Philippa Kaur

Marine phytoplankton both follow and actively influence the environment they inhabit. Unpacking the complex ecological and biogeochemical roles of these tiny organisms can help reveal the workings of the Earth system.
Phytoplankton are the workers of an ocean-spanning factory converting sunlight and raw nutrients into organic matter. These little organisms — the foundation of the marine ecosystem — feed into a myriad of biogeochemical cycles, the balance of which help control the distribution of carbon on the Earth surface and ultimately the overall climate state. As papers in this issue of Nature Geoscience show, phytoplankton are far from passive actors in the global web of biogeochemical cycles. The functioning of phytoplankton is not just a matter for biologists, but is also important for geoscientists seeking to understand the Earth system more broadly.Phytoplankton are concentrated where local nutrient and sea surface temperatures are optimal, factors which aren’t always static in time. Prominent temperature fluctuations, from seasonal to daily cycles, are reflected in phytoplankton biomass, with cascading effects on other parts of marine ecosystems, such as economically-important fisheries. In an Article in this issue, Keerthi et al., show that phytoplankton biomass, tracked by satellite measurements of chlorophyll for relatively small ( More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether land acts as a carbon sink or source depends largely on two opposite fluxes: carbon uptake through photosynthesis and carbon release through turnover. Turnover occurs through multiple processes, including but not limited to, leaf senescence, tree mortality, and respiration by plants, microbes, and animals. Each of these processes is sensitive to climate, and ecologists and climatologists have been working to figure out how temperature regulates biological activities and to what extent the carbon cycle responds to global warming. Previous theoretical and experimental studies have yielded conflicting relationships between temperature and carbon turnover, with large variations across ecosystems, climate and time-scale1,2,3,4. Writing in Nature Geoscience, Fan et al.5 find that hydrometeorological factors have an important influence on how the turnover time of land carbon responds to changes in temperature. More

Vo, Q. T., Oppelt, N., Leinenkugel, P. & Kuenzer, C. Remote sensing in mapping mangrove ecosystems: An object-based approach. Remote Sens. 5, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5010183 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kertész, Á. & Křeček, J. Landscape degradation in the world and in Hungary. Hung. Geogr. Bull. 68, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.1 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vorster, A. G., Evangelista, P. H., Stovall, A. E. L. & Ex, S. Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: The role of allometric equations. Carbon Balance Manag. 15, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00143-6 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blackman, A. Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: An introduction and practical guide. For. Policy Econ. 34, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilfong, B. N., Gorchov, D. L. & Henry, M. C. Detecting an invasive shrub in deciduous forest understories using remote sensing. Weed Sci. 57, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-09-012.1 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dyderski, M. K. & Pawlik, Ł. Spatial distribution of tree species in mountain national parks depends on geomorphology and climate. For. Ecol. Manag. 474, 118366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118366 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milosevic, D., Dunjić, J. & Stojanović, V. Investigating micrometeorological differences between saline steppe, forest-steppe and forest environments in northern Serbia during a clear and sunny autumn day. Geogr. Pannonica 24(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.5937/gp24-25885 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Modzelewska, A., Fassnacht, F. E. & Stereńczak, K. Tree species identification within an extensive forest area with diverse management regimes using airborne hyperspectral data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 84, 101960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.101960 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wulder, M. Optical remote-sensing techniques for the assessment of forest inventory and biophysical parameters. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 22, 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200402 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, L., Shao, G. & Dai, L. Roles of digital technology in China’s sustainable forestry development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 16, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500902794000 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richter, R., Reu, B., Wirth, C., Doktor, D. & Vohland, M. The use of airborne hyperspectral data for tree species classification in a species-rich Central European forest area. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinform. 52, 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.07.018 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thenkabail, P., Gumma, M., Teluguntla, P. & Ahmed, M. I. Hyperspectral remote sensing of vegetation and agricultural crops. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 80, 695–723 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Fassnacht, F. E. et al. Review of studies on tree species classification from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 186, 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.08.013 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vangi, E. et al. The new hyperspectral satellite PRISMA: Imagery for forest types discrimination. Sensors 21, 1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041182 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Burai, P., Beko, L., Lenart, C., Tomor, T. & Kovacs, Z. Individual tree species classification using airborne hyperspectral imagery and lidar data. In 2019 10th Workshop on Hyperspectral Imaging and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS) 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHISPERS.2019.8921016 (2019).Kumar, B., Dikshit, O., Gupta, A. & Singh, M. K. Feature extraction for hyperspectral image classification: A review. Int. J. Remote Sens. 41, 6248–6287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2020.1736732 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Li, Z., Qiu, H., Hou, G. & Fan, P. An overview of hyperspectral image feature extraction, classification methods and the methods based on small samples. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/05704928.2021.1999252 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. & Chang, C.-I. Independent component analysis-based dimensionality reduction with applications in hyperspectral image analysis. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 1586–1600. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2005.863297 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamada, Y., Stow, D. A., Coulter, L. L., Jafolla, J. C. & Hendricks, L. W. Detecting Tamarisk species (Tamarix spp.) in riparian habitats of Southern California using high spatial resolution hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 109, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.003 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibarrola-Ulzurrun, E., Marcello, J. & Gonzalo-Martin, C. Assessment of component selection strategies in hyperspectral imagery. Entropy 19, 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19120666 (2017).Article 
MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Dabiri, Z. & Lang, S. Comparison of independent component analysis, principal component analysis, and minimum noise fraction transformation for tree species classification using APEX hyperspectral imagery. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7, 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7120488 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Priyadarshini, K. N., Sivashankari, V., Shekhar, S. & Balasubramani, K. Comparison and evaluation of dimensionality reduction techniques for hyperspectral data analysis. Proceedings 24, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECG2019-06209 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arslan, O., Akyürek, Ö., Kaya, Ş & Şeker, D. Z. Dimension reduction methods applied to coastline extraction on hyperspectral imagery. Geocarto Int. 35, 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1520920 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kadavi, P. R., Lee, W.-J. & Lee, C.-W. Analysis of the pyroclastic flow deposits of mount sinabung and Merapi using landsat imagery and the artificial neural networks approach. Appl. Sci. 7, 935. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7090935 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlosser, A. D. et al. Building extraction using orthophotos and dense point cloud derived from visual band aerial imagery based on machine learning and segmentation. Remote Sens. 12, 2397. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12152397 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Latifi, H., Fassnacht, F. & Koch, B. Forest structure modeling with combined airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 121, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.015 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. L., Roberts, D. A. & Clark, D. B. Hyperspectral discrimination of tropical rain forest tree species at leaf to crown scales. Remote Sens. Environ. 96, 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.03.009 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Melgani, F. & Bruzzone, L. Classification of hyperspectral remote sensing images with support vector machines. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 42, 1778–1790. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIECS.2009.5363456 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Belgiu, M. & Drăguţ, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 114, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manandhar, R., Odeh, I. O. A. & Ancev, T. Improving the accuracy of land use and land cover classification of landsat data using post-classification enhancement. Remote Sens. 1, 330–344. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1030330 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thakkar, A. K., Desai, V. R., Patel, A. & Potdar, M. B. Post-classification corrections in improving the classification of Land Use/Land Cover of arid region using RS and GIS: The case of Arjuni watershed, Gujarat, India. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 20, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.11.006 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
