
PADDDtracker: Tracking Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (WWF, 2019).

48.
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D. & Zangl, B. Two logics of indirect governance: delegation and orchestration. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 719–729 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

49.
Kruck, A. & Zangl, B. Trading privileges for support: the strategic co-optation of emerging powers into international institutions. Int. Theory 11, 318–343 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

50.
Hameiri, S., Hughes, C. & Scarpello, F. International Intervention and Local Politics: Fragmented States and the Politics of Scale (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

51.
Morrison, T. H. et al. Save reefs to rescue all ecosystems. Nature 573, 333–336 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

52.
Cameron, C. & Rössler, M. Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention (Routledge, 2013).

53.
Osipova, E. et al. IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2: A Conservation Assessment of All Natural World Heritage Sites (IUCN, 2017).

54.
Wibowo, A. & Giessen, L. Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics. Land Use Policy 49, 131–141 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Clarke, J. N. & McCool, D. Staking Out the Terrain: Power and Performance Among Natural Resource Agencies (SUNY Press, 1996).

56.
Patry, M., Bassett, C. & Leclerq. B. The state of conservation of world heritage forests. In Proc. 2nd World Heritage Forest Meeting (eds Patry, M. & Ripley, S.) 21–31 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005).

57.
World Economic Outlook: Gaining Momentum? (International Monetary Fund, 2017).

58.
Simoes, A. J. G. & Hidalgo, C. A. The Economic Complexity Observatory: An Analytical Tool for Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development. In Proc. 25th AAAI Conference on Scalable Integration of Analytics and Visualization 39–42 (AAAI, 2011); https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW11/paper/view/3948/4325 More

Without research backing from conservation scientists, policy makers might struggle to make informed decisions, leading to diminishing valuable resources and a deteriorating environment29. The dwindling number of vertebrate conservation scientists may impair the ability to achieve the national goal of Ecological Civilization, and may negatively impact biodiversity conservation in countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, where well-trained conservation scientists might be even rarer. We argue that China, given its pursuit of economic growth and scientific excellence in the past decades, is well positioned and equipped to overcome this massive conservation shortfall. We propose several concrete solutions to address these limitations (Fig. 3). We also identify possible agencies, institutions and pathways to implement the practical recommendations.
Fig. 3: A set of national, regional and global recommendations for meeting China’s shortfall in local and international conservation needs.

The images presented at each level are the adult female northern white-cheeked gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys) (right), the Chinese characters for the Belt and Road Initiative (一带一路) (middle), and the globe (left). Credit: Pixabay (globe image); P.-F.F. (Nomascus leucogenys image).

