Philippa Kaur

Jackson, R. B. et al. The Ecology of soil carbon: Pools, vulnerabilities, and biotic and abiotic controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. PNAS 114, 9575–9580 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amelung, W. et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 5427. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18887-7 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hopkins, A. & Holz, B. Grassland for agriculture and nature conservation: Production, quality and multi-functionality. Agron 4, 3–20 (2006).
Google Scholar 
van Veen, J. A., Liljeroth, E., Lekkerkerk, L. J. A. & van de Geijn, S. C. Carbon fluxes in plant-soil systems at elevated atmospheric CO2 levels. Ecol. Appl. 1, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941810 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. B. & Donnelly, A. Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of management, climate and elevated CO2. New Phytol. 164, 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01201.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ward, S. E. et al. Legacy effects of grassland management on soil carbon to depth. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2929–2938. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13246 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hungate, B. A. et al. The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 388, 576–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/41550 (1997).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241, 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016125726789 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chang, J. et al. Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands. Nat. Commun. 12, 118. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis contribution of working group 1 to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change In (eds Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., Van Der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. & Johnson, C. A.) (Cambridge University Press).Gwin, L. Scaling-up sustainable livestock production: Innovation and challenges for grass-fed beef in the U.S. J. Sustain. Agric. 33, 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040802660095 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iqbal, J., Siegrist, J. A., Nelson, J. A. & McCulley, R. L. Fungal endophyte infection increases carbon sequestration potential of southeastern USA tall fescue stands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 44, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.09.010 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. A. & Sutherland, W. J. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00695.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Law, Q. D., Bigelow, C. A. & Patton, A. J. Selecting turfgrasses and mowing practices that reduce mowing requirements. Crop Sci. 56, 3318–3327. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2015.09.0595 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, L. M. Carbohydrate reserves of grasses: A review. Rangel Ecol. Manag. 26(1), 13–18 (1973).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Virkajarvi, P. Effects of defoliation height on regrowth of timothy and meadow fescue in the generative and vegetative phases of growth. Agric. Food Sci. 12, 177–193 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reicher, Z., Patton, A. J., Bigelow, C. A. & Voigt, T. Mowing, Thatching, Aerifying, and Rolling Turf (Turf Grass Sci. Purdue Univ, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Kaatz, P. Cutting management for cool-season forage grasses. Michigan State University Extension, https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/cutting_management_for_cool_season_forage_grasses (2011).Briske, D. D. Strategies of plant survival in grazed systems: A functional interpretation. Ecol. Manag. Graz. Syst. 37–67 (1996).Crider, F. J. Root-growth stoppage resulting from defoliation of grass (No. 156759). United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1995).Lal, R., Negassa, W. & Lorenz, K. Carbon sequestration in soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 15, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.09.002 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coughenour, M. B., McNaughton, S. J. & Wallace, L. L. Modelling primary production of perennial graminoids – uniting physiological processes and morphometric traits. Ecol. Modell. 23, 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(84)90121-2 (1984).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Whipps, J. M. & Lynch, J. M. Energy losses by the plant in rhizodeposition. Plant products and the new technology / edited by K.W. Fuller and J.R. Gallon (1985).Johansson, G. Release of organic C from growing roots of meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis L.). Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(92)90205-C (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodburn, A. T. Glyphosate: Production, pricing and use worldwide. Pest Manag. Sci. 56, 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1526-4998(200004)56:4%3c309::AID-PS143%3e3.0.CO;2-C (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Duke, S. O. & Powles, S. B. Glyphosate: A once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag. Sci. 64, 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1518 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helander, M., Saloniemi, I. & Saikkonen, K. Glyphosate in northern ecosystems. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.05.008 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benbrook, C. M. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ. Sci. Eur. 28, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helander, M. et al. Glyphosate decreases mycorrhizal colonization and affects plant-soil feedback. Sci. Total Environ. 642, 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.377 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helander, M., Pauna, A., Saikkonen, K. & Saloniemi, I. Glyphosate residues in soil affect crop plant germination and growth. Sci. Rep. 9, 19653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56195-3 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zaller, J. G. & Brühl, C. A. Editorial: Non-target effects of pesticides on organisms inhabiting agroecosystems. Front Environ. Sci. 7, 75. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00075 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muola, A. et al. Risk in the circular food economy: Glyphosate-based herbicide residues in manure fertilizers decrease crop yield. Sci. Total Environ. 750, 141422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141422 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuchs, B., Saikkonen, K. & Helander, M. Glyphosate-modulated biosynthesis driving plant defense and species interactions. Trends Plant Sci. 26, 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.11.004 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuchs, B. et al. A Glyphosate-based herbicide in soil differentially affects hormonal homeostasis and performance of non-target crop plants. Front Plant Sci. 12, 787958 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borggaard, O. K. & Gimsing, A. L. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: A review. Pest Manag. Sci. 64, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1512 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rueppel, M. L., Brightwell, B. B., Schaefer, J. & Marvel, J. T. Metabolism and degradation of glyphosate in soil and water. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25, 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60211a018 (1977).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carlisle, S. M. & Trevors, J. T. Glyphosate in the environment. Wat Air Soil Poll 39, 409–420 (1988).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Torstensson, N. T. L., Lundgren, L. N. & Stenström, J. Influence of climatic and edaphic factors on persistence of glyphosate and 2,4-D in forest soils. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 18, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-6513(89)90084-5 (1989).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stenrød, M., Eklo, O. M., Charnay, M.-P. & Benoit, P. Effect of freezing and thawing on microbial activity and glyphosate degradation in two Norwegian soils. Pest Manag. Sci. 61, 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1107 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Antier, C. et al. Glyphosate use in the European agricultural sector and a framework for its further monitoring. Sustainability 12, 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145682 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, R. J. Effect of an associate grass, cutting interval, and cutting height on yield and botanical composition of Siratro pastures in a sub-tropical environment. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 14, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1071/ea9740334 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Volenec, J. J. & Nelson, C. J. Responses of Tall Fescue leaf meristems to N fertilization and harvest frequency. Crop Sci. 23(4), 720–724. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1983.0011183X002300040028x (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saikkonen, K. et al. Fungal endophytes help prevent weed invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.002 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scavo, A. & Mauromicale, G. Integrated weed management in herbaceous field crops. Agronomy 10, 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040466 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clay, K. & Holah, J. Fungal endophyte symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields. Science 285, 1742–1744. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5434.1742 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gundel, P. E., Pérez, L. I., Helander, M. & Saikkonen, K. Symbiotically modified organisms: Nontoxic fungal endophytes in grasses. Trends Plant Sci. 18, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.03.003 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kauppinen, M., Saikkonen, K., Helander, M., Pirttilä, A. M. & Wäli, P. R. Epichloë grass endophytes in sustainable agriculture. Nat. Plants 2, 15224 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clay, K. Fungal endophytes of grasses. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21, 275–297 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saikkonen, K., Young, C. A., Helander, M. & Schardl, C. L. Endophytic Epichloë species and their grass hosts: From evolution to applications. Plant Mol. Biol. 90, 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-015-0399-6 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ahlholm, J. U., Helander, M., Lehtimäki, S., Wäli, P. & Saikkonen, K. Vertically transmitted fungal endophytes: Different responses of host-parasite systems to environmental conditions. Oikos 99, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990118.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Easton, H. S. & Fletcher, L. R. in Proc. 6th International Symposium Fungal Endophytes of Grasses (eds Popay, A. J. & Thom, E. R.) 11–18 (New Zealand Grassland Association, 2007).Saari, S., Lehtonen, P., Helander, M. & Saikkonen, K. High variation in frequency of infection by endophytes in cultivars of meadow fescue in Finland. Grass Forage Sci. 64, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2009.00680.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