El-Hattab, M. M. Applying post classification change detection technique to monitor an Egyptian coastal zone (Abu Qir Bay), Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 19, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.02.002 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhosale, N., Manza, R., Kale, K., Scholar, R. & Professor, A. Analysis of effect of gaussian, salt and pepper noise removal from noisy remote sensing images. Pceedings of teh Second International Conference on ERCICA 386–390. http://rameshmanza.in/Publication/Narayan_Bhosle/Analysis%20of%20Effect%20of%20Gaussian.pdf (2014).Schöll, K., Kiss, A., Dinka, M. & Berczik, Á. Flood-pulse effects on zooplankton assemblages in a river-floodplain system (Gemenc Floodplain of the Danube, Hungary). Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 97, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.201111427 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ágoston-Szabó, E., Schöll, K., Kiss, A. & Dinka, M. The effects of tree species richness and composition on leaf litter decomposition in a Danube oxbow lake (Gemenc, Hungary). Fundam. Appl. Limnol. https://doi.org/10.1127/fal/2017/0675 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guti, G. Water bodies in the Gemenc floodplain of the Danube, Hungary: (A theoretical basis for their typology). Opusc Zool. 33, 49–60 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Berczik, Á. & Dinka, M. Bibliography of hydrobiological research on the Gemenc and Béda: Karapancsa floodplains of the River Danube (1498–1436 rkm) including the publications of the Danube Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences between 1968 and 2017. Opusc. Zool. 49, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.18348/opzool.2018.2.191 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ceulemans, R., McDonald, A. J. S. & Pereira, J. S. A comparison among eucalypt, poplar and willow characteristics with particular reference to a coppice, growth-modelling approach. Biomass Bioenergy 11, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(96)00035-9 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haneca, K., Katarina, Č & Beeckman, H. Oaks, tree-rings and wooden cultural heritage: A review of the main characteristics and applications of oak dendrochronology in Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, T. G., Coops, N. C. & Sharma, T. Assessing the utility of airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data for species distribution mapping in the coastal Pacific Northwest, Canada. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2841–2852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.002 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sothe, C. et al. Tree species classification in a highly diverse subtropical forest integrating UAV-based photogrammetric point cloud and hyperspectral data. Remote Sens. 11, 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11111338 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nambiar, E. K. S. & Sands, R. Competition for water and nutrients in forests. Can. J. For. Res. 23, 1955–1968. https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-247 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayoral, C., Calama, R., Sánchez-González, M. & Pardos, M. Modelling the influence of light, water and temperature on photosynthesis in young trees of mixed Mediterranean forests. New For. 46, 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9471-y (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stojanović, D. B., Levanič, T., Matović, B. & Orlović, S. Growth decrease and mortality of oak floodplain forests as a response to change of water regime and climate. Eur. J. For. Res. 134, 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0871-5 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dyderski, M. K. & Jagodziński, A. M. Impact of invasive tree species on natural regeneration species composition, diversity, and density. Forests 11, 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040456 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jia, S., Ji, Z., Qian, Y. & Shen, L. Unsupervised band selection for hyperspectral imagery classification without manual band removal. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 5, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2012.2187434 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karpouzli, E. & Malthus, T. The empirical line method for the atmospheric correction of IKONOS imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 24, 1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116021000026779 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richards, J. A. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis (Springer, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30062-2.Book 

Google Scholar 
