Philippa Kaur

Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E. et al. Divergent biodiversity change within ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 1843–1847 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blowes, S. A. et al. Local biodiversity change reflects interactions among changing abundance, evenness, and richness. Ecology online, e3820 (2022).Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Gomulkiewicz, R. & Snyder, W. E. Conserving and promoting evenness: Organic farming and fire-based wildland management as case studies. Ecology 93, 2001–2007 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H., Bennett, D. M. & Cadotte, M. W. Consequences of dominance: A review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes. Ecology 89, 1510–1520 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Masuda, R. et al. Fish assemblages associated with three types of artificial reefs: density of assemblages and possible impacts on adjacent fish abundance. Fishery Bulletin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 108, 162–173 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Miyazono, S., Patiño, R. & Taylor, C. M. Desertification, salinization, and biotic homogenization in a dryland river ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 511, 444–453 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yonekura, R., Kita, M. & Yuma, M. Species diversity in native fish community in Japan: Comparison between non-invaded and invaded ponds by exotic fish. Ichthyol. Res. 51, 176–179 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, N. T., Shirey, P. D., Wieringa, J. G., Mahon, A. R. & Lamberti, G. A. Comparative cost and effort of fish distribution detection via environmental DNA analysis and electrofishing. Fisheries 42, 90–99 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miya, M., Gotoh, R. O. & Sado, T. MiFish metabarcoding: A high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples. Fish. Sci. 86, 939–970 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oka, S. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding for biodiversity monitoring of a highly diverse tropical fish community in a coral reef lagoon: Estimation of species richness and detection of habitat segregation. Environ. DNA 3, 55–69 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. et al. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2565–2573 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 685–696 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rourke, M. L. et al. Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys. Environ. DNA 4, 9–33 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsuji, S. et al. Real-time multiplex PCR for simultaneous detection of multiple species from environmental DNA: An application on two Japanese medaka species. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–8 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kissling, W. D. et al. Building essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale. Biol. Rev. 93, 600–625 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N. et al. Biodiversity monitoring using environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 1405–1409 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boivin-Delisle, D. et al. Using environmental DNA for biomonitoring of freshwater fish communities: Comparison with established gillnet surveys in a boreal hydroelectric impoundment. Environ. DNA 3, 105–120 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5872–5895 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doi, H. et al. Compilation of real-time PCR conditions toward the standardization of environmental DNA methods. Ecol. Res. 36, 379–388 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, R. P. Making environmental DNA count. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 10–12 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, G., Eble, J. E. & Gaither, M. R. A practical guide to sample preservation and pre-PCR processing of aquatic environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 29–39 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F. & Taberlet, P. Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biol. Let. 4, 423–425 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuwae, M. et al. Sedimentary DNA tracks decadal-centennial changes in fish abundance. Commun. Biol. 3, 1–12 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynggaard, C. et al. Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring. Curr. Biol. 32, 701–707.e5 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsuji, S., Takahara, T., Doi, H., Shibata, N. & Yamanaka, H. The detection of aquatic macroorganisms using environmental DNA analysis—A review of methods for collection, extraction, and detection. Environ. DNA 1, 99–108 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bylemans, J., Gleeson, D. M., Duncan, R. P., Hardy, C. M. & Furlan, E. M. A performance evaluation of targeted eDNA and eDNA metabarcoding analyses for freshwater fishes. Environ. DNA 1, 402–414 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wozney, K. M. & Wilson, C. C. Quantitative PCR multiplexes for simultaneous multispecies detection of Asian carp eDNA. J. Great Lakes Res. 43, 771–776 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Evans, N. T. et al. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 29–41 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fraija-Fernández, N. et al. Marine water environmental DNA metabarcoding provides a comprehensive fish diversity assessment and reveals spatial patterns in a large oceanic area. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7560–7584 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, R. P., Port, J. A., Yamahara, K. M. & Crowder, L. B. Using environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS ONE 9, e86175 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. et al. Environmental DNA from seawater samples correlate with trawl catches of subarctic, deepwater fishes. PLoS ONE 11, e0165252 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lamb, P. D. et al. How quantitative is metabarcoding: A meta-analytical approach. Mol. Ecol. 28, 420–430 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lim, N. K. M. et al. Next-generation freshwater bioassessment: eDNA metabarcoding with a conserved metazoan primer reveals species-rich and reservoir-specific communities. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160635 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hoshino, T., Nakao, R., Doi, H. & Minamoto, T. Simultaneous absolute quantification and sequencing of fish environmental DNA in a mesocosm by quantitative sequencing technique. Sci. Rep. 11, 4372 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smets, W. et al. A method for simultaneous measurement of soil bacterial abundances and community composition via 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Soil Biol. Biochem. 96, 145–151 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ushio, M. et al. Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-throughput sequencing. Metabarcod. Metagenom. 2, e23297 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150088 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sato, M. et al. Quantitative assessment of multiple fish species around artificial reefs combining environmental DNA metabarcoding and acoustic survey. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–14 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ushio, M. Interaction capacity as a potential driver of community diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289, 20212690 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andruszkiewicz, E. A., Sassoubre, L. M. & Boehm, A. B. Persistence of marine fish environmental DNA and the influence of sunlight. PLoS ONE 12, e0185043 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bylemans, J., Gleeson, D. M., Hardy, C. M. & Furlan, E. Toward an ecoregion scale evaluation of eDNA metabarcoding primers: A case study for the freshwater fish biodiversity of the Murray-Darling Basin (Australia). Ecol. Evol. 8, 8697–8712 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Civade, R. et al. Spatial representativeness of environmental DNA metabarcoding signal for fish biodiversity assessment in a natural freshwater system. PLoS ONE 11, e0157366 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K., Fronhofer, E. A., Mächler, E., Walser, J.-C. & Altermatt, F. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information. Nat. Commun. 7, 12544 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hänfling, B. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3101–3119 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, H. et al. Comparing local-and regional-scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods. Freshw. Biol. 63, 569–580 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sato, H., Sogo, Y., Doi, H. & Yamanaka, H. Usefulness and limitations of sample pooling for environmental DNA metabarcoding of freshwater fish communities. Sci. Rep. 7, 14860 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, J. L. A. et al. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey methods in a river system. Biol. Cons. 197, 131–138 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valentini, A. et al. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 25, 929–942 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, S. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 40368 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jane, S. F. et al. Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: eDNA dynamics in two headwater streams. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 216–227 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harper, L. R. et al. Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Ecol. Evol. 8, 6330–6341 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nichols, R. V. et al. Minimizing polymerase biases in metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 927–939 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hosoya, K. Yamakei Handy Illustrated Book 15: Freshwater fishes of Japan (Yama-Kei Publishers, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Nakabo, T. Fishes of Japan with Pictorial Keys to the Species (3-Volume Set). (Tokai University Press, 2013).Goutte, A., Molbert, N., Guérin, S., Richoux, R. & Rocher, V. Monitoring freshwater fish communities in large rivers using environmental DNA metabarcoding and a long-term electrofishing survey. J. Fish Biol. 97, 444–452 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. A. & Turner, C. R. The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conserv. Genet. 17, 1–17 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Collins, R. A. et al. Non-specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1985–2001 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsuji, S., Ushio, M., Sakurai, S., Minamoto, T. & Yamanaka, H. Water temperature-dependent degradation of environmental DNA and its relation to bacterial abundance. PLoS ONE 12, e0176608 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elbrecht, V. & Leese, F. Can DNA-based ecosystem assessments quantify species abundance? Testing primer bias and biomass—sequence relationships with an innovative metabarcoding protocol. PLoS ONE 10, e0130324 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nester, G. M. et al. Development and evaluation of fish eDNA metabarcoding assays facilitate the detection of cryptic seahorse taxa (family: Syngnathidae). Environ. DNA 2, 614–626 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez-Polo, P. & Agustí, N. Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high-throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 819–830 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, S., Zhao, J. & Yao, M. A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1609–1625 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yamanaka, H. et al. A simple method for preserving environmental DNA in water samples at ambient temperature by addition of cationic surfactant. Limnology 18, 233–241 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Minamoto, T. et al. An illustrated manual for environmental DNA research: Water sampling guidelines and experimental protocols. Environ. DNA 3, 8–13 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsuji, S., Nakao, R., Saito, M., Minamoto, T. & Akamatsu, Y. Pre-centrifugation before DNA extraction mitigates extraction efficiency reduction of environmental DNA caused by the preservative solution (benzalkonium chloride) remaining in the filters. Limnology 23, 9–16 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2021).Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S. (Springer, 2002).Coulter, D. P. et al. Nonlinear relationship between Silver Carp density and their eDNA concentration in a large river. PLoS ONE 14, e0218823 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doi, H. et al. Environmental DNA analysis for estimating the abundance and biomass of stream fish. Freshw. Biol. 62, 30–39 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kanno, K., Onikura, N., Kurita, Y., Koyama, A. & Nakajima, J. Morphological, distributional, and genetic characteristics of Cottus pollux in the Kyushu Island, Japan: indication of fluvial and amphidromous life histories within a single lineage. Ichthyol. Res. 65, 462–470 (2018).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

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

Whale entanglements in fishing gear threaten whale populations, seafood production and long-term sustainability of commercial fisheries. While multiple mitigation strategies to reduce entanglements exist, there has been minimal consideration of the economic impact of these strategies. Here, we estimated retrospective losses to ex-vessel revenues for one of California’s most lucrative fisheries. Overall, we found fishery closures decreased ex-vessel revenue, with results showing some uncertainty due to large model prediction error. Regional differences in losses revealed interesting trends in the capacity for the fishery to recoup costs. For example, in the NMA, relatively small losses at the fishery level were predicted ($0.3 million in total) for the 2019 season despite an early closure to the season due to whale entanglement risk.NMA fishers collectively were able to meet predicted revenue for the season despite a shortening of the fishing 2019 season. In the 2020 season however, the NMA did not experience disturbances due to whale entanglements but larger ex-vessel losses (of $3.9 million) were predicted. This suggests that other disturbances such as a delay to the season due to crab meat quality, lost fishing opportunity related to the COVID-19 pandemic, or other unknown factors, had an influence on ex-vessel revenue during the 2020 season. While most of the 2020 season landings in the NMA occurred before COVID-19 arrived in the US, there is evidence that prices in latter part of the season may have been depressed due to loss of export markets for live crab47.In the CMA however, despite landing the majority of crab available during the 2019 season (see Fig. 2c), losses of $9.4 million were experienced across the fishery. While total fishery catch was not greatly reduced, closure to the fishery in the spring may be responsible for revenue losses through other mechanisms (e.g. price). In the 2020 season, whale entanglement risk substantially shortened the fishing season in the CMA, through a delay at the beginning of the season and an early closure in the spring. Estimated losses were largest ($14.4 million) during this season. It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic was also responsible for some of this estimated loss in the CMA in the 2020 season47. Our model did not control for impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, price trends suggest that that price of Dungeness Crab in California was not affected until mid-March 2020, at which point the fishery had caught 92% of the seasons catch (see Supplementary File S2). Prices then returned to normal levels in mid-May. If we apply extrapolated prices between mid-March and mid-May by replacing observed prices with linearly increasing prices by week, revenues would have been $753,754 higher in total across the fishery. This rough estimate suggests we can attribute 4.1% of overall estimated revenue losses during the 2020 season to COVID-19 impacts, with the caveat that we do not know what prices would have been in the absence of the pandemic. A counterfactual approach has been used to disentangle multiple stressors to infer causal impacts of management interventions elsewhere48, however as these closures, and the COVID pandemic, potentially impacted all fishers in the California Dungeness crab fishery, there are no control groups available for comparison and therefore this approach would not be appropriate.Closures and other disturbances appear to have been less impactful in the NMA and high price