Full size image

The need of a different evaluation system
First and foremost, we need to decouple the performance evaluation system from impact factors. It is widely acknowledged that journal impact factors should not be used to rank individuals, especially from different fields30,31,32. The abuse of impact factors has caused negative effects on individuals and academic society33. Many organizations, journal editors and scientists have appealed to fight impact factor abuse33. The existing evaluation system of the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC), the largest scientific grant foundation in China, may be a feasible solution. Although NSFC funding is very competitive, it continues to be an objective and meaningful platform for scientists to contest with their own peers via a single-blind peer-review process.
We propose adopting the NSFC funding peer-review process for intra-institutional performance evaluation. In NSFC grant applications, applicants choose keywords and research directions when they submit their proposals and NSFC matches reviewers according to the keywords and research directions. Institution administrators can request disciplinary peer-review reports during promotion evaluation in the same way. We believe that relying less on an impact-factor-centred evaluation and adopting a concurrent peer-review performance evaluation system could level the playing field for all scientists within the same institution. As such, the fairer peer-review evaluation system may help to reverse the brain drain presently observed among vertebrate conservation scientists.
Promoting training and international exchanges
Second, we need to leverage and scale-up existing recruitment and training policies for conservation rapidly. Chinese universities and research institutes need to create more jobs for early-career conservation scientists. In addition, we should jointly train students locally and overseas through existing funding schemes (for example, the Chinese Scholarship Council, BRI scholarships; and The World Academy of Sciences internationally) to meet domestic and BRI conservation needs. According to a report from the Ministry of Education of China, more than 0.5 million Chinese students were studying abroad in 2016, and 35.5% of them were masters or PhD students34. If Chinese institutions provide more employment opportunities, related research internships and experience, more students will likely major in conservation-related disciplines abroad. Recruiting young Chinese or foreign faculty with overseas PhDs will also help to reduce academic inbreeding in China (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
From the same report, there were already more than 0.2 million students from 64 BRI countries studying in China in 2016; 69% of them are graduate students and 61% of them are supported by Chinese scholarships34. To encourage talented BRI students to major in conservation-related disciplines, the Chinese government should set up a new BRI-conservation scholarship fund with a higher quota than other more popular majors. These trained BRI graduates will benefit biodiversity conservation in their native countries, as well as China’s global effort in greening the BRI. As the BRI is slated to transform the lives and careers of many scientists, this is the window of opportunity for institutions like CAS and other leading universities to jointly train and build capacity for conservation research in both China and BRI countries35.
Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration
Third, we need to encourage and incentivize existing Chinese vertebrate conservation scientists to conduct more conservation-related research. Effective biodiversity conservation efforts require input and contribution from multiple disciplines, including but not limited to biology, ecology, economics, sociology, psychology, management, and decision sciences. In its present form, conservation in China is still predominantly biological science-based. Novel innovative knowledge institutions created from interdisciplinary collaboration could lead to adaptive learning-based approaches for addressing local conservation issues, where adopting a one-size fits all solution is challenging. Interdisciplinary programmes in China could be modelled after those at the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford, UK36 and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, US37, for example, which are well-known research and policy institutes, where they invest in research and take multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing complex issues such as climate change, ecosystems and illegal wildlife trade. Such programmes could bring together researchers from across disciplines to find conservation solutions in China.
Additionally, establishing endowed chairs in interdisciplinary conservation science research could aid in mentoring young scholars and researchers early into their career to do interdisciplinary research, thereby promoting continuity. Under the backdrop of accelerating biodiversity loss38, conservation scientists have the moral responsibility to consider implications of their research for national and global biodiversity conservation. The research to implementation gap is a formidable barrier to successful conservation effort; however, interdisciplinary collaborations may help to bridge and overcome it23. As such, we also encourage conservation scientists to actively engage with practitioners and to participate in conservation decision-making and intervention39, where it is critical to ensure that their evidence-based research becomes embedded in practical conservation management and policy. For instance, armed with recent and reliable tiger and leopard population estimates from a network of 2,000 motion-sensing cameras, Chinese conservation scientists were able to advise the Central Government of China to establish a 14,600 km2 Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park in 2017, which is now one of the largest national parks in China40,41.
Fostering international collaborative networks
Finally, due to the geographic scope and impacts of the BRI coupled with weak domestic conservation research capacity, Chinese conservation scientists should actively create and draw on more international conservation networks to collaboratively work on meeting regional conservation needs14. This is particularly important considering that researchers from the UK and USA, and those based in the international agencies, have extensive experience and engagement with local organizations in BRI countries on conservation and development projects, including those across international borders. Existing bi-lateral international cooperative research grants between China’s NSFC and the US’s National Science Foundation and UK’s Research Councils42; and the United Nations Environment Programme43 and from Universities Alliance for Silk Road44 could pave the way for joint conservation research initiatives.
Through these recommendations, we believe that the proliferation of Chinese conservation scientists could trigger general conservation science development locally and provide scientific support for China to meet ambitious sustainable development goals such as a green BRI and the growing conservation needs domestically and regionally. In sum, China must urgently act to make up for massive shortfalls in conservation research capacity and research collaborative networks for long-term biodiversity governance. More

Identifier variables
To facilitate aggregation and analysis of the BIML data, we added ‘site’, ‘site-year’, ‘sampling event’, and ‘transect’ identifier variables. We defined ‘sites’ as unique combinations of latitude and longitude, and ‘site-years’ as unique combinations of site and year of sampling. Within site-years, we defined ‘sampling events’ according to the date of sampling and ‘transects’ as unique combinations of sampling event and text field notes. For some specimens, field notes included a transect ID, indicating that the BIML used multiple sets of pan traps at the same site. In other cases, field notes recorded differing sampling methods, or different information on the number of missing traps (traps that were cracked, tipped over, or otherwise compromised). If field notes recorded different methods or number of lost traps, we assumed that the BIML deployed multiple sets of traps (transects). We reviewed the field notes for all sampling events with multiple transects and reassigned these occurrences to a single transect if there was no evidence of multiple transects in the field notes.
Locality and taxonomic identification
Next, we reviewed and excluded occurrences lacking critical date and locality information. We removed all occurrences lacking sampling date or latitude and longitude of sampling location and occurrences with duplicated specimen identifiers. We filtered occurrences to a limited geographic area (Maryland, Delaware, and Washington DC, Fig. 1) that represents the densest region of BIML sampling (39.6% of dataset). This filtering removed wild-bee communities collected in desert or tropical biomes, which are likely governed by very different floral resource and climate dynamics19,20, and within the Mid-Atlantic USA, limited sampling locations to a region with a consistent dominant forest type21. Bee occurrences in 1999 and 2001 represented fewer than three sites per year, so we removed these years, retaining sites sampled from 2002–2016.
Fig. 1

Abundance per day per trap of wild bees at locations surveyed between 2002 and 2016 by the United States Geological Survey Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab (USGS BIML).