Sharifi Hashjin, S. & Khazai, S. A new method to detect targets in hyperspectral images based on principal component analysis. Geocarto Int. 37, 2679–2697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1831625 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 187–200 (1958).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Shah, C. A., Arora, M. K. & Varshney, P. K. Unsupervised classification of hyperspectral data: An ICA mixture model based approach. Int. J. Remote Sens. 25, 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160310001618040 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tharwat, A. Independent component analysis: An introduction. Appl. Comput. Inform. 17, 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01813-1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Villa, A., Chanussot, J., Jutten, C., Benediktsson, J. A. & Moussaoui, S. On the use of ICA for hyperspectral image analysis. In 2009 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium vol. 4 IV-97-IV–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2009.5417363 (2009).Hyvärinen, A. & Oja, E. Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Netw. 13, 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0893-6080(00)00026-5 (2000).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Otukei, J. R. & Blaschke, T. Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12, S27–S31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2009.11.002 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murty, M. N. & Raghava, R. Kernel-based SVM. In Support Vector Machines and Perceptrons: Learning, Optimization, Classification, and Application to Social Networks (eds Murty, M. N. & Raghava, R.) 57–67 (Springer, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41063-0_5.Chapter 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Seidl, D., Ružiak, I., Koštialová Jančíková, Z. & Koštial, P. Sensitivity analysis: A tool for tailoring environmentally friendly materials. Expert Syst. Appl. 208, 118039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118039 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, D., Pang, Y., Liu, L. & Li, Z. Individual tree classification using airborne LiDAR and hyperspectral data in a natural mixed forest of Northeast China. Forests 11, 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11030303 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aksoy, S. & Akcay, H. G. Multi-resolution segmentation and shape analysis for remote sensing image classification. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, 2005. RAST 2005. 599–604 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/RAST.2005.1512638.Dalponte, M., Ørka, H. O., Ene, L. T., Gobakken, T. & Næsset, E. Tree crown delineation and tree species classification in boreal forests using hyperspectral and ALS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.006 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amini, S., Homayouni, S., Safari, A. & Darvishsefat, A. A. Object-based classification of hyperspectral data using Random Forest algorithm. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 21, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2017.1399674 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Congalton, R. G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foody, G. M. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 80, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00295-4 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tharwat, A. Classification assessment methods. Appl. Comput. Inform. 17, 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2018.08.003 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Field, F. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications Ltd https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/discovering-statistics-using-ibm-spss-statistics/book257672 (2022).R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.gbif.org/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing (2022).Galucci, M. Generalized Mixed Models module. R package version 2.0.5. https://gamlj.github.io/gzlmmixed.html More

Study areaFigure 2 shows the location of the study area on a map of China generated by ArcGIS software. This study’s field experiments were carried out in the Shuanghe Town agricultural comprehensive water-saving demonstration area (40°42′ N; 107°24′ E), which is located in the middle reaches of the Hetao Irrigation Area of Inner Mongolia. The duration of the experimental process ranged from April in 2018 to October in 2020. The experimental area was characterized by a mid-temperate semi-arid continental climate. The average annual precipitation was determined to be 138 mm and the average evaporation was approximately 2332 mm. The majority of the rainfall was concentrated during summer and autumn seasons, and the accumulation of salt in the surface soil was considered to be serious in the spring and winter months. The average rainfall during maize growth period was 75.3 mm. The 0 to 40 cm soil layers in the experimental area were categorized as silty loam soil, with an average bulk density ranging from 1.42 to 1.53 g cm−3. A maize straw layer with a thickness of 5 cm was buried at a depth of 40 cm, and then the land was leveled. Also, in addition to autumn watering and spring irrigation procedures, water from the Yellow River was used three times for irrigation during the entire growth period of the maize crops. The adopted irrigation method belonged to border irrigation. Urea (46% N) were used as the fertilizer types.Figure 2The location of the study area.Full size imageField trials design and data collectionWe carried out experiment 1 from 2018 to 2019, and the data obtained were used for model training and to determine the