for Dungeness crab may have contributed to the ability of vessels operating in the NMA to withstand disturbances (Supplementary Fig. S2). Prices were particularly high during the summer portion of the season in 2020 during which time the CMA was closed to Dungeness crab fishing (Supplementary Fig. S2). The NMA did not experience closures due to whale entanglement during 2020 and was predicted to have lower than average pre-season abundance (lower catch potential) during 2020 (see Fig. 2.b), while the CMA was predicted to have high catch potential for 2020 (Fig. 2.c), therefore differences in management measures implemented, and seasons’ catch potential, also contributed to differences in losses estimated.The CMA also experienced high prices, including decadal high prices for crab during the November–December of the 2019 fishing season (Supplementary Fig. S2). However, losses observed overall across the two seasons suggest the fishery, unlike the NMA, did not get much overall benefit from the high price in 2019 or the high pre-season abundance of crab (i.e. catch potential) estimated for the 2020 season in the CMA. A number of factors may have contributed to a poor season in the CMA including catchability or biology of Dungeness crab as well as external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic behavioral choice factors, for example deciding not to fish45. Temporally shifting or reducing the opportunity for participation through closed periods due to whale entanglement risk may have exacerbated other impacts on revenues in the CMA which were not as impactful on revenues in the NMA.The high variability in estimated economic impacts per vessel reported here demonstrates that closures did not affect all vessels equally, similarly to impacts observed following a climate related harmful algal bloom in the 2016 season which were variable by vessel size and between communities45. The estimated losses we present at the fishery level in the NMA and CMA may therefore be underestimated, or overestimated, for particular groups of vessels within those management areas. This reflects the diverse nature of the Dungeness Crab fishery in behaviour and fishing strategy and highlights the importance of capturing impacts at finer scales than the fishery level alone.Limitations to the estimation of closure impactsA limitation of the hurdle model is that there are other latent factors influencing fishery participation and revenues that our model does not incorporate, particularly those determining fisher behavior such as fuel price, shipyard backlogs and market demand. A behavioral choice model, for example one that incorporates location or fishing alternative choice given a closure50,51,52 would be a potential method to better understand how spatial management strategies affect fisher behavior and is recommended as a future analysis to assess trade-offs involving socio-economic risk. Our results, reporting losses from Dungeness crab fishing revenue only, also do not account for the ability of some fishers to mitigate revenue losses by participating in other fisheries. Dungeness crab fishing is highly connected within west coast fishery participation networks44,45. Thus, it is important to note that our results for the 2019 and 2020 seasons present only losses from Dungeness crab fishing and may overestimate total annual revenue losses by some vessels that are able to mitigate impacts with participation in other fisheries.The model, predicting out-of-sample, over-estimated revenues in recent years suggesting that our predictions of revenues may also be over-predicted. An improved estimation at the vessel level, given some over-estimation of vessels that did not fish, could be investigated through a selection model approach rather than a two-part model approach54. However, two-part models are most appropriate for estimation of conditional (actual) outcomes as was intended here rather than unconditional (potential) outcomes and they do not require separate drivers for the selection and estimation model, which we did not have available54. When the impacts of policy interventions are difficult to disentangle from other impacts, approaches such as a counterfactual synthetic control48 approach could be used to separate the impacts of the policy alone. In this context, however, it is useful to report the cumulative impact of disturbances given that these disturbances (e.g., delays due to crab quality, harmful algal blooms) happen frequently and therefore the closures will rarely happen in isolation.Whilst there are limitations to our approach, revenue predictions presented here offer more insight compared to predicting revenues based only on a 5-year average of total fishery revenues (Supplementary Table S3) as is commonly conducted to calculate disaster assistance requirement, as our analysis includes an estimation of crab abundance as well as historical vessel level data in its estimation. Accounting for the influence of crab abundance is critical in this fishery given abundance is highly variable and the majority of fishable biomass is taken each year. Estimation of revenue at the individual vessel level allows for consideration of fishery heterogeneity (e.g., by vessel size). Revenues calculated on a 5-year average would suggest total California Commercial Dungeness crab fishery revenues would have been $10.62 million higher than observed in 2019 and $12.73 million higher than observed in 2020 (Supplementary Table S3). Thus, revenues estimated on the 5-year average suggest that losses would have been $0.97 million higher than our model prediction across the fishery for 2019 and $5.56 million lower than our model prediction for 2020. Our predictions suggest that delays and