Philippa Kaur

Global statistics on declining biodiversity can give the impression that every population of every species is in a downward spiral. In fact, many populations are stable or growing, while a small number of species faces truly existential challenges. These photos capture some specific crises. They are images of threats unfolding, of desperate attempts at species defence and of the beautiful living world that is at stake.
The 15th United Nations Biodiversity Conference, COP15, opens in Montreal, Canada, on 7 December. At the meeting, delegates will attempt to agree on goals for stabilizing species’ declines by 2030 and reverse them by mid-century. The current draft framework agreement promises nothing less than a “transformation in society’s relationship with biodiversity”.
Help for the kelp. Tasmania’s forests of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) are dying as climate change shifts ocean currents, bringing warm water to the east coast of the temperate Australian island. The kelp forests host an entire ecosystem, including abalone and crayfish — both economically important species and part of local food culture. Now, researchers at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies in Hobart are breeding kelp plants that can tolerate warmer conditions, and replanting them along the coast — a trial for what they hope will become a landscape-scale restoration. More

Machado, D. et al. Polarization of microbial communities between competitive and cooperative metabolism. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 195–203 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. Erroneous predictions of auxotrophies by CarveMe. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01936-3 (2022).Machado, D., Andrejev, S., Tramontano, M. & Patil, K. R. Fast automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models for microbial species and communities. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7542–7553 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Deutschbauer, A. M. & Arkin, A. P. GapMind: automated annotation of amino acid biosynthesis. mSystems 5, e00291-20 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mee, M. T., Collins, J. J., Church, G. M. & Wang, H. H. Syntrophic exchange in synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, E2149–E2156 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ponomarova, O. et al. Yeast creates a niche for symbiotic lactic acid bacteria through nitrogen overflow. Cell Syst. 5, 345–357.e6 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zengler, K. & Zaramela, L. S. The social network of microorganisms—how auxotrophies shape complex communities. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 383–390 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Giri, S. et al. Metabolic dissimilarity determines the establishment of cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Curr. Biol. 31, 5547–5557.e6 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. J., Lenski, R. E. & Zinser, E. R. The black queen hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio 3, e00036-12 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, K. et al. Self-establishing communities enable cooperative metabolite exchange in a eukaryote. eLife 4, e09943 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
D’Souza, G. & Kost, C. Experimental evolution of metabolic dependency in bacteria. PLOS Genet. 12, e1006364 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ziesack, M. et al. Engineered interspecies amino acid cross-feeding increases population evenness in a synthetic bacterial consortium. mSystems 4, e00352-19 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryback, B., Bortfeld-Miller, M. & Vorholt, J. A. Metabolic adaptation to vitamin auxotrophy by leaf-associated bacteria. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-022-01303-x (2022). More

Valle-Levinson, A. Contemporary Issues in Estuarine Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Book 

Google Scholar 
Singh, S. Analysis of plankton diversity and density with physico-chemical parameters of open pond in town Deeg (Bhratpur) Rajasthan, India. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci 4, 61–69 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Roussel, M., Pontier, D., Cohen, J.-M., Lina, B. & Fouchet, D. Quantifying the role of weather on seasonal influenza. BMC Public Health 16, 1–14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, O., Abowei, J. & Tawari, C. Phytoplankton community of Elechi creek, Niger Delta, Nigeria-a nutrient-polluted tropical creek. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 6, 1143–1152 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Choudhury, S. & Panigrahy, R. Seasonal distribution and behavior of nutrients in the Greek and coastal waters of Gopalpur, East coast of India: Mahasagar. Bull. Natl. Inst. Oeanogr 24, 91–88 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Ratheesh, K., Krishnan, A., Das, R. & Vimexen, V. Seasonal phytoplankton succession in Netravathi-Gurupura estuary, Karnataka, India: Study on a three tier hydrographic platform. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 242, 106830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deng, Y., Tang, X., Huang, B. & Ding, L. Effect of temperature and irradiance on the growth and reproduction of the green macroalga, Chaetomorpha valida (Cladophoraceae, Chlorophyta). J. Appl. Phycol. 24, 927–933 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gamier, J., Billen, G. & Coste, M. Seasonal succession of diatoms and Chlorophyceae in the drainage network of the Seine River: Observation and modeling. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40, 750–765 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meng, F. et al. Phytoplankton alpha diversity indices response the trophic state variation in hydrologically connected aquatic habitats in the Harbin Section of the Songhua River. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Köhler, J. Growth, production and losses of phytoplankton in the lowland River Spree. I. Population dynamics. J. Plankton Res. 15, 335–349 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murrell, M. C. & Caffrey, J. M. High cyanobacterial abundance in three northeastern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Gulf Caribbean Res. 17, 95–106 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haldar, G., Rahman, M. & Haroon, A. Hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha (Ham.) fishery of the Feni River with reference to the impacts of the flood control structure. J. Zool. 7, 51–56 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Hossain, M. S., Sarker, S., Chowdhury, S. R. & Sharifuzzaman, S. Discovering spawning ground of Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the coastal waters of Bangladesh. Ecol. Model. 282, 59–68 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhaumik, U. & Sharma, A. The fishery of Indian Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the Bhagirathi-Hooghly river system. Fishing Chimes 31, 21–27 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mitra, G. & Devsundaram, M. P. On the hilsa of Chilka Lake with note on the Hilsa in Orissa. J. Asiatic Soc. Sci. 20, 33–40 (1954).
Google Scholar 
Abdul, W., Phillips, M. & Beveridge, M. (WorldFish (WF), 2020).Hasan, K. M. M., Wahab, M. A., Ahmed, Z. F. & Mohammed, E. Y. The biophysical assessments of the hilsa fish (Tenualosa ilisha) habitat in the lower Meghna, Bangladesh (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2015).Begum, M. et al. Fatty acid composition of Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) fish muscle from different locations in Bangladesh. Thai J. Agric. Sci. 52, 172–179 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Jónasdóttir, S. H. Fatty acid profiles and production in marine phytoplankton. Mar. Drugs 17, 151 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Otero, P., Ruiz-Villarreal, M., Peliz, Á. & Cabanas, J. M. Climatology and reconstruction of runoff time series in northwest Iberia: Influence in the shelf buoyancy budget off Ría de Vigo. Sci. Mar. 74, 247–266 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grasshoff, K., Kremling, K. & Ehrhardt, M. Methods of Seawater Analysis (Wiley, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Parsons, T., Maita, Y. & Lalli, C. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Pergamon, Oxford sized algae and natural seston size fractions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 199, 43–53 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Scor-Unesco, W. Determination of photosynthetic pigments. Determination of Photosynthetic Pigments in Sea-water, 9–18 (1966).Snow, G., Bate, G. & Adams, J. The effects of a single freshwater release into the Kromme Estuary. 2: Microalgal response. Water SA-Pretoria 26, 301–310 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, H. B. & Whipple, G. C. Freshwater Biology Vol. 2, 12–48 (Willey, London, 1959).
Google Scholar 
Prescott, G. W. Algae of the western Great Lakes area. (1962).Bellinger, E. G. A Key to Common Algae: Freshwater, Estuarine and Some Coastal Species (Institution of Water and Environmental Management London, 1992).