hyper-parameters. The experimental design is shown in Table 1. The PNN model trained from the data obtained in experiment 1 predicted the optimal range of irrigation amount and nitrogen application rate (N rate) for each growth period of maize. In these ranges, the soil organic matter and total nitrogen could be kept above 20 g/kg and 1.6 g/kg, respectively, the soil salt content was less than 2 g/kg, and the pH value was between 6.5 and 7.5. In order to verify the accuracy and feasibility of the range of irrigation and nitrogen application simulated by PNN, the field experiment 2 was set in 2020 based on the range simulated by PNN and to evaluate the fitting degree between measured and simulated values of soil indicators under the same amount of irrigation and nitrogen application. The experimental design is shown in Table 2.Table 1 Experimental 1 design scheme.Full size tableTable 2 Experimental 2 design scheme.Full size tableThe experimental design were repeated for three times. The plot area of each treatment measuring 8 × 9 = 72 m2. The surrounding area was separated using 1.2 m buried polyethylene plastic film, and 30 cm was left at the top to prevent fertilizer and water from flowing into each other. The field management process was consistent with that used by the local farmers. The film width of maize was 1.1 m, with each film covering two rows. The plant spacing was approximately 45 cm, and the row spacing was 35 cm. In addition, the planting density of the maize was 60,000 plants/hm2.During the entire growth period of the maize crops, soil samples were collected from the 0 to 20 cm, 20 to 40 cm, 40 to 60 cm, 60 to 80 cm, and 80 to 100 cm soil layers using a soil drill and a three-point method was adopted. The soil samples were stored at 4 °C for the determination of total nitrogen, organic matter, total salt content, and pH values. The total nitrogen, organic matter, total salt content, and pH were determined using a KDN-AA double tube azotometer, MWD-2 microwave universal digestion device, TU1810PC ultraviolet–visible spectrophotometer, and a TU18950 double beam ultraviolet–visible spectrophotometer, respectively.Soil parameters measured include organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), Salt and pH. The data set includes pre-irrigation and post-irrigation reports from 2018 to 2020. Statistical parameters regarding the soil data are shown in Table 3.Table 3 Various meteorological variables and their descriptive statistics.Full size tableThe dataset obtained in Experiment 1 in 2018 to 2019 was 2490 rows in size, the 80/20 principle was used to data into training, and testing sets were required for ML modeling; 80% of data were employed for model training, while the remaining 20% were used for testing. Specifically, the data corresponding to the treatments with the nitrogen application rate (N rate) of 75 kg/hm2 (N3) in all the treatments (W1N3, W2N3, W3N3) were used as the test set, and the data of the other treatments were used as the training set. The training set was used to initiate ML parameter training. Subsequently, The test set was employed to assess the model. The dataset size in 2020 was 1080 rows, which was used to verify ML modeling.Figure 3 shows the changes of soil indexes over time for each treatment in the field test (take the 0–40 cm soil in the main distribution area of maize roots as an example). There are differences under the influence of different irrigation amounts. When irrigation is 90 mm, soil SOM is 13.25% and 7.00% higher than 60 mm and 120 mm, and soil TN is 4.59% and 6.50% higher than 60 mm and 120 mm, respectively. The soil Salt was 23.30% lower than 60 mm, and the pH was 4.16% and 4.36% lower than that of 60 mm and 120 mm, respectively. It can be seen that irrigation of 90 mm is more favorable for increasing soil SOM and TN contents and reducing soil salinity and alkalinity. Soil SOM and TN contents were the highest at n 75 kg/hm2, which were 4.38% and 8.34% higher than those at N = 93.3 kg/hm2, respectively. Soil Salt was the lowest at N = 60 kg/hm2, which was 3.02% lower than those at N = 75 kg/hm2, with a small gap with other levels. In conclusion, nitrogen application of 75 kg/hm2 was beneficial to increase soil organic matter and nitrogen content, and nitrogen application of 60 kg/hm2 was beneficial to controlling soil salt content.Figure 3Changes in soil organic matter, total nitrogen, salinity, and pH under different treatments over time (a case study of 2019).Full size imageMachine learning (ML) models used for irrigation and nitrogen application strategiesFive ML frames were used to estimate the irrigation and N rate. These models are preference Neural Network (PNN), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Linear Regression (LR), Logistic Regression (LOR), and traditional BP Neural Networks (BPNN). Among them, the prediction effects of linear, Poly, and rbf kernel functions are respectively tried in SVR framework. The torch framework was used to train and test machine learning models in Python.Development of preference neural networkModel frameworkThe preference neural network (PNN) which was proposed for the first time in this study was a typical deep learning model. PNN can be regarded as an approximate natural function in order to describe the complete dependence of the soil fertility indexes, including the effects of soil total nitrogen, organic matter, total salt content, and pH values on