Full size image

We also filtered data to our taxa of interest. We removed non-bee occurrences (species outside superfamily Apoidea, clade Anthophila) and records lacking species-level identity, discarding occurrences identified to family or genus (Online-only Table 1). Almost all non-bee occurrences we removed were wasps in the Vespidae, Crabronidae, and Sphecidae families, which are primarily predators, rather than pollen-collectors like most wild bees. For the transect-level dataset22 (see ‘Data Records’ below), we calculated the abundance of Apis mellifera L., then removed A. mellifera from the dataset before calculating total bee abundance per transect, since often A. mellifera specimens likely originated from managed colonies and are not considered to be wild bees.
We verified species names by cross-referencing all species binomials with the Discover Life database23. We corrected genus and species names that were clear spelling errors (Online-only Table 1) and consulted the original data source (S. Droege) for remaining species binomials that did not exist on Discover Life. We also referenced Discover Life occurrence maps to confirm that all species in the BIML dataset occur in the Mid-Atlantic US. After these data cleaning steps, we removed six occurrences of the remaining five unknown or out-of-region species (Online-only Table 1). Some species in the BIML data were identified singularly and as part of a species set. To avoid double counting these species, we created a new variable with cleaned, mutually exclusive species names (termed ‘grouped name’). In ‘grouped name’, we combined singular species names with their associated species sets (Online-only Table 1). For example, we reclassified occurrences identified as Halictus ligatus/poeyi, Halictus ligatus, or Halictus poeyi to Halictus ligatus/poeyi to avoid inflating future species richness estimates when occurrences might be the same species. In the final occurrence datasets, we included the cleaned, singular names (‘name’) and cleaned, grouped names (‘grouped_name’), so future analysts can select the appropriate taxonomic aggregation for their research objectives. Voucher specimens for most species in the BIML dataset are housed in the Smithsonian collection, but some are not yet permanently archived. We suggest interested parties contact Sam Droege (current email: [email protected]) to access voucher specimens. We also included, to the best of our knowledge, current affiliations for individuals who identified BIML specimens (Supplementary Information, Table S1), and standardized names of identifiers (‘identifiedBy’) in the final datasets.
Sampling method and effort
To describe sampling method and effort, we used regular expressions to extract these data from field notes. We sought to compare bee communities sampled with a standard methodology, so we discarded bee occurrences collected with vane traps or nets, only retaining occurrences sampled with pan traps (i.e., bee bowls). Using the stringr package in R24,25, we searched the text of field notes to document trap volume, trap color, total number of traps, and the number of traps missing or disturbed. The most common BIML pan-trapping method involved setting out traps of multiple colors and combining the bees in all traps into one sample. Consequently, BIML recorded trap color in field notes as the number of traps of each color used for a specific sampling event. We designed regular expressions to extract the number of traps for the eight most common colors (white, blue, yellow, pale blue, fluorescent yellow, fluorescent blue, and florescent pale blue). For some occurrences, our regular expressions yielded no sampling information, so we manually reviewed these field notes and recorded any data missed by the automated search.
Next, we simplified the trap color and volume classification to facilitate future statistical analyses. To reduce the number of trap volume categories, we rounded trap volume to the nearest 0.5 ounces, and removed trap volumes greater than 40 ounces, assuming these were errors in data entry or extraction. When the trap color or volume used at a specific site changed within a year, we manually reviewed the field notes and corrected color or volume classifications when necessary. After correcting these discrepancies, we found the BIML very rarely changed sampling methods within a year, so we filled in most missing trap color or volume information by assuming a constant sampling method for all transects within a site-year. Finally, we combined rarely used color/volumes (fewer than 1% of transects) into an ‘Other’ category. In the archived datasets with sampling information, we included original and simplified variables for trap color and volume.
Lastly, we summarized sampling effort and calculated effort-adjusted abundance of wild bees. We calculated the total number of traps for each sampling event, and, when available, we also described the number of traps missing or disturbed. If there was no documentation of missing or disturbed traps, we assumed all traps were recovered successfully. When the total number of traps differed between the field notes and ‘number of traps’ column, we selected the lower value. We defined the final number of traps in each transect as the original number minus the number missing or disturbed. We calculated the duration of sampling as the difference between the date traps were collected and date traps were set. If traps were set and collected on the same day, we set the duration of sampling to one day. For each occurrence in the BIML dataset, we converted bee abundance to abundance day−1 trap−1. We conducted all data manipulation and aggregation with the R statistical and computing language 3.6.025,26 More