Google Scholar 
Kimmerer, W. J. & Slaughter, A. M. A new electivity index for diet studies that use count data. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 19, 552–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S. & Sarkar, D. R Development Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, 2012. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. R package version, 3.1–103 (2020).Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galili, T., O’Callaghan, A., Sidi, J. & Sievert, C. heatmaply: an R package for creating interactive cluster heatmaps for online publishing. Bioinformatics 34, 1600–1602 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H., Chang, W. & Wickham, M. H. Package ‘ggplot2’. Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. Version 2, 1–189 (2016).Peterson, B. G. et al. Package ‘PerformanceAnalytics’. R Team Cooperation (2018).Lewis, R. E. & Uncles, R. J. Factors affecting longitudinal dispersion in estuaries of different scale. Ocean Dyn. 53, 197–207 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaha, D., Cho, Y.-K., Seo, G.-H., Kim, C.-S. & Jung, K. Using flushing rate to investigate spring-neap and spatial variations of gravitational circulation and tidal exchanges in an estuary. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1465–1476 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaha, D. C., Cho, Y.-K., Kim, T.-W. & Valle-Levinson, A. Spatio-temporal variation of flushing time in the Sumjin River Estuary. Terrestr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 23, 119 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shivaprasad, A. et al. Seasonal stratification and property distributions in a tropical estuary (Cochin estuary, west coast, India). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 187–199 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haralambidou, K., Sylaios, G. & Tsihrintzis, V. A. Salt-wedge propagation in a Mediterranean micro-tidal river mouth. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 90, 174–184 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dyer, K. R. Estuaries: A physical introduction (1973).Rahman, M. et al. Impact assessment of twenty-two days fishing ban in the major spawning grounds of Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton, 1822) on its spawning success in Bangladesh. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 8, 489 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alves, A. S. et al. Spatial distribution of subtidal meiobenthos along estuarine gradients in two southern European estuaries (Portugal). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 89, 1529–1540 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira, H., Salas, F., Borja, A., Neto, J. & Marques, J. A benthic perspective in assessing the ecological status of estuaries: The case of the Mondego estuary (Portugal). Ecol. Ind. 8, 404–416 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garmendia, M. et al. Eutrophication assessment in Basque estuaries: Comparing a North American and a European method. Estuar. Coasts 35, 991–1006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Istvánovics, V. Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs. Lake Ecosystem Ecology 47–55 (Elsevier, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 671–680 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bricker, S., Ferreira, J. & Simas, T. An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecol. Model. 169, 39–60 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vega, M., Pardo, R., Barrado, E. & Debán, L. Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis. Water Res. 32, 3581–3592 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y., Yang, C., Wen, C. & Wen, G. S-type dissolved oxygen distribution along water depth in a canyon-shaped and algae blooming water source reservoir: Reasons and control. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 987 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. & Cowx, I. Lunar periodicity in growth increment formation in otoliths of hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha, Clupeidae) in Bangladesh waters. Fish. Res. 81, 342–344 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. J. Population Biology and Management of hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in Bangladesh (University of Hull, 2001).Milton, D. A. & Chenery, S. R. Movement patterns of the tropical shad hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) inferred from transects of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in their otoliths. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60, 1376–1385 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, S., Sarker, M. R. H. & Mia, M. Y. Spatial and temporal variation of soil and water salinity in the South-Western and South-Central Coastal Region of Bangladesh. Irrig. Drain. 66, 854–871 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kida, S. & Yamazaki, D. The mechanism of the freshwater outflow through the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna delta. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026412 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarma, V. et al. Intra-annual variability in nutrients in the Godavari estuary, India. Contin. Shelf Res. 30, 2005–2014 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burford, M. et al. Controls on phytoplankton productivity in a wet–dry tropical estuary. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 113, 141–151 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. et al. Towards an ecological understanding of biological nitrogen fixation. Biogeochemistry 57, 1–45 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galloway, J. N. & Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio 31, 64–71 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennish, M. & De Jonge, V. in Human-Induced Problems (Uses and Abuses) 113–148 (Elsevier Inc., 2012).Alongi, D., Boto, K. & Robertson, A. Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, 251–251 (1993).Wolanski, E., McLusky, D., Laane, R. & Middleburg, J. (Academic Press, 2011).Suthers, I., Rissik, D. & Richardson, A. Plankton: A Guide to Their Ecology and Monitoring for Water Quality (CSIRO Publishing, 2019).Book 

Google Scholar 
Mackay, D. W. & Fleming, G. Correlation of dissolved oxygen levels, fresh-water flows and temperatures in a polluted estuary. Water Res. 3, 121–128 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomas, M. W. & Glibert, P. M. Temperature regulation of nitrate uptake: A novel hypothesis about nitrate uptake and reduction in cool-water diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 556–572 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dortch, Q. The interaction between ammonium and nitrate uptake in phytoplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Oldendorf 61, 183–201 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Admiraal, W., Riaux-Gobin, C. & Laane, R. W. Interactions of ammonium, nitrate, and D-and L-amino acids in the nitrogen assimilation of two species of estuarine benthic diatoms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 40, 267–273 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rabalais, N., Turner, R., Dortch, Q., Wiseman, W. Jr. & Sen Gupta, B. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries 19, 386 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gholizadeh, M. H., Melesse, A. M. & Reddi, L. Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources using APCS-MLR and PMF receptor modeling techniques in three major rivers of South Florida. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 1552–1567 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teichberg, M. et al. Eutrophication and macroalgal blooms in temperate and tropical coastal waters: Nutrient enrichment experiments with Ulva spp. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2624–2637 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valiela, I. & Bowen, J. Nitrogen sources to watersheds and estuaries: Role of land cover mosaics and losses within watersheds. Environ. Pollut. 118, 239–248 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woodland, R. J. et al. Nitrogen loads explain primary productivity in estuaries at the ecosystem scale. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 1751–1762 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Howarth, R. et al. Coupled biogeochemical cycles: Eutrophication and hypoxia in temperate estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 18–26 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winder, J. A. & Cheng, D. M. Quantification of Factors Controlling the Development of Anabaena Circinalis Blooms (Urban Water Research Association of Australia, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Descy, J.-P. Phytoplankton composition and dynamics in the River Meuse (Belgium). Arch. Hydrobiol. Supplementband. Monographische Beiträge 78, 225–245 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Robarts, R. D. & Zohary, T. Temperature effects on photosynthetic capacity, respiration, and growth rates of bloom-forming cyanobacteria. NZ J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 21, 391–399 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Visser, P. M., Ibelings, B. W., Bormans, M. & Huisman, J. Artificial mixing to control cyanobacterial blooms: A review. Aquat. Ecol. 50, 423–441 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krishnan, A., Das, R. & Vimexen, V. Seasonal phytoplankton succession in Netravathi-Gurupura estuary, Karnataka, India: Study on a three tier hydrographic platform. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 242, 106830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Srinivas, L., Seeta, Y. & Reddy, M. Bacillariophyceae as ecological indicators of water quality in Manair Dam, Karimnagar, India. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Tech 4, 468–474 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mohanty, B. P. et al. Fatty acid profile of Indian shad Tenualosa ilisha oil and its dietary significance. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 35, 263–269 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De, D. et al. Nutritional profiling of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) of different size groups and sensory evaluation of their adults from different riverine systems. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hasan, K. M. M., Ahmed, Z. F., Wahab, M. A. & Mohammed, E. Y. Food and Feeding Ecology of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) in Bangladesh’s Meghna River Basin. (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2016). More