König, J., Fuchs, B., Krischke, M., Mueller, M. J. & Krauss, J. Hide and seek: Infection rates and alkaloid concentrations of Epichloë festucae var. lolii in Lolium perenne along a land-use gradient in Germany. Grass Forage Sci. 73, 510–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12330 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krauss, J. et al. Epichloë endophyte infection rates and alkaloid content in commercially available grass seed mixtures in Europe. Microorganisms 8, 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040498 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brink, G. E., Casler, M. D. & Martin, N. P. Meadow Fescue, Tall Fescue, and Orchardgrass response to defoliation management. Agronomy J 102, 667–674. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0376 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B. & Paustian, K. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 27, 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trlica, M. J. Distribution and utilization of carbohydrate reserves in range plants. In (ed Sosebee, R. E.) 73–96 (Rangeland Plant Physiology, 1977).Faeth, S. H. & Sullivan, T. J. Mutualistic asexual endophytes in a native grass are usually parasitic. Am. Nat. 161, 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/345937 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saikkonen, K., Saari, S. & Helander, M. Defensive mutualism between plants and endophytic fungi?. Fungal Divers. 41, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-010-0023-7 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clay, K. & Schardl, C. Evolutionary origins and ecological consequences of endophyte symbiosis with grasses. Am. Nat. 160, 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/342161 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozpądek, P. et al. The fungal endophyte Epichloë typhina improves photosynthesis efficiency of its host orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). Planta 242, 1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-015-2337-x (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xia, C. et al. An Epichloë endophyte improves photosynthetic ability and dry matter production of its host Achnatherum inebrians infected by Blumeria graminis under various soil water conditions. Fungal Ecol. 22, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2016.04.002 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Malinowski, D., Leuchtmann, A., Schmidt, D. & Nosberger, J. Symbiosis with Neotyphodium uncinatum endophyte may increase the competitive ability of meadow fescue. Agron. J. 89, 833–839 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schardl, C. L., Leuchtmann, A. & Spiering, M. J. Symbioses of grasses with seedborne fungal endophytes. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 55, 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141735 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Z. et al. Fungal endophyte improves survival of Lolium perenne in low fertility soils by increasing root growth, metabolic activity and absorption of nutrients. Plant Soil 452, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04556-7 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Franz, J. E., Mao, M.K. and Sikorski, J.A. (1997). Uptake, transport and metabolism of glyphosate in plants, in Glyphosate: A unique global herbicide, ed by Franz JE, ACS Monograph No 189, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 143–181.Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L. & Wells, R. Physiological and morphological response of glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate-resistant cotton seedlings to root-absorbed glyphosate. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 73, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-3575(02)00014-7 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, G. Carbon distribution in grass (Festuca pratensis L.) during regrowth after cutting—utilization of stored and newly assimilated carbon. Plant Soil 151, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010781 (1993).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ergon, Å. et al. How can forage production in Nordic and Mediterranean Europe adapt to the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change?. Euro J. Agron. 92, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.016 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Niemelainen, O. et al. Increase in perennial forage yields driven by climate change, at Apukka Research Station, Rovaniemi, 1980–2017. Agric. Food Sci. 29, 139–153 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anwar, M. R., Liu, D. L., Macadam, I. & Kelly, G. Adapting agriculture to climate change: A review. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 113, 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0780-1 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Farmit. Nurmea yli kymppitonni hehtaarilta. Farmit.net. (accessed 28 June 2022); https://www.farmit.net/nurmikasvit-lypsylehma/2016/05/24/nurmea-yli-kymppitonni-hehtaarilta (2016).Peltonen, S., Aalto, K., Hennola, I. & Anttila, S. (Eds.). Peltojen kunnostus. (Tieto Tuottamaan; No. 145), (ProAgria Keskusten Liiton julkaisuja; No. 1163). ProAgria maaseutukeskusten liitto (2019).Laihonen, M., Saikkonen, K., Helander, M. & Tammaru, T. Insect oviposition preference between Epichloë-symbiotic and Epichloë-free grasses does not necessarily reflect larval performance. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7242–7249. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6450 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371, 65–66 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
Fonseca, C. R. et al. Conservation biology: four decades of problem- and solution-based research. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 19, 121–130 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Smits, P. & Finnegan, S. How predictable is extinction? Forecasting species survival at million-year timescales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20190392 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanski, I. & Ovaskainen, O. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conserv. Biol. 16, 666–673 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ridding, L. E. et al. Inconsistent detection of extinction debts using different methods. Ecography 44, 33–43 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berglund, H. & Jonsson, B. G. Verifying an extinction debt among lichens and fungi in northern Swedish boreal forests. Conserv. Biol. 19, 338–348 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, I. L., Bunnefeld, N., Jump, A. S., Peres, C. A. & Dent, D. H. Extinction debt on reservoir land-bridge islands. Biol. Conserv. 199, 75–83 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Triantis, K. et al. Extinction debt on oceanic islands. Ecography 33, 285–294 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Wearn, O. R., Reuman, D. C. & Ewers, R. M. Extinction debt and windows of conservation opportunity in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 337, 228–232 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pan, Y. et al. Spatial and temporal scales of landscape structure affect the biodiversity-landscape relationship across ecologically distinct species groups. Landsc. Ecol. 37, 2311–2325 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soga, M. & Koike, S. Mapping the potential extinction debt of butterflies in a modern city: Implications for conservation priorities in urban landscapes. Anim. Conserv. 16, 1–11 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knapp, S., Winter, M. & Klotz, S. Increasing species richness but decreasing phylogenetic richness and divergence over a 320-year period of urbanization. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1152–1160 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J. & Magurran, A. E. Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 104–113 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. & Peng, S. Evidence and mapping of extinction debts for global forest-dwelling reptiles, amphibians and mammals. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Krauss, J. et al. Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecol. Lett. 13, 597–605 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cowlishaw, G. Predicting the pattern of decline of African primate diversity: An extinction debt from historical deforestation. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1183–1193 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Figueiredo, L., Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Sarmento Cabral, J. Understanding extinction debts: spatio–temporal scales, mechanisms and a roadmap for future research. Ecography 42, 1973–1990 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aerts, R. & Honnay, O. Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC Ecol. 11, 1–21 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2019-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 23 February 2022. (2019).Brown, J. L. et al. Spatial biodiversity patterns of Madagascar’s amphibians and reptiles. PLoS ONE 11, e0144076 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Powney, G. D., Grenyer, R., Orme, C. D. L., Owens, I. P. F. & Meiri, S. Hot, dry and different: Australian lizard richness is unlike that of mammals, amphibians and birds. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 386–396 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pianka, E. R. Desert lizard diversity: additional comments and some data. Am. Nat. 134, 344–364 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. H. Combining the species-area-habitat relationship and environmental cluster analysis to set conservation priorities: A study in the Zhoushan Archipelago, China. Conserv. Biol. 23, 537–545 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ricklefs, R. E. & Lovette, I. J. The roles of island area per se and habitat diversity in the species-area relationships of four Lesser Antillean faunal groups. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 1142–1160 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souza, F. L., Martins, F. I. & Raizer, J. Habitat heterogeneity and anuran community of an agroecosystem in the Pantanal of Brazil. Phyllomedusa 13, 41–50 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelt, D. A. & Van Vuren, D. H. The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am. Nat. 157, 637–645 (2001).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McNab, B. K. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am. Nat. 97, 133–140 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, R. A. & Mitchell, M. S. What is a home range? J. Mammal. 93, 948–958 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, S., Irl, S. D. H. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Predicted climate shifts within terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giam, X. et al. Reservoirs of richness: least disturbed tropical forests are centres of undescribed species diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 67–76 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pillay, R. et al. Tropical forests are home to over half of the world’s vertebrate species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 10–15 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. Large numbers of vertebrates began rapid population decline in the late 19th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14079–14084 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, R. M. Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546, 91–99 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forzieri, G., Dakos, V., McDowell, N. G., Ramdane, A. & Cescatti, A. Emerging signals of declining forest resilience under climate change. Nature 608, 534–539 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Diamond, J. M. Biogeographic kinetics: estimation of relaxation times for Avifaunas of southwest Pacific islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 69, 3199–3203 (1972).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, S. T. & Sax, D. F. Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: extinction debt, immigration credit and species turnover. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 153–160 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Foley, J. A. et al. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 25–32 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asamoah, E. F., Beaumont, L. J. & Maina, J. M. Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 1105–1110 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change 109, 117–161 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, S. et al. Sensitivity of land use change emission estimates to historical land use and land cover mapping. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 626–643 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jain, A. K., Meiyappan, P., Song, Y. & House, J. I. CO2 emissions from land-use change affected more by nitrogen cycle, than by the choice of land-cover data. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 2893–2906 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Poulter, B. et al. Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency’s Land Cover Climate Change Initiative. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2315–2328 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pongratz, J., Reick, C., Raddatz, T. & Claussen, M. A reconstruction of global agricultural areas and land cover for the last millennium. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, (2008).Dietz, F. C. The industrial revolution. In the Hands of a Child (1970).Gütschow, J., Jeffery, L. & Gieseke, R. The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series (1850-2016). V. 2.0. GFZ Data Services (2019).Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed 9 January 2022); www.protectedplanet.net.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Version 4.0.2 (2020). More

Bhatt, S. et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature 526, 207–211 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
WHO. Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vector mosquitoes (2016).WHO. Guidelines for malaria vector control (2019).Gnankiné, O. et al. Insecticide resistance in Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and Anopheles gambiae Giles (Diptera: Culicidae) could compromise the sustainability of malaria vector control strategies in West Africa. Acta Trop. 128, 7–17 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ranson, H. & Lissenden, N. Insecticide resistance in African Anopheles mosquitoes: A worsening situation that needs urgent action to maintain malaria control. Trends Parasitol. 32, 187–196 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, M. C. & McKenzie, F. E. The contribution of agricultural insecticide use to increasing insecticide resistance in African malaria vectors. Malar. J. 15, 1–8 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huijben, S. & Paaijmans, K. P. Putting evolution in elimination: Winning our ongoing battle with evolving malaria mosquitoes and parasites. Spec. Issue Rev. Synth. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12530 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030, 2021 update (2021).Ranson, H. et al. Identification of a point mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene of Kenyan Anopheles gambiae associated with resistance to DDT and pyrethroids. Insect Mol. Biol. 9, 491–497 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weill, M. et al. The unique mutation in ace-1 giving high insecticide resistance is easily detectable in mosquito vectors. Insect Mol. Biol. 13, 1–7 (2004).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ranson, H. et al. Pyrethroid resistance in African anopheline mosquitoes: What are the implications for malaria control?. Trends Parasitol. 27, 91–98 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hemingway, J., Hawkes, N. J., McCarroll, L. & Ranson, H. The molecular basis of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 34, 653–665 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Torres, D. et al. Molecular characterization of pyrethroid knockdown resistance (kdr) in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s.. Insect Mol. Biol. 7, 179–184 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, C. et al. Footprints of positive selection associated with a mutation (N1575Y) in the voltage-gated sodium channel of Anopheles gambiae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 6614–6619 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hunt, R. H., Brooke, B. D., Pillay, C., Koekemoer, L. L. & Coetzee, M. Laboratory selection for and characteristics of pyrethroid resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles funestus. Med. Vet. Entomol. 19, 271–275 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glunt, K. D., Thomas, M. B. & Read, A. F. The effects of age, exposure history and malaria infection on the susceptibility of Anopheles mosquitoes to low concentrations of pyrethroid. PLoS One 6, e24968 (2011).
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Rajatileka, S., Burhani, J. & Ranson, H. Mosquito age and susceptibility to insecticides. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 105, 247–253 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chouaibou, M. S. et al. Increase in susceptibility to insecticides with aging of wild Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes from Côte d’Ivoire. BMC Infect. Dis. 12, 1–7 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, C. M. et al. Aging partially restores the efficacy of malaria vector control in insecticide-resistant populations of Anopheles gambiae s.l. from Burkina Faso. Malar. J. 11, 1–11 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kulma, K., Saddler, A. & Koella, J. C. Effects of age and larval nutrition on phenotypic expression of insecticide-resistance in Anopheles Mosquitoes. PLoS ONE 8, 8–11 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aïzoun, N., Aïkpon, R., Azondekon, R., Asidi, A. & Akogbéto, M. Comparative susceptibility to permethrin of two Anopheles gambiae s.l. populations from Southern Benin, regarding mosquito sex, physiological status and mosquito age. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 4, 312–317 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, E. et al. The relationship between insecticide resistance, mosquito age and malaria prevalence in Anopheles gambiae s.l. from Guinea. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S. & Brooke, B. The effect of larval nutritional deprivation on the life history and DDT resistance phenotype in laboratory strains of the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis. Malar. J. 12, 1–9 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Owusu, H. F., Chitnis, N. & Müller, P. Insecticide susceptibility of Anopheles mosquitoes changes in response to variations in the larval environment. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sovegnon, P. M., Fanou, M. J., Akoton, R. & Djihinto, O. Y. Effects of larval diet on the life-history traits and phenotypic expression of pyrethroid resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Preprint at bioRxiv http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.11.475801 (2022).Halliday, W. R. & Feyereisen, R. Why does DDT toxicity change after a blood meal in adult female Culex pipiens?. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 28, 172–181 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S. V., Lyons, C. L. & Brooke, B. D. The effect of blood feeding on insecticide resistance intensity and adult longevity in the major malaria vector Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae). Sci. Rep. 12, 1–9 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farenhorst, M. et al. Fungal infection counters insecticide resistance in African malaria mosquitoes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106, 17443–17447 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Koella, J. C., Saddler, A. & Karacs, T. P. S. Blocking the evolution of insecticide-resistant malaria vectors with a microsporidian. Evol. Appl. 5, 283–292 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alout, H. et al. Interplay between Plasmodium infection and resistance to insecticides in vector mosquitoes. J. Infect. Dis. 210, 1464–1470 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glunt, K. D., Oliver, S. V., Hunt, R. H. & Paaijmans, K. P. The impact of temperature on insecticide toxicity against the malaria vectors Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus. Malar. J. 17, 1–8 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S. & Brooke, B. The effect of commercial herbicide exposure on the life history and insecticide resistance phenotypes of the major malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: culicidae). Acta Trop. 188, 152–160 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, S. & Brooke, B. The effect of metal pollution on the life history and insecticide resistance phenotype of the major malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae). PLoS ONE 13, 1–17 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, W. A. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40, 443–474 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyasembe, V. O., Tchouassi, D. P., Pirk, C. W. W., Sole, C. L. & Torto, B. Host plant forensics and olfactory-based detection in Afro-tropical mosquito disease vectors. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 12, 1–21 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barredo, E. & DeGennaro, M. Not just from blood: Mosquito nutrient acquisition from nectar sources. Trends Parasitol. 36, 473–484 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, C. M. & Foster, W. A. Plant-sugar feeding and vectorial capacity. In Ecology of Parasite-Vector Interactions (eds Takken, W. & Koenraadt, C.) 35–79 (Wageningen Academic, 2013). https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-744-8_3.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Hien, D. F. D. S. et al. Plant-mediated effects on mosquito capacity to transmit human malaria. PLoS Pathog. 12, e1005773 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, C., Witt, A., Walsh, G., Foster, W. & Murphy, S. Would the control of invasive alien plants reduce malaria transmission? A review. Parasites Vectors 11, 1–18 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebrahimi, B. et al. Alteration of plant species assemblages can decrease the transmission potential of malaria mosquitoes. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 841–851 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manda, H. et al. Discriminative feeding behaviour of Anopheles gambiae s.s. on endemic plants in western Kenya. Med. Vet. Entomol. 21, 103–111 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyasembe, V. O. et al. Plasmodium falciparum infection increases Anopheles gambiae attraction to nectar sources and sugar uptake. Curr. Biol. 24, 217–221 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Després, L., David, J. P. & Gallet, C. The evolutionary ecology of insect resistance to plant chemicals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 298–307 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nkya, T. E., Akhouayri, I., Kisinza, W. & David, J. P. Impact of environment on mosquito response to pyrethroid insecticides: Facts, evidences and prospects. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 43, 407–416 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Schuler, M. A. & Berenbaum, M. R. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 231–253 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bationo, C. S. et al. Spatio-temporal analysis and prediction of malaria cases using remote sensing meteorological data in Diébougou health district, Burkina Faso, 2016–2017. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–12 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Namountougou, M. et al. First report of the L1014S kdr mutation in wild populations of Anopheles gambiae M and S molecular forms in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Acta Trop. 125, 123–127 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Service, M. W. A critical review of procedures for sampling populations of adult mosquitoes. Bull. Entomol. Res. 67, 343–382 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiombiano, A. et al. Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du Burkina Faso. In Boissiera Vol. 65 (ed Cyrille Chatelain) (Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, 2012).Morlais, I., Ponçon, N., Simard, F., Cohuet, A. & Fontenille, D. Intraspecific nucleotide variation in Anopheles gambiae: New insights into the biology of malaria vectors. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71, 795–802 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santolamazza, F. et al. Insertion polymorphisms of SINE200 retrotransposons within speciation islands of Anopheles gambiae molecular forms. Malar. J. 7, 163 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing (2021).Crawley, M. J. The R Book (Wiley, 2007).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (2021).Hien, A. et al. Evidence supporting deployment of next generation insecticide treated nets in Burkina Faso: Bioassays with either chlorfenapyr or piperonyl butoxide increase mortality of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae. Malar. J. 20, 1–13 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nicolson, S. W., Nepi, M. & Pacini, E. Nectaries and Nectar (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007).Book 

Google Scholar 
Abdu-Allah, G. et al. Dietary antioxidants impact DDT resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 15, 1–12 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gnankiné, O. & Bassolé, I. L. H. N. Essential oils as an alternative to pyrethroids’ resistance against Anopheles species complex giles (Diptera: Culicidae). Molecules 22, 1321 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gendrin, M. & Christophides, G. K. The Anopheles mosquito microbiota and their impact on pathogen transmission. In Anopheles Mosquitoes—New Insights into Malar. Vectors (ed. Manguin, S.) (IntechOpen, 2013).Saab, S. A. et al. The environment and species affect gut bacteria composition in laboratory co-cultured Anopheles gambiae and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dada, N., Sheth, M., Liebman, K., Pinto, J. & Lenhart, A. Whole metagenome sequencing reveals links between mosquito microbiota and insecticide resistance in malaria vectors. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–13 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnard, K., Jeanrenaud, A. C. S. N., Brooke, B. D. & Oliver, S. V. The contribution of gut bacteria to insecticide resistance and the life histories of the major malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae). Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Omoke, D. et al. Western Kenyan Anopheles gambiae showing intense permethrin resistance harbour distinct microbiota. Malar. J. 20, 1–14 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelloquin, B. et al. Overabundance of Asaia and Serratia Bacteria is associated with deltamethrin insecticide susceptibility in Anopheles coluzzii from Agboville, Côte d’Ivoire. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e00157-21 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
WHO. Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vector mosquitoes (2013).Owusu, H. F., Jančáryová, D., Malone, D. & Müller, P. Comparability between insecticide resistance bioassays for mosquito vectors: Time to review current methodology?. Parasites Vectors 8, 1–11 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

All statistical analyses were performed through R version 4.1.050. Besides the explicitly mentioned packages, the R packages cowplot51, data.table52, dplyr53, ggplot254, itsadug55, purrr56, raster57, sf58, sfheaders59, tibble60 and tidyr61 were key for data handling, data analysis, and plotting. Posterior distributions were summarised through means and credible intervals (CIs). CIs are the highest density intervals, calculated through the package bayestestR62. To summarise multiple posterior distributions, 5000 Monte Carlo simulations were used.Study regionThe study included data from the whole of Switzerland. As an observation unit for records, we chose 1 × 1 km squares (henceforth squares). Switzerland covers 41,285 km2, spanning a large gradient in elevation, climate and land use. It can be divided into five coarse biogeographic regions based on floristic and faunistic distributions and on institutional borders of municipalities63 (Fig. 1b). The Jura is a mountainous but agricultural landscape in the northwest (~4200 km2, 300–1600 m asl; annual mean temperature: ~9.4 °C, annual precipitation: ~1100 mm (gridded climate data here and in the following from MeteoSwiss (https://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch), average 1980–2020, at sites ~500 m asl.)). The Jura is separated from the Alps by the Plateau, which is the lowland region spanning from the southwest to the northeast (~11,300 km2, 250–1400 m asl, mostly below 1000 m asl; ~9.5 °C, ~1100 mm). It is the most densely populated region with most intensive agricultural use. For the Alps, three regions can be distinguished. The Northern Alps (~10,700 km2, 350–4000 m asl; ~9.2 °C, ~1400 mm), which entail the area from the lower Prealps, which are rather densely populated and largely used agriculturally, up to the northern alpine mountain range. The Central Alps (~11,300 km2, 450–4600 m asl; ~9.5 °C, ~800 mm) comprise of the highest mountain ranges in Switzerland and the inner alpine valleys characterised by more continental climate (i.e., lower precipitation). Intensive agricultural land use is concentrated in the lower elevations and agriculture in higher elevations is mostly restricted to grassland areas used for summer grazing. The Southern Alps (~3800 km2, 200–3800 m asl; ~10.4 °C, 1700 mm) range from the southern alpine mountain range down to the lowest elevations of Switzerland and are clearly distinguished from the other regions climatically, as they are influenced by Mediterranean climate, resulting in, e.g., milder winters. Besides differences between biogeographic regions, climate, land use and changes therein vary greatly between different elevations (Supplementary Fig. S9). To account for these differences, we split the regions in two elevation classes at the level of squares. All squares with a mean elevation of less than 1000 m asl were assigned to the low elevation, whereas squares above 1000 m asl were assigned to the high elevation (no squares in the Plateau fell in the high elevation). This resulted in nine bioclimatic zones (Fig. 1b), for which separate species trends