1.
Oswald, W. W. et al. Conservation implications of limited Native American impacts in pre-contact New England. Nat. Sustain. 3, 241–246 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Thompson, J. R., Carpenter, D. N., Cogbill, C. V. & Foster, D. R. Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests. PLoS ONE 8, e72540 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Abrams, M. D. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience 42, 346–353 (1992).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Abrams, M. D. Eastern white pine versatility in the presettlement forest. BioScience 51, 967–979 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Nowacki, G. J. & Abrams, M. D. Is climate an important driver of post European vegetation change in the eastern U.S.? Glob. Change Biol. 21, 314–334 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
Whitney G. G. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain 117–118 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).

7.
Nowacki, G. J. & Abrams, M. D. Demise of fire and mesophication of eastern U.S. forests. BioScience 58, 123–138 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Stocks B. J. & Kauffman, J. B. in Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global Change NATO ASI Series I, Vol. 51 (eds Clark, J. S. et al.) 169–188 (Springer, 1997).

9.
Abrams, M. D. & Seischab, F. K. Does the absence of sediment charcoal provide substantial evidence against the fire and oak hypothesis? J. Ecol. 85, 373–375 (1997).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Feurdean, A. et al. Broadleaf deciduous forest counterbalanced the direct effect of climate on Holocene fire regime in hemiboreal/boreal region (NE Europe). Quat. Sci. Rev. 169, 378–390 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

11.
Guyette, R. P., Stambaugh, M. C., Dey, D. C. & Muzika, R. Predicting fire frequency with chemistry and climate. Ecosystems 15, 322–335 (2012).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Abrams, M. D. & Nowacki, G. J. Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. Holocene 18, 1123–1137 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Patterson, W. A. III & Sassaman, K. E. in Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America (ed. Nicholas, G. P.) 107–135 (Plenum, 1988).

14.
Cronon, W. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (Hill and Wang, 1983).

15.
Munoz, S. E., Gajewski, K. & Peros, M. C. Synchronous environmental and cultural change in the prehistory of the northeastern United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22008–22013 (2010).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Brose, P. H. Development of prescribed fire as a silvicultural tool for the upland oak forests of the eastern United States. J. For. 112, 525–533 (2014).
Google Scholar 

17.
Whitlock, C., Skinner, C. N., Bartlein, P. J., Minckley, T. & Mohr, J. A. et al. Comparison of charcoal and tree-ring records of recent fires in the eastern Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 34, 2110–2121 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Oswald, W. W. et al. Conservation implications of limited Native American impacts in pre-contact New England. Nat. Sustain. 3, 241–246 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Roos, C. I. Scale in the study of Indigenous burning. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0579-5 (2020).

3.
Abrams, M. D. & Nowacki, G. J. Native American imprint in palaeoecology. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0578-6 (2020).

4.
Abrams, M. D. & Nowacki, G. J. Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. Holocene 18, 1123–1137 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Mann, C. C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (Knopf, 2005).

6.
Canuto, M. A. et al. Ancient lowland Maya complexity as revealed by airborne laser scanning of northern Guatemala. Science 361, 1355–1371 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Snow, D. The Iroquois (Wiley-Blackwell, 1996).

8.
Day, G. M. The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern forest. Ecology 34, 329–346 (1953).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Cronon, W. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (Hill & Wang, 1983).

10.
Whitney G. G. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).

11.
Nowacki, G. J. & Abrams, M. D. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience 58, 123–138 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Cogbill, C. V., Burk, J. & Motzkin, G. The forests of presettlement New England, USA: spatial and compositional patterns based on town proprietor surveys. J. Biogeogr. 29, 1279–1304 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Oswald, W. W. et al. Subregional variability in the response of New England vegetation to postglacial climate change. J. Biogeogr. 45, 2375–2388 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Shuman, B. N., Marsicek, J., Oswald, W. W. & Foster, D. R. Predictable hydrological and ecological responses to Holocene North Atlantic variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 5985–5990 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Foster, D. R., Motzkin, G. & Slater, B. Land-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in central New England. Ecosystems 1, 96–119 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
McEwan, R. W., Dyer, J. M. & Pederson, N. Multiple interacting ecosystem drivers: toward an encompassing hypothesis of oak forest dynamics across eastern North America. Ecography 34, 244–256 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Pederson, N. et al. Climate remains an important driver of post-European vegetation change in the eastern United States. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2105–2110 (2014).
Google Scholar 

18.
Thompson, J. R., Carpenter, D. N., Cogbill, C. V. & Foster, D. R. Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests. PLoS ONE 8, e72540 (2013).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Patterson, W. A. III in Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers (ed. Dickinson, M. B.) 2–19 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 2006).