Khan, M. et al. Plant species and communities assessment in interaction with edaphic and topographic factors; an ecological study of the mount Eelum District Swat Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 24(4), 778–786 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ur Rahman, A. et al. Impact of multiple environmental factors on species abundance in various forest layers using an integrative modeling approach. Global Ecol. Conserv. 29, e01712 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arneth, A., Uncertain future for vegetation cover. Nature 524(7563), 44–45.Goldsmith, F., Description and analysis of vegetation. Methods Plant Ecol. (1976).Rahman, I. U. et al. First insights into the floristic diversity, biological spectra and phenology of Manoor Valley Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot 50(3), 1113–1124 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Khan, S.M., Plant communities and vegetation ecosystem services in the Naran Valley, Western Himalaya, 2012, University of Leicester.Haq, F., Ahmad, H. & Iqbal, Z. Vegetation description and phytoclimatic gradients of subtropical forests of Nandiar Khuwar catchment District Battagram. Pak. J. Bot 47(4), 1399–1405 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Iqbal, M. et al. A novel approach to phytosociological classification of weeds flora of an agro-ecological system through Cluster, two way cluster and indicator species analyses. Ecol. Ind. 84, 590–606 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, M. R. et al. Grassland responses to global environmental changes suppressed by elevated CO2. Science 298(5600), 1987–1990 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drenovsky, R.E., Effects of mineral nutrient deficiencies on plant performance in the desert shrubs Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. consimilis and Sarcobatus vermiculatus2002: University of California, Davis.Iqbal, M. et al. Vegetation classification of the Margalla Foothills, Islamabad under the influence of edaphic factors and anthropogenic activities using modern ecological tools. Pak. J. Bot 53(5), 1831–1843 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bai, Y. et al. Landscape-level dynamics of grassland-forest transitions in British Columbia. J. Range Manag. 57(1), 66–75 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, T. et al. Retrievals of soil moisture and vegetation optical depth using a multi-channel collaborative algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 257, 112321 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Austin, M., Chapter 2: Vegetation and environment: discontinuities and continuities. IN VAN DER MAAREL, E.(Ed.) Végétation ecology. Etats‐Unis, 2005, Blackwell Publishing.Peña-Claros, M. et al. Soil effects on forest structure and diversity in a moist and a dry tropical forest. Biotropica 44(3), 276–283 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miao, R. et al. Effects of long-term grazing exclusion on plant and soil properties vary with position in dune systems in the Horqin Sandy Land. CATENA 209, 105860 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abbas, Z. et al. Plant communities and anthropo-natural threats in the Shigar valley,(Central Karakorum) Baltistan-Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 52, 987–994 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anwar, S., et al., Plant diversity and communities pattern with special emphasis on the indicator species of a dry temperate forest: A case study from Liakot area of the Hindu Kush mountains, Pakistan. Trop. Ecol. 1–16 (2022).Mumshad, M. et al. Phyto-ecological studies and distribution pattern of plant species and communities of Dhirkot, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 16(10), e0257493 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldeck, C. A. et al. Soil resources and topography shape local tree community structure in tropical forests. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280(1753), 20122532 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerra, T. N. F. et al. Influence of edge and topography on the vegetation in an Atlantic Forest remnant in northeastern Brazil. J. For. Res. 18(2), 200–208 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Townsend, A. R., Asner, G. P. & Cleveland, C. C. The biogeochemical heterogeneity of tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23(8), 424–431 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becknell, J. M. & Powers, J. S. Stand age and soils as drivers of plant functional traits and aboveground biomass in secondary tropical dry forest. Can. J. For. Res. 44(6), 604–613 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geri, F., Rocchini, D. & Chiarucci, A. Landscape metrics and topographical determinants of large-scale forest dynamics in a Mediterranean landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 95(1–2), 46–53 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M. V. Elevation gradients of species-density: historical and prospective views. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 10(1), 3–13 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, K. et al. An integrated flood risk assessment approach based on coupled hydrological-hydraulic modeling and bottom-up hazard vulnerability analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 148, 105279 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. et al. A hybrid runoff generation modelling framework based on spatial combination of three runoff generation schemes for semi-humid and semi-arid watersheds. J. Hydrol. 590, 125440 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mir, A. Y. et al. Ethnopharmacology and phenology of high-altitude medicinal plants in Kashmir Northern Himalaya. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 22, 1–15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Vetaas, O. R. & Grytnes, J. A. Distribution of vascular plant species richness and endemic richness along the Himalayan elevation gradient in Nepal. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11(4), 291–301 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W. et al. Fine root biomass and morphology in a temperate forest are influenced more by the nitrogen treatment approach than the rate. Ecol. Ind. 130, 108031 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, N. et al. Landscape context determines soil fungal diversity in a fragmented habitat. CATENA 213, 106163 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y., et al., Nitrogen fertilization weakens the linkage between soil carbon and microbial diversity: a global meta‐analysis. Global Change Biol. (2022).Ahmad, Z. et al. Weed species composition and distribution pattern in the maize crop under the influence of edaphic factors and farming practices: A case study from Mardan Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 23(6), 741–748 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, A. U. et al. Ecological assessment of plant communities and associated edaphic and topographic variables in the Peochar Valley of the Hindu Kush mountains. Mt. Res. Dev. 36(3), 332–341 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashton, P. S. A contribution of rain forest research to evolutionary theory. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 64(4), 694–705 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y. et al. Negative effects of multiple global change factors on soil microbial diversity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 156, 108229 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pärtel, M. Local plant diversity patterns and evolutionary history at the regional scale. Ecology 83(9), 2361–2366 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, D.R., Aarssen, L.W., & Loehle, C. On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity: A new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. Oikos 239–250 (1990).Knapp, A. K. et al. Rainfall variability, carbon cycling, and plant species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science 298(5601), 2202–2205 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zscheischler, J. et al. Short-term favorable weather conditions are an important control of interannual variability in carbon and water fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121(8), 2186–2198 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, C. et al. Simulation and design of joint distribution of rainfall and tide level in Wuchengxiyu Region China. Urban Clim. 40, 101005 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Exploring the utility of radar and satellite-sensed precipitation and their dynamic bias correction for integrated prediction of flood and landslide hazards. J. Hydrol. 603, 126964 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, K. et al. The sensitivity of North American terrestrial carbon fluxes to spatial and temporal variation in soil moisture: An analysis using radar-derived estimates of root-zone soil moisture. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124(11), 3208–3231 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y. et al. Increasing contribution of microbial residues to soil organic carbon in grassland restoration chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 170, 108688 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J. et al. Differential mechanisms drive species loss under artificial shade and fertilization in the Alpine Meadow of the Tibetan Plateau. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 832473–832473 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, C. et al. How do earthworms, soil texture and plant composition affect infiltration along an experimental plant diversity gradient in grassland?. PLoS ONE 9(6), e98987 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, T. et al. Soil moisture experiment in the Luan River supporting new satellite mission opportunities. Remote Sens. Environ. 240, 111680 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marandi, A., Polikarpus, M. & Jõeleht, A. A new approach for describing the relationship between electrical conductivity and major anion concentration in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 38, 103–109 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, J. et al. Modeling of coupled transfer of water, heat and solute in saline loess considering sodium sulfate crystallization. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 189, 103335 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. et al. Spatiotemporal characteristics and attribution of dry/wet conditions in the Weihe River Basin within a typical monsoon transition zone of East Asia over the recent 547 years. Environ. Model. Softw. 143, 105116 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, G., Siddique, S. & Suliman, M. Effect of canopy cover on natural regeneration of pinus wallichiana in moist temperate forest of Yakh Tangay, District Shangla Swat Pakistan. FUUAST J. Biol. 8(2), 193–201 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, K. et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of rainfall-induced landslide and debris flow hazards in Shaanxi Province, China. Nat. Hazard. 19(1), 93–105 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, W. et al. Vegetation mapping and multivariate approach to indicator species of a forest ecosystem: A case study from the Thandiani sub Forests Division (TsFD) in the Western Himalayas. Ecol. Ind. 71, 336–351 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iqbal, J. & Ahmed, M. Vegetation description of some pine forests of Shangla district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan: A preliminary study. FUUAST J. Biol. 4(1), 83–88 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Sparrow, B. D. et al. A vegetation and soil survey method for surveillance monitoring of rangeland environments. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 157 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Esri, R., ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, CA (2011).Salzer, D., & Willoughby, J. Standardize this! The futility of attempting to apply a standard quadrat size and shape to rare plant monitoring. in Proceedings of the symposium of the North Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society: the ecology and management of rare plants of northwestern California. Arcata, CA. Sacramento, CA: The California Native Plant Society (2004).Bano, S. et al. Eco-Floristic studies of native plants of the Beer Hills along the Indus River in the districts Haripur and Abbottabad Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 25(4), 801–810 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perveen, A. & Qaiser, M. Pollen flora of Pakistan–XXXI Betulaceae. Pak. J. Bot. 31, 243–246 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Raunkiaer, C., The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography; being the collected papers of C. Raunkiaer. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography; being the collected papers of C. Raunkiaer. (1934).Hussain, S.S., Pakistan manual of plant ecology1984: National Book Foundation.Kamran, S. et al. The role of graveyards in species conservation and beta diversity: A vegetation appraisal of sacred habitats from Bannu Pakistan. J. For. Res. 31(4), 1147–1158 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manan, F. et al. Environmental determinants of plant associations and evaluation of the conservation status of Parrotiopsis jacquemontiana in Dir, the Hindu Kush Range of Mountains. Trop. Ecol. 61(4), 509–526 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tfaily, M. M. et al. Sequential extraction protocol for organic matter from soils and sediments using high resolution mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 972, 54–61 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaney, R., Slonim, S., & Slonim, S. Determination of calcium carbonate content in soils, in Geotechnical properties, behavior, and performance of calcareous soils1982, ASTM International.McCune, B., & Mefford, M. PC-ORD, Multivariate analysis of ecological data, Version 5 for Windows edition. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon USA (2005).Lepš, J., & Šmilauer, P. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO2003: Cambridge university press.Xie, W. et al. A novel hybrid method for landslide susceptibility mapping-based geodetector and machine learning cluster: A case of Xiaojin county, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 10(2), 93 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, L., Lei, Y. & Pan, D. Economic and environmental evaluation of coal production in China and policy implications. Nat. Hazards 77(2), 1125–1141 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Team, R.C., R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ (2013).Anwar, S. et al. Floristic composition and ecological gradient analyses of the Liakot Forests in the Kalam region of District Swat Pakistan. J. For. Res. 30(4), 1407–1416 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haq, S. M. et al. Exploring and understanding the floristic richness, life-form, leaf-size spectra and phenology of plants in protected forests: A case study of Dachigam National Park in Himalaya Asia. Acta Ecol. Sin. 41(5), 479–490 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ilyas, M. et al. A Preliminary checklist of the vascular flora of Kabal Valley, Swat Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot 45(2), 605–615 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Amjad, M. S. et al. Floristic composition, biological spectrum and phenological pattern of vegetation in the subtropical forest of Kotli District, AJK Pakistan. Pure Appl. Biol. (PAB) 6(2), 426–447 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Shaheen, H. et al. Species diversity, community structure, and distribution patterns in western Himalayan alpine pastures of Kashmir Pakistan. Mount. Res. Dev. 31(2), 153–159 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abbas, Z. et al. Ethnobotany of the balti community, tormik valley, karakorum range, baltistan, pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 12(1), 1–16 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahmed, M. et al. Phytosociology and structure of Himalayan forests from different climatic zones of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 38(2), 361 (2006).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Shehzadi, S. et al. Floristic compositions along an 18-Km long transect in Ayubia National Park District Abbottabad Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 41(5), 2115–2127 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Khan, W., et al., Life forms, leaf size spectra and diversity indices of plant species grown in the Thandiani forests, district Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.Kharkwal, G. et al. Phytodiversity and growth form in relation to altitudinal gradient in the Central Himalayan (Kumaun) region of India. Curr. Sci. 1, 873–878 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Bennie, J. et al. Slope, aspect and climate: Spatially explicit and implicit models of topographic microclimate in chalk grassland. Ecol. Model. 216(1), 47–59 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choudhary, K. & Nama, K. S. Phyto-diversity of Mukundara hills national park of Kota district, Rajasthan India. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 5(1), 18–23 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Shimwell, D.W., Description and classification of vegetation (1971).Malik, Z.H., Comparative study of vegetation of GungaChotti and Bedori Hills, Distric Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir with special reference to range conditions, 2005, University of Peshawar, Pakistan.Khan, W. et al. Life forms, leaf size spectra, regeneration capacity and diversity of plant species grown in the Thandiani forests, district Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 25(1), 94–100 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grytnes, J. A. & Vetaas, O. R. Species richness and altitude: A comparison between null models and interpolated plant species richness along the Himalayan altitudinal gradient Nepal. Am. Nat. 159(3), 294–304 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Majid, A., Khan, M. & Calixto, E. Ecological assessment of plant communities along the edaphic and topographic gradients of biha valley, District Swat Pakistan. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 16(5), 5611–5631 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, S.M., et al., Vegetation dynamics in the Western Himalayas, diversity indices and climate change. Sci. Tech. Dev. 31(3), 232–243 (2012).Khan, S. M. et al. Identifying plant species and communities across environmental gradients in the Western Himalayas: Method development and conservation use. Eco. Inform. 14, 99–103 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaheen, H. & Shinwari, Z. K. Phyto diversity and endemic richness of Karambar lake vegetation from Chitral Hindukush-Himalayas. Pak. J. Bot 44(1), 17–21 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Wana, D., Plant communities and diversity along altitudinal gradients from Lake Abaya to Chencha Highlands, 2002, MA Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa.Canfora, L. et al. Is soil microbial diversity affected by soil and groundwater salinity? Evidences from a coastal system in central Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189(7), 1–15 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, S., et al., The distribution characteristics and human health risks of high-fluorine groundwater in coastal plain: A case study in Southern Laizhou Bay, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 568 (2022).Niu, Y. et al. Vegetation distribution along mountain environmental gradient predicts shifts in plant community response to climate change in alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 505–514 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nadal-Romero, E. et al. Effects of slope angle and aspect on plant cover and species richness in a humid Mediterranean badland. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 39(13), 1705–1716 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

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 
Schulze, K. et al. An assessment of threats to terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12435 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bingham, H. C. et al. (eds). Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2021); https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H., Chandler, G. & Gregory, R. D. Assessment of national-level progress towards elements of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Ecol. Indic. 116, 106497 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, H. et al. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 411–418 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on Its Third Meeting (CBD Secretariat, 2022); https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/wg2020-03/documentsRodrigues, A. S. & Cazalis, V. The multifaceted challenge of evaluating protected area effectiveness. Nat. Commun. 11, 5147 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Starnes, T. et al. The extent and effectiveness of protected areas in the UK. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 30, e01745 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cazalis, V. et al. Mismatch between bird species sensitivity and the protection of intact habitats across the Americas. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2394–2405 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gamero, A. et al. Tracking progress toward EU biodiversity strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common farmland birds. Conserv. Lett. 10, 395–402 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellissier, V. et al. Effects of Natura 2000 on nontarget bird and butterfly species based on citizen science data. Conserv. Biol. 34, 666–676 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Princé, K., Rouveyrol, P., Pellissier, V., Touroult, J. & Jiguet, F. Long-term effectiveness of Natura 2000 network to protect biodiversity: a hint of optimism for common birds. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108871 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunningham, C. A., Thomas, C. D., Morecroft, M. D., Crick, H. Q. P. & Beale, C. M. The effectiveness of the protected area network of Great Britain. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109146 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duckworth, G. D. & Altwegg, R. Effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation depends on guild. Divers. Distrib. 24, 1083–1091 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rada, S. et al. Protected areas do not mitigate biodiversity declines: a case study on butterflies. Divers. Distrib. 25, 217–224 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terraube, J., Van Doninck, J., Helle, P., & Cabeza, M. Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation. Nat. Commun. 11, 2957 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track the shifting isotherms in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
van Teeffelen, A., Meller, L., van Minnen, J., Vermaat, J. & Cabeza, M. How climate proof is the European Union’s biodiversity policy? Regional Environ. Change 15, 997–1010 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. & Gillingham, P. K. The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 115, 718–730 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillingham, P. K. et al. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical ranges. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 115, 707–717 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stokstad, E. Species? Climate? Cost? Ambitious goal means trade-offs. Science 371, 555 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brlík, V. et al. Long-term and large-scale multispecies dataset tracking population changes of common European breeding birds. Sci. Data 8, 21 (2021).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stanbury, A. et al. The status of bird populations: the fifth Birds of Conservation Concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man and second IUCN Red List assessment of extinction risk for Great Britain. Br. Birds 114, 723–747 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Dudley, N. (ed). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 2008).Deguignet, M. et al. Measuring the extent of overlaps in protected area designations. PLoS ONE 12, e0188681 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