were estimated in the subsequent analyses. The threshold of 1000 m asl enabled a meaningful distinction based on the studied drivers (climate and land-use change) and was also determined by the availability of records data (high coverage in all nine bioclimatic zones).Species detection dataWe extracted records of butterflies (refers here to Papilionoidea as well as Zygaenidae moths), grasshoppers (refers here to all Orthoptera) and dragonflies (refers here to all Odonata) from the database curated by info fauna (The Swiss Faunistic Records Centre; metadata available from the GBIF database at https://doi.org/10.15468/atyl1j, https://doi.org/10.15468/bcthst, https://doi.org/10.15468/fcxtjg). This database unites faunistic records made in Switzerland from various sources including both records by private persons and from projects such as research projects, Red-List inventories or checks of revitalisation measures. Only records with a sufficient precision, both temporally (day of recording) and spatially (place of recording known to the precision of 1 km2 or less), were used for analyses. Besides temporal and spatial information, information on the observer and the project (if any) was obtained for each record. All records made by a person/project on a day in a square were attributed to one visit, which was later used as replication unit to model the observation process (see below).We included records from the focal time range 1980–2020. Additionally, we included records from 1970–1979 for butterflies in occupancy-detection models to increase the robustness of mean occupancy estimates. We excluded the mean occupancy estimates for these additional years from further analyses to cover the same period for all groups. Prior to analyses, following the approach in ref. 26, we excluded observations of non-adult stages and observations from squares that only were visited in 1 year of the studied period, because these would not contain any information on change between years64. This resulted in 18,018 squares (15,248 for butterflies, 9870 for grasshoppers, 5188 for dragonflies) and 1,448,134 records (879,207 butterflies, 272,863 grasshoppers, 296,064 dragonflies) that we included in the analyses (Supplementary Fig. S2). The three datasets for the different groups were treated separately for occupancy-detection modelling, following the same procedures for all three groups. To determine detections and non-detections for each species and visit, which could then be used for occupancy-detection modelling, we only included visits that (a) did not originate from a project, which had a restricted taxonomic focus not including the focal species, (b) were not below the 5% quantile or above the 95% quantile of the day of the year at which the focal species has been recorded26 and (c) were from a bioclimatic zone, from which the focal species was recorded at least once.Occupancy-detection modelsWe used occupancy-detection models65,66 to estimate annual mean occupancy of squares for the whole of Switzerland and for the nine bioclimatic zones for each species (i.e., mean number of squares occupied by a species), mostly following the approach in ref. 26. We fitted a separate model for each species, based on different datasets for the three groups. We included only species that were recorded in any square in at least 25% of all analysed years. Occupancy-detection models are hierarchical models in which two interconnected processes are modelled jointly, one of which describes occurrence probability (ecological process; used to infer mean occupancy), whereas the other describes detection probability (observation process)65. The two processes are modelled through logistic regression models. The occupancy model estimates occurrence probability for all square and year combinations, whereas the observation model estimates the probability that a species has been detected by an observer during a visit. More formally, each square i in the year t has the latent occupancy status zi,t, which may be either 1 (present) or 0 (absent). zi,t depends on the occurrence probability ψi,t as follows$${z}_{i,t}sim {{{mbox{Bern}}}}left({psi }_{i,t}right)$$
(1)
The occupancy status is linked to the detection/non-detection data yi,t,j at square i in year t at visit j as$${y}_{i,t,, j}{{|}}{z}_{i,t}sim {mathrm {Bern}}({z}_{i,t}{p}_{i,t,j})$$
(2)
where pi,t,j is the detection probability.The regression model for occurrence probability (occupancy model) looked as follows$${{mbox{logit}}}({psi }_{i,t})={mu }_{o}+{beta }_{o1}{{{{{rm{elevatio}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{n}}}}}}}_{i}+{beta }_{o2}{{{{{rm{elevatio}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{n}}}}}}}_{i}^{2}+{alpha }_{o1,i}+{alpha }_{o2,i}+{gamma }_{r(i),t}$$
(3)
with μo being the global intercept, elevationi being the scaled elevation above sea level and αo1,i, αo2,i and γr(i),t being the random effects for fine biogeographic region (12 levels, Supplementary Fig. S10; these were again defined based on floristic and faunistic distributions and followed institutional borders63), square and year. The random effects for fine biogeographic region and square were modelled as follows:$${alpha }_{o1}sim {{{{{rm{Normal}}}}}}left(0,{sigma }_{o1}right)$$
(4)
and$${alpha }_{o2}sim {{{{{rm{Normal}}}}}}left(0,{sigma }_{o2}right)$$
(5)
The random effect of the year was implemented with separate random walks per zone following ref. 67, which allowed the effect to vary between the nine bioclimatic zones, while accounting for dependencies among consecutive years. Conceptually, in random walks, the effect of 1 year is dependent on the previous year’s effect, resulting in trajectories with less sudden changes between consecutive years. This was implemented as follows:$${gamma }_{r,t}sim left{begin{array}{c}{{{{{rm{Normal}}}}}}left(0,{1.5}^{2}right){{{{rm{for}}}}},t=1\ {{{{{rm{Normal}}}}}}left({gamma }_{r,t-1},{sigma }_{gamma r}^{2}right){{{{rm{for}}}}},t , > ,1end{array}right.$$
(6)
with$${sigma }_{gamma r}sim {{mbox{Cauchy}}}left(0,1right)$$
(7)
The regression model for detection probability (observation model) looked as follows$${{{{rm{logit}}}}}({p}_{i,t,j}) =, {mu }_{d}+{beta }_{d1}{{{{{rm{yda}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{y}}}}}}}_{j}+{beta }_{d2}{{{{{rm{yda}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{y}}}}}}}_{j}^{2}+{beta }_{d3}{{{{{rm{shortlis}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j}+{beta }_{d4}{{{{{rm{longlis}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j} \ quad+ {beta }_{d5}{{{{{rm{exper}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j}+{beta }_{d6}{{{{{rm{projec}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j}+{beta }_{d7}{{{{{rm{targeted}}}}}}_{{{{{rm{projec}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j} \ quad+ {beta }_{d8}{{{{{rm{redlis}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{t}}}}}}}_{j}+{alpha }_{d1,t}$$
(8)
where μd is the global intercept, ydayj is the scaled day of the year of visit j, shortlistj and longlistj are dummies of a three-level factor denoting the number of species recorded during the visit (1; 2–3; >3), and expertj, projectj, targeted_projectj and redlistj are dummies of a five-level factor denoting the source of the data. The source might either be a common naturalist observation (reference level), an observation by an expert naturalist, an observation made during a not further specified project, an observation made in a project targeted at the focal species or an observation made during a Red-List inventory. An expert naturalist was defined as an observer that contributed a significant number of records, which was defined as the upper 2.5% quantile of all observers arranged by their total number of records, and that made at least one visit with an exceptionally long species list, which was defined as a visit in the upper 2.5% quantile of all visits arranged by the number of records. The proportions of records originating from these different sources changed across years, but change was not unidirectional and differed among the investigated groups (Supplementary Fig. S11), such that accounting for data source in the model should suffice to yield reliable estimates of occupancy trends. αd1,t is a random effect for year, which was modelled as$${alpha }_{d1}sim {{{{{rm{Normal}}}}}}left(0,{sigma }_{d1}right)$$
(9)
The occupancy and observation models were fitted jointly in Stan through the interface CmdStanR68. Four Markov chain Monte Carlo chains with 2000 iterations each, including 1000 warm-up iterations, were used. Priors of the model parameters are specified in Supplementary Table S5. For the prior distribution of global intercepts, a standard deviation of 1.5 was chosen to not overweight the extreme values on the probability scale. To ensure that chains mixed well, Rhat statistics for annual mean occupancy estimates were calculated through the package rstan69. For Switzerland-wide annual estimates (n = 18,140), 98.0% of values met the standard threshold of 1.1 (99.9% of values More

Hoegh-Guldberg O, Smith JG. The effect of sudden changes in temperature, light, and salinity on the population density and export of zooxanthellae from the reef corals Stylophora pistillata (Esper) and Seriatopora hysterix (Dana). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 1989;129:279–303.Article 

Google Scholar 
Glynn PW. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs. 1993;12:1–17.Article 

Google Scholar 
Berkelmans R, van Oppen MJH. The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a “nugget of hope” for coral reefs in an era of climate change. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2006;273:2305–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunning R, Gillette P, Capo T, Galvez K, Baker AC. Growth tradeoffs associated with thermotolerant symbionts in the coral Pocillopora damicornis are lost in warmer oceans. Coral Reefs. 2015;34:155–60.Article 

Google Scholar 
Scharfenstein HJ, Chan WY, Buerger P, Humphrey C, van Oppen MJH. Evidence for de novo acquisition of microalgal symbionts by bleached adult corals. ISME J. 2022;16:1676–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulet TL. Most corals may not change their symbionts. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006;321:1–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones A, Berkelmans R. Potential costs of acclimatization to a warmer climate: growth of a reef coral with heat tolerant vs. sensitive symbiont types. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10437.Article 

Google Scholar 
van Oppen MJH, Oliver JK, Putnam HM, Gates RD. Building coral reef resilience through assisted evolution. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2015;112:2307–13.