20.
Patterson, W. A. III & Sassaman, K. E. in Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America (ed. Nicholas, G. P.) 107–135 (Plenum, 1988).

21.
Marlon, J., Bartlein, P. J. & Whitlock, C. Fire–fuel–climate linkages in the northwestern USA during the Holocene. Holocene 16, 1059–1071 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Munoz, S. E. & Gajewski, K. Distinguishing prehistoric human influence on late-Holocene forests in southern Ontario, Canada. Holocene 20, 967–981 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Lynch, E. A., Hotchkiss, S. C. & Calcote, R. Charcoal signatures defined by multivariate analysis of charcoal records from 10 lakes in northwest Wisconsin (USA). Quat. Res. 75, 125–137 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Calder, W. J. et al. Medieval warming initiated exceptionally large wildfire outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13261–13266 (2015).

25.
Chilton, E. S. in Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700–A.D. 1300 (eds Hart, J. & Reith, C.) 289–300 (New York State Museum, 2002).

26.
Josselyn, J. Two Voyages to New England (E. W. Metcalf & Co., 1833).

27.
Chilton, E. S. in Ancient Complexities: New Perspectives in Pre-Columbian North America (ed. Alt, S.) 96–103 (Univ. of Utah Press, 2010).

28.
Archer, G. Gosnold’s Settlement at Cuttyhunk (Old South Work, 1902).

29.
Thomas, P. A. In the Maelstrom of Change: The Indian Trade and Cultural Process in the Middle Connecticut River Valley 1635–1665. PhD thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst (1979).

30.
Clark, J. S. & Royall, P. D. Transformation of a northern hardwood forest by aboriginal (Iroquois) fire: charcoal evidence from Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. Holocene 5, 1–9 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Chilton, E. S. in Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology (ed. Pauketat, T.) 262–272 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012). More

Below, we elaborate on how agroecological production can help to support the GBF targets.
Target 1 — reduce the threats to biodiversity
Comprehensive spatial planning for diversified agriculture benefits biodiversity conservation and nature’s contributions to people (NCP)7,8, when integrating multiple spatial scales from local to regional and multi-stakeholder participatory approaches. Diversified farmlands enhance biodiversity, biocontrol, pollination and reduce pathogen and pest impact7, thereby contributing to achieve conservation objectives in proximate protected areas, as more protected areas are seeing impact in intensive land use in surrounding areas9. Agroecological practices can considerably reduce the use of synthetic pesticides10, a major cause of biodiversity loss11. A more effective use of fertilizers can reduce nutrient pollution and mitigate climate impacts by maintaining healthier, carbon-sequestering soil microbiota12. Diversified cropping systems can further mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by, for example, non-crop tree diversification in agroforestry systems, thereby enhancing agrobiodiversity benefits13,14.
Target 2 — meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit sharing
Agroecological production is a comprehensive framework for the sustainable use of biodiversity that also supports productivity and resilience15. Farmers benefit from diversified systems through increased economic resilience, reduced dependency on agrochemical inputs, and in subsistence systems more diverse and nutritious foods16,17,18. Moreover, agroecological production can reduce negative externalities and off-farm inputs, while increasing biodiversity and NCP19,20. Trade-offs between agroecological approaches and yield are often assumed, but not inherent21. New crop varieties, crop combinations and technological innovations will only further reduce yield gaps between conventional and agroecological production19,22, when the availability is fair and locally appropriate.
Target 3 — tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming
Eco-certification and agricultural policies — if well informed and implemented — provide important opportunities to encourage diversified farm and landscape measures for conservation23,24. Corporate and government commitments to zero-deforestation and eco-labelling could be enhanced by coupling production and protection goals within innovative investment models that emphasize natural assets. Investing in diversified systems can mitigate environmental vulnerability by embedding resilience into supply chains25. Promotion and equitable participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making processes is critical to incorporate their perspective on and knowledge about agroecological approaches. Lastly, an understanding of agroecological production, benefits for biodiversity conservation, food security, and overall better quality of life can help to shape new social norms for sustainability6. More

1.
De Schryver, P., Defoirdt, T. & Sorgeloos, P. Early mortality syndrome outbreaks: a microbial management issue in shrimp farming?. PLoS Pathog. 10, e1003919 (2014).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Soto-Rodriguez, S. A., Gomez-Gil, B., Lozano-Olvera, R., Betancourt-Lozano, M. & Morales-Covarrubias, M. S. Field and experimental evidence of Vibrio parahaemolyticus as the causative agent of acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease of cultured shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in Northwestern Mexico. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 1689–1699 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