JNCC. Common Standards Monitoring: Introduction to the Guidance Manual (JNCC Resource Hub, 2004).Hayhow, D. B. et al. State of Nature 2019 (RSPB, 2019).Schleicher, J. et al. Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 34, 538–549 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Waldron, A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (Campaign for Nature, 2020); https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/326470Franks, S. E., Roodbergen, M., Teunissen, W., Carrington Cotton, A. & Pearce‐Higgins, J. W. Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland‐breeding waders. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10555–10568 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pearce-Higgins, J. W. et al. Site-based adaptation reduces the negative effects of weather upon a southern range margin Welsh black grouse Tetrao tetrix population that is vulnerable to climate change. Clim. Change 153, 253–265 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jellesmark, S. et al. A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1575–1585 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, C. A. et al. Covariation in population trends and demography reveals targets for conservation action. Proc. Biol. Sci. 288, 20202955 (2021).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Donald, P. F. et al. International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science 317, 810–813 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martay, B. et al. Monitoring landscape-scale environmental changes with citizen scientists: Twenty years of land use change in Great Britain. J. Nat. Conserv. 44, 33–42 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan, M. J. P., Newson, S. E. & Pearce‐Higgins, J. W. Changing densities of generalist species underlie apparent homogenization of UK bird communities. Ibis 158, 645–655 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 196–205 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Devictor, V. et al. Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 121–124 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehikoinen, P., Santangeli, A., Jaatinen, K., Rajasärkkä, A. & Lehikoinen, A. Protected areas act as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change—evidence from large‐scale, long‐term abundance data. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 304–313 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaüzère, P., Jiguet, F. & Devictor, V. Can protected areas mitigate the impacts of climate change on bird’s species and communities? Diversity Distrib. 22, 625–637 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neate‐Clegg, M. H. C., Jones, S. E. I., Burdekin, O., Jocque, M. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. Elevational changes in the avian community of a Mesoamerican cloud forest park. Biotropica 50, 805–815 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. et al. Large extents of intensive land use limit community reorganization during climate warming. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2272–2283 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hiley, J. R., Bradbury, R. B., Holling, M. & Thomas, C. D. Protected areas act as establishment centres for species colonizing the UK. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20122310 (2013).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14063–14068 (2012).Article 
PubMed Central 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grace, M. K. et al. Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1833–1849 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gibbons, D. W., Reid, J. B. & Chapman, R. A. The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain & Ireland 1988–1991 (T. & A. D. Poyser, 1993).Balmer, D. E. et al. Bird Atlas 2007–11: the Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland (BTO, 2013).Gillings, S. et al. Breeding and wintering bird distributions in Britain and Ireland from citizen science bird atlases. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 866–874 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, S. N., Noble, D. G., Newson, S. E. & Baillie, S. R. Modelling population changes using data from different surveys: the Common Birds Census and the Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Study 54, 61–72 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. A., Julliard, R. & Saracco, J. F. Constant effort: studying avian population processes using standardised ringing. Ring. Migr. 24, 199–204 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cave, V. M., Freeman, S. N., Brooks, S. P., King, R. & Balmer, D. E. in Modeling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations, 949–963 (Springer, 2009).Rowland, C. S. et al. Land Cover Map 2015 (1km Percentage Aggregate Class, GB) (eds Thomson, D. L. et al) (Environmental Information Data Centre, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5285/7115bc48-3ab0-475d-84ae-fd3126c20984Rowland, C. S. et al. Land Cover Map 2015 (1km Percentage Aggregate Class, N. Ireland) (Environmental Information Data Centre, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5285/362feaea-0ccf-4a45-b11f-980c6b89a858ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003 (dataset). NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Space Systems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003Schiavina, M., Freire, S. & MacManus, K. GHS-SMOD R2019A – GHS Settlement Layers, Updated and Refined REGIO Model 2014 in Application to GHS-BUILT R2018A and GHS-POP R2019A, Multitemporal (1975-1990-2000-2015) (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2905/42E8BE89-54FF-464E-BE7B-BF9E64DA5218Robinson, R. A. BirdFacts: Profiles of Birds Occurring in Britain & Ireland (BTO, 2005).Gibbons, D. W. et al. Bird species of conservation concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: revising the Red Data List. RSPB Conserv. Rev. 10, 7–18 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Stone, B. H. et al. Population estimates of birds in Britain and in the United Kingdom. Br. Birds 90, 1–22 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Woodward, I. et al. Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Br. Birds 113, 69–104 (2020).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4, e8273 (2009).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., Strange, N., Smith, R. J. & Gordon, A. Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social‐ecological systems. Conserv. Biol. 35, 510–521 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jellesmark, S. et al. Assessing the global impact of targeted conservation actions on species abundance. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.14.476374 (2022).Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1–28 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: an Introduction with R 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package v.0.4.4 (2021); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMaJetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A. et al. Species traits explain variation in detectability of UK birds. Bird Study 61, 340–350 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, M. O. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54, 427–432 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Anal. 15, 199–236 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Julliard, R., Clavel, J., Devictor, V., Jiguet, F. & Couvet, D. Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1237–1244 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Couvet, D. & Jiguet, F. Birds are tracking climate warming, but not fast enough. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 2743–2748 (2008).PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Zheng, M. et al. Temporal patterns of soil carbon emission in tropical forests under long-term nitrogen deposition. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01080-4 (2022). More

To estimate the total number of non-broadcasting vessels, including those that were not detected by SAR, we: (1) obtained SAR detections of vessels from RADARSAT-2 and the corresponding vessel lengths as estimated from the SAR image; (2) processed a global feed of AIS data to identify every broadcasting vessel that should have appeared in the SAR images at the moment the images were taken; (3) developed a novel technique to determine which vessels in AIS matched to detections in SAR, which AIS vessels were not detected by SAR, and which SAR detections represented non-broadcasting vessels; (4) after matching SAR to AIS, we could then (a) model the relationship between a vessel’s actual length and the length as estimated by the SAR image (Fig. 3b) and (b) model the relationship between the likelihood that a vessel is detected and its length (Fig. 3a); and (5) finally, we combined these relationships to develop an estimate of the number and lengths of non-broadcasting vessels in the region.SAR imagery and vessel detectionsWorking with the satellite company Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT), we tasked the Canadian Space Agency’s satellite RADARSAT-2 to acquire SAR images from its ship detection mode (DVWF mode, GRD product), with a pixel size of about 40 m and a swath width over 400 km (19). These images were processed following standard procedures for GRD products (e.g. applying radiometric calibration and geometric corrections)29,30. Vessel locations were extracted from the images with the widely used ship detection algorithms, which discriminates objects at sea based on the backscatter difference (pixel values) between the sea clutter and the targets31. Vessel lengths were estimated by measuring distances directly on the images with the aid of a graphical user interface tool31.Identifying Vessels using AISIn each region, AIS data, obtained from satellite providers ORBCOMM and Spire, were processed using Global Fishing Watch’s data pipeline1. The identities and lengths of all AIS devices that operated near the SAR scenes in both space and time were first obtained using Global Fishing Watch’s database1. To be sure vessels were identified correctly, two analysts reviewed the tracks of every AIS device in each region.In both regions, it is common practice for fishers to put AIS beacons on their longlines, likely to aid in retrieving them, meaning that many AIS devices were longline gear and not vessels. Because gear outnumbered vessels by several-fold, it was critical to differentiate gear and fishing vessels. In the Indian Ocean, 521 unique AIS devices associated with gear were detected that were likely within the SAR scenes, and 390 unique AIS devices associated with gear in the Pacific that were likely within the SAR scenes. Transponders were determined to be associated with gear by inspecting the name broadcast in the AIS messages (gear frequently broadcasts one of several standard names and/or a voltage reading) and classification using the Global Fishing Watch vessel classification algorithm1. Most gear also had an MMSI number (unique identifier number for