Google Scholar 
Buerger P, Alvarez C, Coppin CW, Pearce SL, Chakravarti LJ, Oakeshott JG, et al. Heat-evolved microalgal symbionts increase coral bleaching tolerance. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaba2498.Kuffner IB, Toth LT. A geological perspective on the degradation and conservation of western Atlantic coral reefs. Conserv Biol: J Soc Conserv Biol. 2016;30:706–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Young CN, Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D. A review of reef restoration and Coral propagation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and western Atlantic. Bull Mar Sci. 2012;88:1075–98.Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich HG, Kitchen SA, Stankiewicz KH, Devlin-Durante M, Fogarty ND, Baums IB. Genomic variation of an endosymbiotic dinoflagellate (Symbiodinium fitti) among closely related coral hosts. Mol Ecol. 2021;30:3500–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
Baums IB, Devlin-Durante MK, Lajeunesse TC. New insights into the dynamics between reef corals and their associated dinoflagellate endosymbionts from population genetic studies. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:4203–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gantt SE, Keister E, Manfroy A, Merck D, Fitt W, Muller E, et al. Wild and nursery-raised corals: comparative physiology of two framework coral species. Coral Reefs. (In Press).Hume BCC, Smith EG, Ziegler M, Hugh J, Warrington M, Burt J, et al. SymPortal: a novel analytical framework and platform for coral algal symbiont next-generation sequencing ITS2 profiling. Mol Ecol Resour. 2019;19:1063–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
Randall CJ, Negri AP, Quigley KM, Foster T, Ricardo GF, Webster NS, et al. Sexual production of corals for reef restoration in the Anthropocene. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2020;635:203–32.Article 

Google Scholar 
Bay LK, Cumbo VR, Abrego D, Kool JT, Ainsworth TD, Willis BL. Infection dynamics vary between Symbiodinium types and cell surface treatments during establishment of endosymbiosis with coral larvae. Diversity. 2011;3:356–74.Article 

Google Scholar 
Abrego D, van Oppen MJH, Willis BL. Highly infectious symbiont dominates initial uptake in coral juveniles. Mol Ecol. 2009;18:3518–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunning R, Silverstein RN, Baker AC. Investigating the causes and consequences of symbiont shuffling in a multi-partner reef coral symbiosis under environmental change. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2015;282:20141725.Chamberland VF, Petersen D, Latijnhouwers KRW, Snowden S, Mueller B, Vermeij MJA. Four-year-old Caribbean Acropora colonies reared from field-collected gametes are sexually mature. Bull Mar Sci. 2016;92:263–4.Silverstein RN, Correa AMS, Baker AC. Specificity is rarely absolute in coral–algal symbiosis: implications for coral response to climate change. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2012;279:2609–18.Article 

Google Scholar  More

Keenan, R. J. et al. Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 9–20 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arneth, A. et al. in Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 1 (IPCC, 2019).Piao, S. et al. Growing season extension and its impact on terrestrial carbon cycle in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 2 decades. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB3018 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. Y. et al. Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 470–474 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, J. M. et al. Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 10, 4259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myneni, R. B. et al. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386, 698–702 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filipchuk, A. et al. Russian forests: a new approach to the assessment of carbon stocks and sequestration capacity. Environ. Dev. 26, 68–75 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goodale, C. L. et al. Forest carbon sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol. Appl. 12, 891–899 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tchebakova, N. M. et al. Energy and mass exchange and the productivity of main Siberian ecosystems (from eddy covariance measurements). 2. Carbon exchange and productivity. Biol. Bull. 42, 579–588 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaganov, E. A. et al. Forests and swamps of Siberia in the global carbon cycle. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 1, 168–182 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schepaschenko, D. et al. Russian forest sequesters substantially more carbon than previously reported. Sci. Rep. 11, 12825 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shvidenko, A. & Schepaschenko, D. Climate change and wildfires in Russia. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 6, 683–692 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Warkentin, I. G. Global estimates of boreal forest carbon stocks and flux. Glob. Planet. Change 128, 24–30 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Curtis, P. G. et al. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sukhinin, A. I. et al. AVHRR-based mapping of fires in Russia: new products for fire management and carbon cycle studies. Remote Sens. Environ. 93, 546–564 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soja, A. J. et al. Climate-induced boreal forest change: predictions versus current observations. Glob. Planet. Change 56, 274–296 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dolman, A. J. et al. An estimate of the terrestrial carbon budget of Russia using inventory-based, eddy covariance and inversion methods. Biogeosciences 9, 5323–5340 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaphoff, S. et al. Tamm review: Observed and projected climate change impacts on Russia’s forests and its carbon balance. For. Ecol. Manage. 361, 432–444 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Jong, R. et al. Trend changes in global greening and browning: contribution of short-term trends to longer-term change. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 642–655 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buermann, W. et al. Recent shift in Eurasian boreal forest greening response may be associated with warmer and drier summers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1995–2002 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rödig, E. et al. Spatial heterogeneity of biomass and forest structure of the Amazon rain forest: Linking remote sensing, forest modelling and field inventory. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1292–1302 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quegan, S. et al. Estimating the carbon balance of central Siberia using a landscape-ecosystem approach, atmospheric inversion and dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 351–365 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurney, K. R. et al. Interannual variations in continental-scale net carbon exchange and sensitivity to observing networks estimated from atmospheric CO2 inversions for the period 1980 to 2005. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB3025 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephens, B. B. et al. Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2. Science 316, 1732–1735 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leskinen, P. et al. Russian Forests and Climate Change: What Science Can Tell Us 11 (EFI, 2020); https://doi.org/10.36333/wsctu11Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 106–117 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stow, D. A. et al. Remote sensing of vegetation and land-cover change in Arctic tundra ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 89, 281–308 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karlsen, S. R. et al. A new NDVI measure that overcomes data sparsity in cloud-covered regions predicts annual variation in ground-based estimates of high Arctic plant productivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 025011 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ding, Z. et al. Nearly half of global vegetated area experienced inconsistent vegetation growth in terms of greenness, cover, and productivity. Earths Future 8, e2020EF001618 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, L. et al. Satellite-observed pantropical carbon dynamics. Nat. Plants 5, 944–951 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giglio, L. et al. The collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 178, 31–41 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blunden, J. & Arndt, D. S. State of the climate in 2015. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, Si–S275 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastos, A. et al. Was the extreme Northern Hemisphere greening in 2015 predictable? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 044016 (2017).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Kukavskaya, E. A. et al. Biomass dynamics of central Siberian Scots pine forests following surface fires of varying severity. Int. J. Wildland Fire 23, 872–886 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gauthier, S. et al. Boreal forest health and global change. Science 349, 819 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, N. L. et al. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, B. M. et al. Influence of tree species on continental differences in boreal fires and climate feedbacks. Nat. Geosci. 