3.
Mastan, S. A. Incidences of white feces syndrome (WFS) in farm-reared shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, Andhra Pradesh. Indo Am. J. Pharm. Res. 5, 3044–3047 (2015).
CAS  Google Scholar 

4.
Zheng, Y. et al. Bacterial community associated with healthy and diseased Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) larvae and rearing water across different growth stages. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 

5.
Durai, V., Gunalan, B., Johnson, P. M., Maheswaran, M. L. & Pravinkumar, M. Effect on white gut and white feces disease in semi intensive Litopenaeus vannamei shrimp culture system in south Indian state of Tamilnadu. Int. J. Mar. Sci. 5, 1–5 (2015).
Google Scholar 

6.
Sriurairatana, S. et al. White feces syndrome of shrimp arises from transformation, sloughing and aggregation of hepatopancreatic microvilli into vermiform bodies superficially resembling gregarines. PLoS ONE 9, e99170 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Sung, H. H., Hsu, S. F., Chen, C. K., Ting, Y. Y. & Chao, W. L. Relationships between disease outbreak in cultured tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and the composition of Vibrio communities in pond water and shrimp hepatopancreas during cultivation. Aquaculture 192, 101–110 (2001).
Google Scholar 

8.
Tang, K. F. J. et al. Dense populations of the microsporidian Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) in feces of Penaeus vannamei exhibiting white feces syndrome and pathways of their transmission to healthy shrimp. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 140, 1–7 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Piamsomboon, P. et al. Quantification of Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) in penaeid shrimps from Southeast Asia and Latin America using taqman probe-based quantitative PCR. Pathogens 8, 4–9 (2019).
Google Scholar 

10.
Limsuwan, C. White feces disease in Thailand. Boletines nicovita. 2, 1–3 (2010).
Google Scholar 

11.
Tangprasittipap, A. et al. The microsporidian Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei is not the cause of white feces syndrome in whiteleg shrimp Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. BMC Vet. Res. 9, 139 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Gomez-Gil, B., Roque, A. & Turnbull, J. F. The use and selection of probiotic bacteria for use in the culture of larval aquatic organisms. Aquaculture 191, 259–270 (2000).
Google Scholar 

13.
Gullian, M., Thompson, F. & Rodriguez, J. Selection of probiotic bacteria and study of their immunostimulatory effect in Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 233, 1–14 (2004).
Google Scholar 

14.
Moriarty, D. J. W. Disease control in shrimp aquaculture with probiotic bacteria. In Microbial Biosystems: New Frontiers. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Microbial Ecology (eds Bell, C. R. et al.) 1–7 (Atlantic Canada Society for Microbial Ecology, Halifax, 2013).
Google Scholar 

15.
Franco, R. et al. Evaluation of two probiotics used during farm production of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Crustacea: Decapoda). Aquac. Res. 48, 1936–1950 (2017).
CAS  Google Scholar 

16.
Zhang, L. et al. Effects of dietary administration of probiotic Halomonas sp. B12 on the intestinal microflora, immunological parameters, and midgut histological structure of shrimp. Fenneropenaeus chinensis. J. World Aquac. Soc. 40, 58–66 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

17.
Xiong, J. et al. Changes in intestinal bacterial communities are closely associated with shrimp disease severity. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99, 6911–6919 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
Somboon, M., Purivirojkul, W., Limsuwan, C. & Chuchird, N. Effect of Vibrio spp, in white feces infected shrimp in Chanthaburi, Thailand. Kasetsart Univ. Fish. Res. Bull. 36, 7–15 (2012).
Google Scholar 

19.
Amann, R. I., Ludwig, W. & Schleifer, K. H. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol. Rev. 59, 143–169 (1995).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Hou, D. et al. Intestinal bacterial signatures of white feces syndrome in shrimp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102, 3701–3709 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21.
Xiong, J., Dai, W. & Li, C. Advances, challenges, and directions in shrimp disease control: the guidelines from an ecological perspective. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100, 6947–6954 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Huang, Z. et al. Microecological Koch’s postulates reveal that intestinal microbiota dysbiosis contributes to shrimp white feces syndrome. Microbiome 8, 32 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

23.
Fan, J. et al. Dynamics of the gut microbiota in developmental stages of Litopenaeus vannamei reveal its association with body weight. Sci. Rep. 9, 734 (2019).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24.
Sha, Y. et al. Bacterial population in intestines of Litopenaeus vannamei fed different probiotics or probiotic supernatant. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26, 1736–1745 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Vargas-Albores, F. et al. Bacterial biota of shrimp intestine is significantly modified by the use of a probiotic mixture: a high throughput sequencing approach. Helgol. Mar. Res. 71, 5 (2017).
Google Scholar 