AIS) that started with 1, 8, or 9 or broadcast names that signified gear. We eliminated all gear from the analysis because (1) these gear buoys have reflectors that are only ~ 1 m in size, and they should not be visible in ~ 40 m resolution SAR images, and (2) we found that gear matched to SAR detections only when traveling faster than 2 knots (and thus was on the deck of a boat); of 159 instances of gear in scenes where the gear was traveling slower than two knots, zero matched to a radar detection (Fig. S9).Generating probability rasters for matching AIS to SARMost AIS positions did not correspond to the exact time when the SAR images were taken. Hence, to determine the likelihood that a vessel broadcasting AIS corresponded to a specific SAR detection, we first developed probability rasters of where a vessel was likely to be minutes before or after a GPS position was recorded (Figs. S1,S2). We mined one year of global AIS data, including roughly 10 billion GPS positions, and computed these rasters for six different vessel classes (trawlers, purse seines, tug, cargo or tanker, drifting longlines, and others) and considered six different speeds (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12.5 knots) and 36 time intervals (− 448, − 320, − 224, − 160, − 112, − 80, − 56, − 40, − 28, − 20, − 14, − 10, − 7, − 5, − 3.5, − 2.5, − 1.5, − 0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 5, 7, 10, 14, 20, 28, 40, 56, 80, 112, 160, 224, 320, and 448 min).For example, we queried a year of AIS data to find every example of where a tugboat had two positions that were 10 min apart from one another when the vessel had been traveling at 10 knots at the first position. We then recorded each of these locations relative to the location the vessel would have been if it traveled in a straight line, with x coordinates being in the direction of travel and the y coordinates being perpendicular to the direction of travel. When collected for hundreds of thousands of examples across the AIS dataset, the result is a heatmap of where tug boats are located 10 min after a position when it was traveling at 10 knots. The raster is centered on a point that is the extrapolated position of the vessel based on its speed. For instance, the purse seine raster that corresponds to a vessel traveling between 6 and 8 knots between 96 and 128 min after the most recent position is centered at a point that is 13.1 km (7 knots × 112 min) straight ahead of the direction the vessel was traveling. Figure S1 shows samples of these rasters for different vessels.We built rasters of 1000 by 1000 pixels for each vessel class and time interval, with the area covered by the raster dependent on the time interval (longer time intervals imply longer traveled distances, covering more area). The scale of each pixel was given by:$${text{pixel}};{text{width = max(1, }}Delta {text{m) / 1000}}$$
(1)
where Δm is the time interval in minutes, and pixel width is measured in km. Thus, if the Δm is under one minute, the entire raster is one kilometer wide with each pixel one meter by one meter. If the time is 10 min, then each pixel is 10 m wide, and the entire raster is 10 km by 10 km.Since the pixel width varies between rasters, the units of the rasters are probability per km2, thus summing the area of each pixel times its value equals one. Six vessel classes with 36 time intervals for each and six speeds led to 1296 different rasters. This probability raster approach could be seen as a utilization distribution32—for each vessel class, speed and time interval—where the space is relative to the position of the individual.Combining probability rasters to produce a matching scoreFor a few vessels (~ 4%) there was only one AIS position available before or after the scene. This resulted from a long gap in the AIS data due to poor reception, a weak AIS device, or cases where the vessels disabled their AIS. For these vessels, we used the raster values for a single position. For the vast majority of vessels, however, there was a GPS position right before and after the scene, and thus two probability rasters. We used two methods to combine these probability rasters to obtain information about the most likely location:Multiply and renormalize the rastersTo multiply the rasters, we interpolated the raster values, using bilinear interpolation, to a constant grid at the highest resolution between the before and after rasters. Then, we multiplied the values at each point and renormalized the resulting raster (Fig. S2):$$p_{i} = frac{{p_{ai} cdot p_{bi} }}{{mathop sum nolimits_{k = 0}^{N} p_{ak} cdot p_{bk} cdot da}}$$
(2)
where pi is the probability in vessel density per km2 at location i, pai is the value of the raster before the image, pbi is the value of the raster after the image. The denominator is the sum of all multiplied values across the raster, scaled by the area of each cell, da.Weight and average the rasters For this method, we weighted the raster by the squared value of the probabilities of that scene. This has the effect of giving the concentrated raster a higher weight, thus weighting higher the raster that is closer in time to the image:$${w}_{a}=sum_{k=0}^{N} {p}_{ak}^{2}cdot da$$
(3)
and the weighted average at location i is:$${p}_{i}=frac{{p}_{ai}cdot {w}_{a}+{p}_{bi}cdot {w}_{b}}{{w}_{a}+{w}_{b}}$$
(4)
where wa is the weight for raster a, wb the weight for raster b (calculation analogous to wa’s in Eq. 3), pi is the probability in vessel density per km2 at location i.To determine whether we should multiply (Eq. 2) or average (Eq. 4) the probabilities, we compared the performance of these two metrics against a direct inspection of the detections. We found that at short intervals, multiplying the rasters and renormalizing often made probability values extremely small ( {d}_{d}cdot {p}_{d} + {p}_{f}$$
(5)
where ({p}_{v}) is the probability density of the vessel presence at the location of the SAR detection (the score listed above), ({p}_{d}) is the probability that the vessel is detected by SAR, ({d}_{d}) is the density of non-broadcasting vessels in the region, and ({p}_{f}) is the density of false detections in the scene. The greater ({p}_{d}), the more dark vessels there are in a scene, and the more likely it is that any given detection is a dark vessel instead of a vessel broadcasting AIS. The right-hand side of the equation ({d}_{d}cdot {p}_{d} + {p}_{f}) should roughly equal the number of detections per unit area that do not match to AIS in the region. In other words, the probability of the vessel with AIS being at that specific location and detected by SAR (left side of the equation) should be greater than the probability of a dark vessel or a false detection at that location (right side of the equation).The total number of unmatched vessels in each studied region normalized by total area covered gives a density of non-broadcasting vessels of 2.6–2.8 × 10–5 vessels km-2 (Indian Ocean) and 6.8–7.2 × 10–6 vessels km−2 (Pacific Ocean), similar to the thresholds estimated by analysts. For the most likely number of matched vessels, we use a threshold that is halfway between the higher and lower bound of the analyst (5 × 10–5 to 1 × 10–4), 2.5 × 10–5 which is also roughly equal to the theoretical estimate of the Indian Ocean.This threshold approach performed significantly better than a metric based on the distance between the SAR detection and the most likely location of the vessel, where the likely location is based on extrapolating speed and course of the position closest in time to the image (Fig. S4).Determining whether a vessel with AIS was within a sceneVessel positions from AIS are usually available before and/or after the SAR images, and sometimes it is unclear if a vessel should have been within the scene footprint at the time of the image.To estimate the probability that a vessel (with AIS) was within a scene, we used the multiplied probability raster, summing the values inside the scene boundaries. This provides an estimate of the likelihood that the vessel was within the scene footprint at the time of the image. We applied this to every vessel that had at least one AIS position within 12 h and 200 nautical miles of the scene footprint. The vast majority of vessels were either very likely inside or outside the scene footprints, with 516 vessels having a probability of  > 95% and only 16 having a probability between 5 and 95%. We filtered out all vessels that were definitely outside of the image footprint before matching.Estimating the likelihood of detecting a vessel with SARThe AIS data show that not all vessels broadcasting AIS were captured by the RADARSAT-2 images (Fig. 3a). Using the known lengths of detected vessels with AIS, we estimated the likelihood of detecting a vessel with SAR as a function of vessel length (Fig. 3a). For vessels shorter than 60 m, we approximated the detection rate as a linear function. Treating each vessel as an individual detection, we fitted the 50th percentile using quantile regression to approximate the detection rate. For vessels above 60 m, we assumed a constant detection rate as very few vessels above this length did now show up in the SAR images. Of the 46 unique vessels larger than 62 m, 42 were detected, implying a detection rate of ~ 91%. Given that it is highly likely that large vessels will be captured by medium-resolution SAR imagery, we manually reviewed these cases to confirm that they were (almost surely) inside the scene footprints at the time the images were taken.We should note that the probability of detecting a vessel in SAR also depends on the sea state, incidence angle, polarization, material of the vessel, and orientation of the vessel. We are unable, however, to measure these effects directly so we cannot explicitly model these effects.With sufficient scenes, these effects should be randomly distributed across our scenes, so they likely account for some of the variability in detectability and the inaccuracy in our length estimates from SAR.Estimating the number and length of non-broadcasting vesselsBecause SAR does not detect all vessels, and because the length as estimated by SAR can be incorrect, there are many possible distributions of actual non-broadcasting vessels that could have produced the distribution of unmatched SAR detections that we found in the scenes. To estimate the most likely such distribution, we built a model to combine the two key relationships—between vessel length and likelihood of detection, and between vessel length and the length as estimated by SAR. This model allowed us to estimate, based on the number and distribution of SAR vessels, the likely number and distribution of actual vessels present (Fig. 3c,d).We binned the likelihood of vessel detection as a function of length into 1 m intervals, yielding a vector (alpha) of length 400. We also binned into 1 m intervals the population of lengths of all detected vessels ((ell_{D})) as reported by AIS (i.e. number of vessels at each length bin), the population of expected SAR lengths ((ell_{E})), and the population of lengths of all vessels ((ell_{A}), the quantity we wish to estimate). Thus, (ell_{D}) can be expressed as the product of (alpha) and (ell_{A}):$$ell_{D} = {upalpha } odot ell_{{text{A}}}$$
(6)
where (odot) is the element-wise product. We then estimated a matrix (L_{{}}) that relates (ell_{D}) to (ell_{E}).$$ell_{E} = Lell_{D}$$
(7)