8, 228–234 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shvetsov, E. G. et al. Assessment of post-fire vegetation recovery in southern Siberia using remote sensing observations. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 055001 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. A. et al. Disturbance suppresses the aboveground carbon sink in North American boreal forests. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 435–441 (2021).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Shuman, J. K. et al. Forest forecasting with vegetation models across Russia. Can. J. For. Res. 45, 175–184 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flannigan, M. et al. Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 549–560 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, W. et al. Differentiating moss from higher plants is critical in studying the carbon cycle of the boreal biome. Nat. Commun. 5, 4270 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Larjavaara, M. et al. Post-fire carbon and nitrogen accumulation and succession in Central Siberia. Sci. Rep. 7, 12776 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berner, L. T. et al. Cajander larch (Larix cajanderi) biomass distribution, fire regime and post-fire recovery in northeastern Siberia. Biogeosciences 9, 3943–3959 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myneni, R. et al. MOD15A2H MODIS/Terra Leaf Area Index/FPAR 8-Day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid v.006 (LAADS DAAC, 2015).Houghton, R. A. et al. Mapping Russian forest biomass with data from satellites and forest inventories. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 045032 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
DiMiceli, C. et al. Annual Global Automated MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields (MOD44B) at 250 m Spatial Resolution for Data Years Beginning Day 65, 2000–2014, Collection 5 Percent Tree Cover v.6 (University of Maryland, 2017).Simard, M. et al. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G04021 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Broxton, P. et al. A global land cover climatology using MODIS data. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 53, 1593–1605 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9899–9904 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santoro, M. et al. The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 13, 3927–3950 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carreiras, J. M. B. et al. Coverage of high biomass forests by the ESA BIOMASS mission under defense restrictions. Remote Sens. Environ. 196, 154–162 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Penman, J. et al. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IGES, 2013).Avitabile, V. et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1406–1420 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Moran, R. et al. SMOS-IC: an alternative SMOS soil moisture and vegetation optical depth product. Remote Sens. 9, 457 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wigneron, J.-P. et al. SMOS-IC data record of soil moisture and L-VOD: historical development, applications and perspectives. Remote Sens. Environ. 254, 112238 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchard, E. T. A. et al. Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 935–946 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchard, E. T. A. et al. Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: a comparison of pan-tropical maps. Carbon Balance Manage. 8, 10 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon, M. E. et al. Release of coarse woody detritus-related carbon: a synthesis across forest biomes. Carbon Balance Manage. 15, 1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bartalev, S. A. & Stytsenko, F. V. Assessment of forest-stand destruction by fires based on remote-sensing data on the seasonal distribution of burned areas. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 14, 711–716 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Wees, D. et al. The role of fire in global forest loss dynamics. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2377–2391 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vicente‐Serrano, S. M. et al. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schepaschenko, D. et al. A new hybrid land cover dataset for Russia: a methodology for integrating statistics, remote sensing and in situ information. J. Land Use Sci. 6, 245–259 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Du, J. et al. A global satellite environmental data record derived from AMSR-E and AMSR2 microwave Earth observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 9, 791–808 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brandt, M. et al. Satellite passive microwaves reveal recent climate-induced carbon losses in African drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 827–835 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Grandpré, L. et al. Long-term post-fire changes in the northeastern boreal forest of Quebec. J. Veg. Sci. 11, 791–800 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Further details about radiocarbon and thermal analysis, isotopic partitioning procedures and quantification of their uncertainty, and statistical analyses can be found in Supplementary Methods.Study soils, experimental design and soil samplingWe selected three soil types: eutric cambisol, chromic vertisol and silandic andosol70. The three soil profiles studied were found in long-term semi-natural grasslands located relatively close to each other ( More

Tularemia affects animal welfare, human health, and the environment and is thus better approached from a one-health perspective27. Several studies in the Northern hemisphere28, and more recently in Australia15,16, have provided a vital research track in the epidemiology of this disease. In contrast, studies in Africa are too limited and scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of tularemia in wild leporids collected in Northern Algeria. These animals are highly susceptible to F. tularensis infection and considered sentinel hosts for surveillance of tularemia. The strategy we used to detect F. tularensis in leporids mainly used molecular, histological and immunohistochemical analyzes of tissues taken from animals found dead or hunted. To the best of our knowledge, detection of F. tularensis by PCR or culture has not been previously reported in wild leporidae in Algeria or other African countries.Animal tissue samples were tested using three qPCR assays of variable sensitivity and specificity. The Type B-qPCR test targets a specific junction between ISFtu2 and a flanking 3′ region, which is considered specific for F. tularensis subsp. holarctica26, the only tularemia agent found in Europe and Asia. The Tul4-qPCR assay targets a simple copy gene encoding a surface protein, which can be found in the genome of all F. tularensis subspecies causing tularemia and that of the aquatic bacterium F. novicida. Because F. novicida has never been isolated from lagomorphs or other animal species, and very rarely from human29, a positive Tul4 qPCR for the studied tissue samples likely indicated the presence of F. tularensis DNA. The ISFtu2 qPCR is considered highly sensitive because multiple copies of this insertion sequence are found in the F. tularensis genome. However, it lacks specificity because ISFtu2 is also found in many other Francisella species25.Two animals were considered “probable” tularemia cases because some of their samples were positive for the three qPCR tests. Ten animals were considered “possible” tularemia cases because their samples were positive for the ISFtu2 and Tul4 qPCRs but not the Type B qPCR. Finally 19 leporids were “uncertain” cases because only samples positive for the ISFtu2 qPCR were found. For the remaining 43 animals, all the tested samples were negative for the three qPCRs. Overall, we detected F. tularensis DNA-positive samples in 12/74 (16.21%) leporids, which strongly suggest that tularemia is present in the lagomorph population of the study area. The positive Type B qPCR tests in two animals suggested that F. tularensis subsp. holarctica could be the involved subspecies. We did not confirm these data by isolating F. tularensis from the studied leporids. However, the isolation of this pathogen from human or animal samples is tedious and has a low sensitivity13. Moreover, most of our samples were not appropriate for F. tularensis culture because of their long-term preservation in ethanol 70° or 10% formalin. Further study using fresh (non-fixed) tissue samples from dead leporids collected in the same study area is needed to definitively confirm the presence of tularemia in these animals and characterize the F. tularensis subspecies and genotypes involved.Although PCR is usually more sensitive than culture for detecting F. tularensis, it also has some limitations. Firstly, the DNA extraction from organs preserved in ethanol for several months was difficult although easier for spleen than for liver samples. Some tissue samples could be lysed only after overnight incubation with proteinase K. Secondly, tissue samples contained PCR inhibitors as demonstrated by better DNA amplification from some samples after their dilution in PCR grade water. To reduce the effect of PCR inhibitors, organ samples with negative qPCR were retested using Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) and the Real-time PCR system