26.
Rungrassamee, W. et al. Characterization of intestinal bacteria in wild and domesticated adult black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon). PLoS ONE 9, e91853 (2014).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Huang, F., Pan, L., Song, M., Tian, C. & Gao, S. Microbiota assemblages of water, sediment, and intestine and their associations with environmental factors and shrimp physiological health. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102, 8585–8598 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Grossart, H. P. Ecological consequences of bacterioplankton lifestyles: changes in concepts are needed. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2, 706–714 (2010).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

29.
Lyons, M. M., Ward, J. E., Smolowitz, R., Uhlinger, K. R. & Gast, R. J. Lethal marine snow: pathogen of bivalve mollusc concealed in marine aggregates. Limnol. Oceangr. 50, 1983–1988 (2005).
ADS  Google Scholar 

30.
Lyons, M. M. et al. Theory of island biogeography on a microscopic scale: organic aggregates as islands for aquatic pathogens. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 60, 1–13 (2010).
Google Scholar 

31.
Kramer, A. M., Lyons, M. M., Dobbs, F. C. & Drake, J. M. Bacterial colonization and extinction on marine aggregates: stochastic model of species presence and abundance. Ecol. Evol. 3, 4300–4309 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32.
Ekasari, J. et al. The size of biofloc determines the nutritional composition and the nitrogen recovery by aquaculture animals. Aquaculture 426, 105–111 (2014).
Google Scholar 

33.
Hargreaves, J. A. Biofloc production systems for aquaculture. SRAC Publ. 4503, 1–12 (2013).
Google Scholar 

34.
Beardsley, C., Moss, S., Malfatti, F. & Azam, F. Quantitative role of shrimp fecal bacteria in organicmatter fluxes in a recirculating shrimp aquaculture system. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 77, 134–145 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35.
Alfiansah, Y. R. et al. Bacterial abundance and community composition in pond water from shrimp aquaculture systems with different stocking densities. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2457 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Xiong, J. et al. The temporal scaling of bacterioplankton composition: high turnover and predictability during shrimp cultivation. Microb. Ecol. 67, 256–264 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

37.
Yang, W. et al. Nutrient enrichment during shrimp cultivation alters bacterioplankton assemblies and destroys community stability. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 156, 366–374 (2018).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38.
Boyd, C. E. & Tucker, C. S. pH in Handbook for Aquaculture Water Quality 95–112 (Craftmaster Printers, Auburn, Alabama, 2002).
Google Scholar 

39.
Zhang, D. et al. Bacterioplankton assemblages as biological indicators of shrimp health status. Ecol. Indic. 38, 218–224 (2014).
CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Chankaew, S., O-Thong, S. & Songnoi, Y. Halomonas sp. SKNB4, a proficient ammonium oxidizing bacterium. In Proceeding of the 3rd National Meeting on Biodiversity Management in Thailand 4, 186–191 (2016).

41.
Chankaew, S., O-Thong, S. & Sangnoi, Y. Nitrogen removal efficiency of salt-tolerant heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria. Chiang Mai J. Sci 44, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar 

42.
Sangnoi, Y., Chankaew, S. & O-Thong, S. Indigenous Halomonas spp., the potential nitrifying bacteria for saline ammonium waste water treatment. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 20, 52–58 (2016).
Google Scholar 

43.
Bourne, D. G. et al. Microbial community dynamics in a larval aquaculture system of the tropical rock lobster Panulirus ornatus. Aquaculture 242, 31–51 (2004).
Google Scholar 

44.
Li, Y. et al. Diversity of cultivable protease-producing bacteria in Laizhou Bay sediments, Bohai Sea, China. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–10 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

45.
Cao, H. et al. Isolation and characterization of a denitrifying Acinetobacter baumannii H1 using NO2–N as nitrogen source from shrimp farming ponds. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 6, 2258–2264 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
Vijayan, K. K. et al. A brackishwater isolate of Pseudomonas PS-102, a potential antagonistic bacterium against pathogenic vibrios in penaeid and non-penaeid rearing systems. Aquaculture 251, 192–200 (2006).
CAS  Google Scholar 

47.
Luis-Villaseñor, I. E. et al. Effect of beneficial bacteria on larval culture of Pacific whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 7, 3471–3478 (2013).
Google Scholar 

48.
Liu, Y. et al. PHB-degrading bacteria isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of aquatic animals as protective actors against luminescent vibriosis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 74, 196–204 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

49.
Shade, A. et al. Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front. Microbiol. 3, 1–19 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