closures due to whale entanglement mitigation and other disturbances in to the 2019 and 2020 seasons were similar to the impact of closures due to the HAB in the 2016 season, which were estimated at $13.6 million in losses from Dungeness Crab revenues across the fishery38.Economic cost of mitigationMany strategies that prevent fishery interactions with marine mammals exist, including gear reductions or modifications, depth limitations and dynamic or seasonal time-area closures13,14,22,23,24,25,26,55. Whilst the fishery does implement pro-active gear modification measures set out in the best practices guide34, only two management intervention options were enacted in the 2019 and 2020 seasons to mitigate against entanglements of marine life with Dungeness crab gear; delays to the start of the crab season in the winter and early closures in spring due to overlap with whale distribution in fishing grounds. These delays and closures can have differential impacts on the fishery as the fishing season is not heterogeneously prosperous. An example is that closures during the holiday season (Nov–Dec) when Dungeness crab is traditionally consumed can cause substantial lost revenue opportunity for fishers at a time when price and demand are highest35,49. The fishery operates as a derby in which the majority of revenues are made in the first month of the fishery being open. The strong seasonal dynamics of the Dungeness crab fishery, largely driven by rapid depletion of legal sized crab, mean that the timing of management actions can have important impacts on fishing revenues. Across the fishery, based on observed vessel level revenues during the 2011–2018 baseline period, vessels earned an average of 62.33% (SD 24.04) of annual ex-vessel revenue during the first month of the season (15th Nov–15th Dec for the CMA/1st Dec–31st Dec for the NMA). After April 1st, vessels on average earn 10.54% (SD 18.98) of annual ex-vessel revenue. This average, based only on vessels that historically have actively participate past April 1st, (283 vessels in the NMA, 346 vessels in the CMA) rises to 20.36% (SD 13.37) of ex-vessel revenue. Thus, while the majority of the overall fisheries revenue is taken at the start of the season, an April 1st closure could still have a substantial impact on the revenues of active fishing vessels in the spring. Determination of economic risk for the fishery, at a minimum, should consider timing of closures in addition to total revenue losses, in order to quantify losses that will be felt at the individual vessel level. We suggest further research to investigate how closures affect different groups of fishers through stakeholder participation.Socio-economic impacts from whale mitigation measures could permeate into communities further than our analysis (based on ex-vessel revenue only) conveys35,36,37,49, and further investigation into these community level impacts is necessary to understand and sustain an equitable fishery supply chain even where there is no absolute revenue loss. Some of the communities influenced by whale entanglement mitigation in California rely heavily on ocean resources for employment, through fishing occupations but also through hospitality and tourism. Managing this issue in a way that minimizes the burden on resource dependent communities is strongly in line with the objectives set out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), especially SDG 14 (life below water) but also related goals such as human well-being, reducing inequality and reducing the impacts of climate change56.Management ImplicationsBalancing socio-economic impacts against whale entanglement risk is challenging given the legally protected status of whale populations. However, potential economic losses reported here should motivate the development of mitigation measures (through cooperative innovation between industry, researchers and managers) that allow fishery production to be optimized whilst ensuring successful whale protection. At present, entire management areas, which constitute large regions of the coast, are closed in response to whale entanglement risk in California. Investigating how to minimize the spatiotemporal footprint of closures, such as by defining high risk zones dynamically based on fine-scale information of whale density and fishing effort, could provide an alternative mitigation structure. This could better consider the economic and conservation trade-offs while still being sensitive to changing environmental conditions. The introduction of dynamic zone closures, often broadly referred to as dynamic ocean management, has been demonstrated to reduce risk whilst minimizing lost fishing opportunities12,26,57,58, especially when environmental variability is high or species have a dynamic distribution59. Moreover, analysis of policy instruments to reduce whale entanglements with the American lobster fishery on the US Northeast coast found that economic costs of risk reduction could be 20% lower when mitigation decisions considered fishing opportunity costs alongside non-monetary benefits (biological risk), compared to non-monetary benefits alone12. This is promising for the implementation of such strategies in the California Current System.The caveat of this strategy is that dynamic zone closures require spatially and temporally explicit information on whale density and fishing effort which can be costly to attain. The use of ropeless gear has also been suggested as an alternative whale entanglement mitigation measure that requires further research and development before being initiated as an alternative regulatory tool60. The costs of monitoring or technical advancements however may outweigh the financial and societal cost of fishery