TaqMan (Applied Biosystems, Munich, Germany)30. Finally, DNA regions to be amplified were optimized to obtain high sensitivity and specificity of qPCR tests.IHC detection of F. tularensis in formalin-fixed tissue can be helpful for tularemia diagnosis31,32. For one possible tularemia case, F. tularensis could be detected on immunohistochemical (IHC) examination of a liver sample using a specific anti-F. tularensis antibody. The intensity and localization of positive staining were comparable to those previously recorded for other animals32,33. IHC did not provide interpretable findings for four other tested specimens. Such negative results might be explained by an inhomogeneous distribution of infectious foci in the involved organs as well as a low bacterial inoculum in infected tissues. This has been previously demonstrated in tularemia granulomatous lesions in cell types like epithelial cells of the kidney, testis, and epididymis, hepatocytes, and bronchiolar epithelial cells31. Besides, IHC is a delicate technology whose results are highly dependent on the quality and fixation time of the organ tissues34. IHC analysis of dead animal tissues remains challenging, especially in case of tissue necrosis34.In our limited case series we found a F. tularensis infection prevalence in leporids of 2.7% (2/74) for probable tularemia cases and 16.2% (12/74) when considering both probable and posible cases. We cannot make a guess about the prevalence of tularemia because our series is not representative of the general lagomorph population in the study area. In Germany, F. tularensis DNA was detected in 1.1% of European Brown hares and 2.4% of wild rabbits collected between 2009 and 201435. Higher infection rates were reported in the same country, including 11.8% (100/848 animals) in hares collcted in the North Rhine-Westphalia region36 and 30% (55/179) in brown hares collected between 2010 and 2016 in Baden-Wuerttemberg37. In Hungary, the prevalence of tularemia in hares was evaluated at 4.9–5.3%38. In Portugal, prevalences of 4.3% and 6.3% were reported in brown hares and wild rabbits, respectively39. However, the comparison of the reported tularemia prevalences in leporids is irrelevant because studies involved different animal species and geographic areas, and used different methods for F. tularensis detection.Two possibilities could explain the lack of detection of tularemia in Algeria before this study. The first hypothesis is that this disease was not searched for in previous years, while it could have been present in this country for decades. The second hypothesis is that tularemia was recently imported in Algeria. Migratory birds may have been involved in the long-distance spread of F. tularensis40. These hosts can be infested by ectoparasites such as ticks which are the primary vectors of tularemia41,42. They can also spread the bacteria in the hydro-telluric environment through their secretions and feces18,43,44. An alternative possibility is that F. tularensis-infected animals (especially game animals) have been imported in Algeria from endemic countries. Whatever the mode of introduction of tularemia in Algeria, the dissemination of this disease over time might have been facilitated by the ability of F. tularensis to infect multiple hosts and its better survival in a cool environment45, which characterizes Northern Algeria climate. The emergence or re-emergence of tularemia in other countries has been related to climate change, human-mediated movement of infected animals, and wartime resulting in a significant rise of F. tularensis infections in the rodent populations39,46.In our study, infected animals were collected throughout 4 years, although more frequently in autumn. Probable and possible tularemia cases were mainly collected during the hunting season (i.e., September, October, November, and December). Animals could not be collected in February because of heavy rains and in May and June because it corresponds to female leporids’ lactation period. In most endemic countries, tularemia cases are typically more frequent in late spring, the summer months, and early autumn37,47,48,49,50. Occasionally, fatal tularemia cases in hares have been predominantly reported during the cold season11,51. The climatic conditions can affect tularemia outbreaks in animals, depending on the reservoir involved and the predominant modes of infection52.We detected tularemia more frequently in female than in male hares, and the reverse was true for wild rabbits. The prevalence of tularemia in male or female lagomorphs varies between studies. In Sweden, Morener et al.50 reported a tularemia case series only involving male hares. In the same country, Borg et al.50 observed an overrepresentation of females in the epizootic of 1967. They suggested that, compared to males, females had a higher risk of exposure to infected mosquitoes or were more vulnerable to tularemia because they were pregnant or had just given birth to a litter50. Tularemia was found in a few juveline leporids, which might be explained by a shorter exposure time to F. tularensis, a higher death rates due to higher susceptibility to F. tularensis infection or easier predation by their natural enemies, or more frequent hunting of adults compared to the juveniles53.Tularemia is usually more frequently detected in leporids found dead than in hunted animals. As an example, a German study reported a higher prevalence of tularemia in hares found dead (2.9%) than in hunted ones (0.7%)35. In our study, most qPCR-positive animals were hunted. Our study might not be representative of the prevalence of tularemia in either population because most collected animals had been hunted.The incubation period and clinical presentation of tularemia in leporids vary according to the species considered. Tularemia is typically an acute disease in mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in Scandinavia and has a chronic pattern in European brown hares (Lepus europaeus) in Central Europe50. The incubation time and clinical presentation of tularemia can be different in Cape hares (Lepus capensis). Wild rabbits are less sensitive to F. tularensis infection than hares31,39,54. An extended incubation period and chronic evolution of tularemia would facilitate the detection of F. tularensis in infected animals. In our study, a similar tularemia prevalence was found in the Cape hares and wild rabbits, which might reflect exposure to a same biotope area and environmental reservoirs of F. tularensis.The pathological lesions of tularemiia in leporids can vary according to the F. tularensis strain involved, the mode and route of infection, and the susceptibility and immune status of the host32,50. In the European brown hares, granulomas with central necrosis have been reported in the lungs and kidneys and occasionally in the liver, spleen, bone marrow, and lymph nodes50. In contrast, only acute necrosis in the liver, spleen, bone marrow, and lymph nodes have been found in Lepus timudus hares in Sweden50. The lesions in the Japanese hare (Lepus brachyurus angustidens) are comparable to those of Lepus timidus, except for cutaneous, lung, brain, and adrenal gland lesions32. In the European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, tularemia is not associated with identifiable macroscopic tissue lesions39,55. To our knowledge, no reports describing post-mortem lesions in Cape hares with tularemia are available. In this study, similar lesions were found in hares and wild rabbits except necrotic foci only observed in some wild rabbit organs (such as liver, lungs, kidney, ovary). Most animals had pathological lesions of pneumonia, gastritis and enteritis. Kidney lesions and adrenal glands enlargment were oberved. Necrotic lesions were occasionally found in the lungs, liver, spleen and ovary and hemorrhages in the lungs, liver, and intestines.Tularemia is an arthropod-born disease in most endemic areas14,22,28. In our study, 50% of positive leporids were infested by known tularemia vectors such as ticks (Ixodes ricinus56,57, Rhipicephalus sanguineus39), fleas (Spillopsylus cuniculi58), and lice of lagomorphs (Haemodipsus lepori and Haemodipsus setoni59,60). Ticks are the most significant arthropod vectors of tularemia61. Ticks are frequently involved in the transmission of tularemia in North America, including Dermacentor andersoni, D. variabilis, and Amblyomma americanum57,62,63. In Europe, tick-borne tularemia represents 13% to 26% of human cases57,64. The involved species include D. marginatus, D. reticulatus, I. ricinus, R. sanguineus, and Haemaphysalis concinna65,66. Further research on wild leporid sucking arthropods is needed to confirm the presence and clarify the ecology of F. tularensis in Algeria.Our study reports for the first time the detection of F. tularensis DNA in leporids from Northern Algeria. The markers most in favor of tularemia in the animals studied are the positivity of qPCR tests, in particular, the “type B” qPCR test which amplifies a specific DNA sequence of F. tularensis subsp. holarctica, and a positive immunohistological examination in one animal. Further investigation is needed to confirm our results by the isolation of this pathogen from animal samples and determine the F. tularensis subspecies and genotypes involved. This would allow the characterization of the F. tularensis subspecies and genotypes present in Algeria. Furthermore, our findings push us in future studies to seek tularemia in the Algerian human population. To achieve this, interdisciplinary or trans-disciplinary collaborative efforts underpinned by the One Health concept will be necessary. More