where each element (L_{ij}) represents the probability that a vessel with length in bin j would be estimated by SAR to be of length in bin i. We calculated these probabilities as lognormal probability density functions, with one distribution per column. To estimate the scale and shape parameters of these distributions, we first fitted a quantile regression using the (non-binned) lengths from AIS of detected vessels as the predictor for the lengths reported by SAR. Assuming that the predicted 1/3 and 2/3 quantiles (as shown in Fig. 3a) represent the quantiles of a lognormal distribution, allow us to calculate the shape and scale parameters. We chose a lognormal distribution because: 1) the variable of interest, length, was always greater than zero, 2) the population of lengths was skewed towards larger values, and 3) there is an explicit and relatively simple relationship between the lognormal quantiles and the shape and scale parameters that simplified the calculations.Combining Eqs. (6) and (7) provides a relation between (ell_{A}) and (ell_{E}):$$ell_{E} = {text{L}}left( {alpha odot ell_{A} } right)$$
(8)
To estimate ({mathcal{l}}_{A}) we minimized an objective function (O({mathcal{l}}_{E},{mathcal{l}}_{o})) between the vector of expected counts binned by length (({mathcal{l}}_{E})) and the vector of counts observed in SAR binned by length (({mathcal{l}}_{o})). For this objective function, we chose the sum of the Kolmogorov –Smirnov distance between length distributions and the squared difference of the total numbers of detections. The first term controls the shape of the resulting distribution while the second one controls the magnitude. Specifically:$$Oleft( {ell_{E} ,ell_{o} } right) = max left( {left| {C_{E} – C_{O} } right|} right) + left( {T_{E} – T_{O} } right)^{2}$$
(9)
where:$$T_{x} = mathop sum limits_{ } ell_{x}$$$$D_{x} = ell_{x} /T_{x}$$$$C_{x} = cumsumleft( {D_{x} } right)$$Assessing the uncertainty in the estimationTo test how accurately our approach predicts the correct number of vessels, we performed a bootstrap simulation. We computed the vector (alpha) and the matrix L from a random subset of vessels with AIS that had a high confidence ( > 95%) of appearing within the scenes. We then used our method on the SAR detections that matched the remaining vessels to predict the number of vessels they corresponded to ((ell_{text{A}})). By running 10,000 experiments we found a mean absolute percent error of + − 9% (Figs. S5 and S6). This provides a rough estimate of the uncertainty in our prediction due to the estimation process itself. We used the distribution of these samples to estimate the 90% confidence interval that we report with our estimates. We note that this uncertainty refers to the parametrization of the model and there may be other sources of error, such as the possibility that vessels without AIS have different radar properties (e.g. made out of materials with different reflectiveness), that we did not account for in our model.Catch and effort data in the overlapping area between WCPFC and IATTCWe downloaded gridded effort and catch data from the WCPFC and IATTC websites, and compared the reported number of hooks and catch from September to December of 2019 for the area between − 140 to − 150 longitude and − 5 to − 15 latitude, a bounding box that contains our study region in the Pacific and which is entirely within both the WCPFC and IATTC convention zones. We found that the reported number of hooks for Korea is three times higher for the IATTC as it is for the WCPFC (Fig. S7), and the numbers of hooks also disagree by more than 10% for most other flag states. Catch is also 2.5 times higher for IATTC than for WCPFC for Korea as well, with catch also differing by more than 10% for most other flag states. This finding suggests that the different RFMOs may not be accounting for the same vessels in the overlap region between the two RFMOs. More

Koskella, B. The phyllosphere. Curr. Biol. 30, R1143–R1146 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lu, N. et al. Improved estimation of aboveground biomass in wheat from RGB imagery and point cloud data acquired with a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle system. Plant Methods 15, 17 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Arye, G. C. & Harel, A. in Microbial Genomics in Sustainable Agroecosystems (eds Tripathi, V. et al.) 39–65 (Springer, 2020).Universal plant healthcare. Nat. Plants 6, 47 (2020).Fones, H. N. et al. Threats to global food security from emerging fungal and oomycete crop pathogens. Nat. Food 1, 332–342 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W., Deng, Y., Ning, Y., He, Z. & Wang, G. L. Exploiting broad-spectrum disease resistance in crops: from molecular dissection to breeding. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 71, 575–603 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matsumoto, H. et al. Bacterial seed endophyte shapes disease resistance in rice. Nat. Plants 7, 60–72 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thomazella, D. P. T. et al. Loss of function of a DMR6 ortholog in tomato confers broad-spectrum disease resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2026152118 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guo, Y. Molecular design for rice breeding. Nat. Food 2, 849–849 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H. et al. Core microbiomes for sustainable agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 4, 247–257 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 8, 103 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carrion, V. J. et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. Science 366, 606–612 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chialva, M., Lanfranco, L. & Bonfante, P. The plant microbiota: composition, functions, and engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 73, 135–142 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H., Brettell, L. E. & Singh, B. Linking the phyllosphere microbiome to plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 841–844 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828–840 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H., Brettell, L. E., Qiu, Z. & Singh, B. K. Microbiome-mediated stress resistance in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 733–743 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xu, P. et al. Temporal metabolite responsiveness of microbiota in the tea plant phyllosphere promotes continuous suppression of fungal pathogens. J. Adv. Res. 39, 49–60 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M. & Cernava, T. Overhauling the assessment of agrochemical-driven interferences with microbial communities for improved global ecosystem integrity. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 4, 100061 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hegazi, N., Hartmann, A. & Ruppel, S. The plant microbiome: exploration of plant–microbe interactions for improving agricultural productivity. J. Adv. Res. 19, 1–2 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mittelviefhaus, M., Muller, D. B., Zambelli, T. & Vorholt, J. A. A modular atomic force microscopy approach reveals a large range of hydrophobic adhesion forces among bacterial members of the leaf microbiota. ISME J. 13, 1878–1882 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sapkota, R., Knorr, K., Jorgensen, L. N., O’Hanlon, K. A. & Nicolaisen, M. Host genotype is an important determinant of the cereal phyllosphere mycobiome. New Phytol. 207, 1134–1144 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bodenhausen, N., Bortfeld-Miller, M., Ackermann, M. & Vorholt, J. A. A synthetic community approach reveals plant genotypes affecting the phyllosphere microbiota. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004283 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Horton, M. W. et al. Genome-wide association study of Arabidopsis thaliana leaf microbial community. Nat. Commun. 5, 5320 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R. et al. Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant. Nat. Commun. 7, 12151 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shakir, S., Zaidi, S. S., de Vries, F. T. & Mansoor, S. Plant genetic networks shaping phyllosphere microbial community. Trends Genet. 37, 306–316 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xiong, C. et al. Plant developmental stage drives the differentiation in ecological role of the maize microbiome. Microbiome 9, 171 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Paquette, A., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Leaf bacterial diversity mediates plant diversity and ecosystem function relationships. Nature 546, 145–147 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, T. et al. A plant genetic network for preventing dysbiosis in the phyllosphere. Nature 580, 653–657 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pang, Z. et al. Linking plant secondary metabolites and plant microbiomes: a review. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 621276 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pfeilmeier, S. et al. The plant NADPH oxidase RBOHD is required for microbiota homeostasis in leaves. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 852–864 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, R. et al. Cytokinin drives assembly of the phyllosphere microbiome and promotes disease resistance through structural and chemical cues. ISME J. 16, 122–137 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massoni, J. et al. Consistent host and organ occupancy of phyllosphere bacteria in a community of wild herbaceous plant species. ISME J. 14, 245–258 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Agler, M. T. et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ren, G. et al. Response of soil, leaf endosphere and phyllosphere bacterial communities to elevated CO2 and soil temperature in a rice paddy. Plant Soil 392, 27–44 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, K.M. et al. Plant neighborhood shapes diversity and reduces interspecific variation of the phyllosphere microbiome. ISME J. 16, 1376–1387 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, Y. et al. Warming and elevated ozone induce tradeoffs between fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi and stimulate organic carbon decomposition. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9256 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yu, H., Zhang, Y. & Tan, W. The “neighbor avoidance effect” of microplastics on bacterial and fungal diversity and communities in different soil horizons. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 8, 100121 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q. et al. Interactive effects of ozone exposure and nitrogen addition on the rhizosphere bacterial community of poplar saplings. Sci. Total Environ. 754, 142134 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H., Jiang, Q., Wang, J., Li, K. & Wang, F. Analysis on the impact of two winter precipitation episodes on PM2.5 in Beijing. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 5, 100080 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Feng, Z. et al. Ozone pollution threatens the production of major staple crops in East Asia. Nat. Food 3, 47–56 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Y. G. et al. Impacts of global change on the phyllosphere microbiome. New Phytol. 234, 1977–1986 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sawada, H. et al. Elevated ozone deteriorates grain quality of japonica rice cv. Koshihikari, even if it does not cause yield reduction. Rice 9, 7 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Agathokleous, E. et al. Ozone affects plant, insect, and soil microbial communities: a threat to terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc1176 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mieczan, T. & Bartkowska, A. The effect of experimentally simulated climate warming on the microbiome of carnivorous plants—a microcosm experiment. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 34, e02040 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. et al. Evidence for the plant recruitment of beneficial microbes to suppress soil-borne pathogens. New Phytol. 229, 2873–2885 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gao, M. et al. Disease-induced changes in plant microbiome assembly and functional adaptation. Microbiome 9, 187 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Snelders, N. C. et al. Microbiome manipulation by a soil-borne fungal plant pathogen using effector proteins. Nat. Plants 6, 1365–1374 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Humphrey, P. T. & Whiteman, N. K. Insect herbivory reshapes a native leaf microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 221–229 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Tree leaf bacterial community structure and diversity differ along a gradient of urban intensity. mSystems 2, e00087–17 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Imperato, V. et al. Characterisation of the Carpinus betulus L. phyllomicrobiome in urban and forest areas. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1110 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perreault, R. & Laforest-Lapointe, I. Plant–microbe interactions in the phyllosphere: facing challenges of the anthropocene. ISME J. 16, 339–345 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jain, A., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N. & Ramalingam, C. Nanomaterials in food and agriculture: an overview on their safety concerns and regulatory issues. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58, 297–317 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sillen, W. M. A. et al. Nanoparticle treatment of maize analyzed through the metatranscriptome: compromised nitrogen cycling, possible phytopathogen selection, and plant hormesis. Microbiome 8, 127 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. & Cernava, T. The plant microbiota signature of the Anthropocene as a challenge for microbiome research. Microbiome 10, 54 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fan, X. et al. Microenvironmental interplay predominated by beneficial Aspergillus abates fungal pathogen incidence in paddy environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 13042–13052 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Wheat microbiome bacteria can reduce virulence of a plant pathogenic fungus by altering histone acetylation. Nat. Commun. 9, 3429 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M., Hashimoto, M. & Hashidoko, Y. Repression of tropolone production and induction of a Burkholderia plantarii pseudo-biofilm by carot-4-en-9,10-diol, a cell-to-cell signaling disrupter produced by Trichoderma virens. PLoS ONE 8, e78024 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bauermeister, A., Mannochio-Russo, H., Costa-Lotufo, L. V., Jarmusch, A. K. & Dorrestein, P. C. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics in microbiome investigations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 143–160 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matsumoto, H. et al. Reprogramming of phytopathogen transcriptome by a non-bactericidal pesticide residue alleviates its virulence in rice. Fundam. Res. 2, 198–207 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hou, S. et al. A microbiota–root–shoot circuit favours Arabidopsis growth over defence under suboptimal light. Nat. Plants 7, 1078–1092 (2021).Mathur, M., Nair, A. & Kadoo, N. Plant–pathogen interactions: microRNA-mediated trans-kingdom gene regulation in fungi and their host plants. Genomics 112, 3021–3035 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kaur, C. et al. Microbial methylglyoxal metabolism contributes towards growth promotion and stress tolerance in plants. Environ. Microbiol. 24, 2817–2836 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Castrillo, G. et al. Root microbiota drive direct integration of phosphate stress and immunity. Nature 543, 513–518 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Korenblum, E. et al. Rhizosphere microbiome mediates systemic root metabolite exudation by root-to-root signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3874–3883 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, S. T., Coaker, G., Day, B. & Staskawicz, B. J. Host–microbe interactions: shaping the evolution of the plant immune response. Cell 124, 803–814 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. D. & Dangl, J. L. The plant immune system. Nature 444, 323–329 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bai, Y. et al. Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota. Nature 528, 364–369 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, C., Bodenhausen, N., Gruissem, W. & Vorholt, J. A. The Arabidopsis leaf transcriptome reveals distinct but also overlapping responses to colonization by phyllosphere commensals and pathogen infection with impact on plant health. New Phytol. 212, 192–207 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dodds, P. N. & Rathjen, J. P. Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant–pathogen interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 539–548 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stringlis, I. A. et al. Root transcriptional dynamics induced by beneficial rhizobacteria and microbial immune elicitors reveal signatures of adaptation to mutualists. Plant J. 93, 166–180 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
He, J. et al. A LysM receptor heteromer mediates perception of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiotic signal in rice. Mol. Plant 12, 1561–1576 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bozsoki, Z. et al. Ligand-recognizing motifs in plant LysM receptors are major determinants of specificity. Plant Sci. 369, 663–670 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stringlis, I. A., Zhang, H., Pieterse, C. M. J., Bolton, M. D. & de Jonge, R. Microbial small molecules—weapons of plant subversion. Nat. Prod. Rep. 35, 410–433 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kong, H. G., Song, G. C., Sim, H. J. & Ryu, C. M. Achieving similar root microbiota composition in neighbouring plants through airborne signalling. ISME J. 15, 397–408 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vacher, C. et al. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 1–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thapa, S. & Prasanna, R. Prospecting the characteristics and significance of the phyllosphere microbiome. Ann. Microbiol. 68, 229–245 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vorholt, J. A., Vogel, C., Carlstrom, C. I. & Muller, D. B. Establishing causality: opportunities of synthetic communities for plant microbiome research. Cell Host Microbe 22, 142–155 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X., Wicaksono, W. A., Berg, G. & Cernava, T. Bacterial communities in the plant phyllosphere harbour distinct responders to a broad-spectrum pesticide. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141799 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. X. et al. A practical guide to amplicon and metagenomic analysis of microbiome data. Protein Cell 12, 315–330 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hosokawa, M. et al. Droplet-based microfluidics for high-throughput screening of a metagenomic library for isolation of microbial enzymes. Biosens. Bioelectron. 67, 379–385 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kehe, J. et al. Massively parallel screening of synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 12804–12809 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. et al. High-throughput cultivation and identification of bacteria from the plant root microbiota. Nat. Protoc. 16, 988–1012 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grosskopf, T. & Soyer, O. S. Synthetic microbial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 18, 72–77 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, C. M., Potthoff, D. B., Schafer, M., Barandun, N. & Vorholt, J. A. Protective role of the Arabidopsis leaf microbiota against a bacterial pathogen. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 1537–1548 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Finkel, O. M. et al. A single bacterial genus maintains root growth in a complex microbiome. Nature 587, 103–108 (2020).Wagner, M. R. et al. Microbe-dependent heterosis in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021965118 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schafer, M., Vogel, C. M., Bortfeld-Miller, M., Mittelviefhaus, M. & Vorholt, J. A. Mapping phyllosphere microbiota interactions in planta to establish genotype–phenotype relationships. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 856–867 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Han, B. & Huang, X. Sequencing-based genome-wide association study in rice. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 16, 133–138 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Roman-Reyna, V. et al. The rice leaf microbiome has a conserved community structure controlled by complex host-microbe interactions. Cell Host Microbe https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3382544 (2019).Deng, S. et al. Genome wide association study reveals plant loci controlling heritability of the rhizosphere microbiome. ISME J. 15, 3181–3194 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R., Busby, P. E. & Balint-Kurti, P. Analysis of leaf microbiome composition of near-isogenic maize lines differing in broad-spectrum disease resistance. New Phytol. 225, 2152–2165 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R., Roberts, J. H., Balint-Kurti, P. & Holland, J. B. Heterosis of leaf and rhizosphere microbiomes in field-grown maize. New Phytol. 228, 1055–1069 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nobori, T. et al. Transcriptome landscape of a bacterial pathogen under plant immunity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E3055–E3064 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xu, L. et al. Holo-omics for deciphering plant–microbiome interactions. Microbiome 9, 69 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
French, E., Kaplan, I., Iyer-Pascuzzi, A., Nakatsu, C. H. & Enders, L. Emerging strategies for precision microbiome management in diverse agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 7, 256–267 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lemmon, Z. H. et al. Rapid improvement of domestication traits in an orphan crop by genome editing. Nat. Plants 4, 766–770 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kamilaris, A. & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. Deep learning in agriculture: a survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 147, 70–90 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, L., Zhang, C., Liu, F., Qiu, Z. & He, Y. Application of deep learning in food: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 18, 1793–1811 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Indias, I. et al. Statistical and machine learning techniques in human microbiome studies: contemporary challenges and solutions. Front. Microbiol. 12, 635781 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Song, P., Wang, J., Guo, X., Yang, W. & Zhao, C. High-throughput phenotyping: breaking through the bottleneck in future crop breeding. Crop J. 9, 633–645 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More