closures. Revenue losses for Dungeness crab estimated here for the 2019 and 2020 seasons are on par with losses experienced during the HAB period. During the delays to the 2016 fishing season an estimated $26.1 million was lost from ex-vessel revenues from all species that crab fishers target, including $13.6 million from Dungeness crab alone38, requiring $25 million in government aid. Whale mitigation under the RAMP regulation will potentially delay or close the fishery year after year with uncertain economic impact that cannot be sustainably resolved with government aid. Development of tools to mitigate against economic loss while achieving whale protection will be necessary to come to a sustainable solution. This can only be achieved by first including economic loss in risk assessments. Doing so may also provide balance to partnerships between fishery managers and fishers.Regulators are obligated to protect Humpback whales, blue whales and Leatherback turtles using the best available science33. In this fishery, current triggers to open and close are based on a range of factors, but thus ultimately depend on the number of whales present within a management region33. Regulators have a number of alternative regulatory options available to them, which include depth restrictions, gear restrictions or modifications and fleet advisories, if they can offer the same level of whale protection33. Yet, the RAMP process lacks the socio-economic information needed to consider the socio-economic risk of regulatory actions, and that of the alternatives, to the fishing community. Results presented here highlight that the economic effects and that risk to fishing communities should be considered when designing whale entanglement mitigation programs33. Having this economic information will facilitate the ability of managers, as set out in the RAMP regulation (subsection d4)33, to consider the socio-economic impact if deciding between management measures that equivalently reduce entanglement risk.We have used two fishing seasons as an example of the economic impacts of these new whale entanglement regulations which will be implemented each year going forward. Synthesis of ex-vessel revenues is not a complete picture of the socio-economic impacts of regulations, but it provides a starting point for protecting both whales and fishing communities. While reported whale entanglements remain higher than pre-2014 totals, reported whale entanglements in California have declined markedly in the years following the 2014–2016 large marine heatwave (Fig. 1b). This is a success for this fishery and attributed to increased awareness, development of best practices for fishing gear and the mitigation program to protect whales. We now need to be successful at protecting and mitigating the socio-economic impacts to fishery participants and the fishing communities they support. 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

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

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

Laboratory cultureOchrosphaera neapolitana (RCC1357) was precultured in K/2 medium without Tris buffer8 using artificial seawater (ASW) supplemented with NaHCO3 and HCl to yield an initial DIC of 2050 µM. In triplicate, 1-L bottles were filled with 150 mL of seawater medium with air in the bottle headspace and inoculated with a mid-log phase preculture at an initial cell concentration of 104 cells mL−1. Cultures were grown at 18 °C under a warm white LED light at 100 ± 20 µE on a 16h-light/8h-dark cycle. Bottles were orbitally shaken at 60 rpm to keep cells in suspension. Cell growth was monitored with a Multisizer 4e particle counter and sizer (Beckman Coulter). At ~1.4 × 105 cells mL−1, cells were diluted up to 300 mL to 2–3 × 104 cells mL−1 and harvested after 2 days of more exponential growth up to 7.9 ± 0.6 × 104 cells mL−1. More detailed culture results are listed in the Supplementary Note 1.Immediately after harvesting, pH was measured using a pH probe calibrated with Mettler Toledo NBS standards (it should be noted here that high ionic strength calibration standards would be optimal for pH measurement of liquids like seawater). There was a carbonate system shift during the batch culture and more details are shown in Supplementary Fig. S1. Cells in 50 mL were pelleted by centrifuging at ~1650 × g for 5 min. Seawater supernatant was analyzed for DIC and δ13CDIC by injecting 3.5 mL into an Apollo analyzer and injecting 1 mL into He-flushed glass vials containing H3PO4 for the Gas Bench.For seawater DIC, an Apollo SciTech DIC-C13 Analyzer coupled to a Picarro CO2 analyzer was calibrated with in-house NaHCO3 standards dissolved in deionized water at different known concentrations and δ13C values from −4.66 to −7.94‰. δ13CDIC in media were measured with a Gas Bench II with an autosampler (CTC Analytics AG, Switzerland) coupled to ConFlow IV Interface and a Delta V Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Fischer Scientific). Pelleted cells were snap-frozen with N2 (l) and stored at −80 °C. For PIC analysis, pellet was resuspended in 1 mL methanol and vortexed. After centrifugation, the methanol phase with extracted organics was removed and the pellet containing the coccoliths was dried at 60 °C overnight. About 300 mg of dried coccolith powder were placed in air-tight glass vials, flushed with He and reacted with five drops of phosphoric acid at 70 °C. PIC δ13C and δ18O were measured by the same Gas Bench system. The system and abovementioned in-house standards were calibrated using international standards NBS 18 (δ13C = −5.01‰, δ18O = +23.00‰) and NBS 19 (δ13C = +1.95‰, δ18O = +2.2‰). The analytical error for DIC concentration and δ13C is More