50.
Dai, W., Qiu, Q., Chen, J. & Xiong, J. Gut eukaryotic disease-discriminatory taxa are indicative of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) white feces syndrome. Aquaculture 506, 154–160 (2019).
Google Scholar 

51.
Ventosa, A., Nieto, J. J. & Oren, A. Biology of moderately halophilic aerobic bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62, 504–544 (1998).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

52.
DiRita, V. J. Co-ordinate expression of virulence genes by ToxR in Vibrio cholerae. Mol. Microbiol. 6, 451–458 (1992).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53.
Williams, S. L., Jensen, R. V., Kuhn, D. D. & Stevens, A. M. Analyzing the metabolic capabilities of a Vibrio parahaemolyticus strain that causes early mortality syndrome in shrimp. Aquaculture 476, 44–48 (2017).
CAS  Google Scholar 

54.
Sirikharin, R. et al. Characterization and PCR detection of binary, pir-like toxins from Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolates that cause acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) in shrimp. PLoS ONE 10, e0126987 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Whitaker, W. B. et al. Modulation of responses of Vibrio parahaemolyticus O3:K6 to pH and temperature stresses by growth at different salt concentrations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 4720–4729 (2010).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Alonzo, K. H. F., Cadiz, R. E., Traifalgar, R. F. M. & Corre, V. L. Immune responses and susceptibility to Vibrio parahaemolyticus colonization of juvenile Penaeus vannamei at increased water temperature. AACL Bioflux 10, 1238–1247 (2017).
Google Scholar 

57.
Gomez-Gil, B., Roque, A. & Velasco-Blanco, G. Culture of Vibrio alginolyticus C7b, a potential probiotic bacterium, with the microalga Chaetoceros muelleri. Aquaculture 211, 43–48 (2002).
Google Scholar 

58.
Zorriehzahra, M. J. et al. Probiotics as beneficial microbes in aquaculture: an update on their multiple modes of action: a review. Vet Q 36, 228–241 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

59.
Allison, S. D. & Martiny, J. B. H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11512–11519 (2008).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

60.
Mandakovic, D. et al. Structure and co-occurrence patterns in microbial communities under acute environmental stress reveal ecological factors fostering resilience. Sci. Rep. 8, 5875 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Anjaini, J., Fadjar, M., Andayani, S., Agustin, I. & Bayu, I. Histopathological in gills, hepatopancreas and gut of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) infected white feces disease (WFD). Res. J. Life Sci. 5, 183–194 (2018).
Google Scholar 

62.
Nercessian, O., Noyes, E., Kalyuzhnaya, M. G., Lidstrom, M. E. & Chistoserdova, L. Bacterial populations active in metabolism of C1 compounds in the sediment of Lake Washington, a freshwater lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 6885–6899 (2005).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

63.
Green, M. R. & Sambrook, J. Isolation of high-molecular-weight DNA using organic solvents. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 10, 356–359 (2017).
Google Scholar 

64.
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

66.
Zhang, J., Kobert, K., Flouri, T. & Stamatakis, A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2014).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Eren, A. M. et al. Oligotyping: Differentiating between closely related microbial taxa using 16S rRNA gene data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1111–1119 (2013).
PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

68.
Ramette, A. & Buttigieg, P. L. The R package OTU2ot for implementing the entropy decomposition of nucleotide variation in sequence data. Front. Microbiol. 5, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 

69.
Utter, D. R., Mark Welch, J. L. & Borisy, G. G. Individuality, stability, and variability of the plaque microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 7, 564 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

70.
Pruesse, E., Peplies, J. & Glöckner, F. O. SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 28, 1823–1829 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71.
Kurtz, Z. D. et al. Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, 1–25 (2015).
Google Scholar 

72.
Csárdi, G. & Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst. 1695, 1–9 (2006).
Google Scholar 

73.
Langfelder, P. & Horvath, S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinform 9, 559 (2008).
Google Scholar 

74.
Breiman, L., Cutler, A., Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Breiman and Cutler’s random forests for classification and regression version 4.6–14. 14 pp. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/ (2018).

75.
Oksanen, J. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4–3. 1–12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. (2017)..

76.
Pinheiro, J. et al. Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. 157 pp. R package version 3.1–131, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. (2017).

77.
Warnes, A. G. R. et al. Various R programming tools for plotting data. 45 pp. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gplots. (2016).

78.
Diepenbroek, M. et al. Towards an integrated biodiversity and ecological research data management and archiving platform : the German federation for the curation of biological data ( GFBio ). Inform. 2014 – Big Data Komplexität meistern. GI-Edition Lect. Notes Informatics – Proc. P-232, 1711–1724 (2014).

79.
Yilmaz, P. et al. Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 415–420 (2011).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More