irrigation and nitrogen applications. More specifically, PNN has the ability to optimize the function by constructing the mapping y = f (x, θ) and learning parameter θ.First, the input end of PNN model was defined as matrix X ∈ ℝn×d (in which n is the sample size, n = 2490; and d is the dimension of each input vector, d = 6), where {xi} i=1, …, n ∈ X represents the vectorized set of total nitrogen, organic matter, salt content, and pH used for measuring the soil fertility, as well as the nitrogen application and irrigation durations (expressed by days after sowing). At the same time, the output end of the model was defined as the matrix Y ∈ ℝn×2, which represented the levels of the irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer applications. The goal of the proposed PNN model was to learn the fixed mapping Y′ = f (X; θ) ⇒Y through the given input matrix X, where θ is the well optimized learnable parameters which can be obtained via PNN training. Meanwhile, the predicted value Y′ will infinitely approach the measured value Y. The structure and the algorithm of this study’s PNN model is shown in Fig. 4 and Table. 4.Figure 4Schematic diagram for the PNN structural connections. In the figure, it can be seen that when each input vector passed through each layer of the PNN, it is first multiplied by the Hadamard product of the weight matrix and preference value matrix for the purpose of obtaining a weight matrix with preference properties. After the matrix was activated by the Relu Function, Batch Normalization Module Methods and the Dropout Module were used for random suspension and normalization processing, and the input of the next layer was obtained.Full size imageTable 4 Algorithm of Preference neural network.Full size tableLayer-by-layer affine transformationA good definition of the affine transformation of the information flow between layers is considered to be the key to neural network model training. Generally speaking, the learnable parameter θ of each layer of a model includes the weight parameter w and the preference parameter b. The hidden representation hl of the l-th layer in PNN is defined as follows:$${h}_{l}({h}_{l-1};{W}_{l},{b}_{l})={h}_{l-1}^{mathrm{T}}{W}_{l}+{b}_{l}$$
(1)

where Wl and bl represent the learnable weight and bias variables of the l layer, respectively, and hl-1 is the hidden representation of the upper layer. Therefore, when l = 1, then h0 = X.In the present study, using the hierarchical update rules, a given input data stream was allowed to pass through each hidden layer with intermediate operations, and then finally reached the output end.Preference structureThe correlation between different production behavior factors (e.g., irrigation levels) and different natural factors (e.g., soil organic matter) differs in agricultural production. However, the traditional fully connected neural network has the characteristic that nodes of one layer are fully connected with all nodes of subsequent layers, resulting in the neurons between production behavior factors and natural factors with very weak correlation still all being connected. Conversely, connections between neurons corresponding to factors with solid correlations are not strengthened.Therefore, in this study the preference value module was specially developed. By first calculating the correlation and significance between different production behavior factors (irrigation amount, N rate) and different soil fertility factors (organic matter, total nitrogen, total salt and pH), the preference value between the above two types of variables was calculated, and the preference matrix was constructed. Then the Hadamard product of the weight matrix and preference matrix was used to realize the artificial intervention and guidance to the neural network’s learning process.In order to reduce the adverse impact of non-normality of data on correlation analysis as much as possible, this study rank-based inverse normal (RIN) transformations (i.e., conversion to rank score) methods were used to normally process the data28. The RIN transformation function used here is as follows:$$f(x)={Phi }^{-1}left(frac{{x}_{r}-frac{1}{2}}{n}right)$$
(2)

where Φ–1 is the inverse normal cumulative distribution function, and n is the sample size.The normal cumulative distribution function is represented as follows: for discrete variables, the sum of probabilities of all values less than or equal to a, and its formula is as shown below:$${F}_{X}(a)=P(Xle a)$$
(3)
The RIN normalized conversion values meet the requirements of normal distribution, Pearson correlation analysis and t-test can be directly performed, and the formula used was as follows:$$r(X,Y)=frac{mathrm{Cov}(X,Y)}{sqrt{left(mathrm{Var}left[Xright]mathrm{Var}left[mathrm{Y}right]right)}}$$
(4)

where r (X, Y) is the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Var [X] is the variance of X, and Var [Y] is the variance of Y, Cov (X, Y) is the covariance of X and Y, which represents the overall error of the two variables. The t-test is performed on the normalized data after rank-based inverse normal (RIN) transformation method, and the formula is as follows:$$t=sqrt{frac{n-2}{1-{r}^{2}}}$$
(5)

where n is the number of samples, and r represents the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Preference value is the concentrated embodiment of correlation and significance between variables, and the calculation formula is as follows:$${PV}_{ij}=frac{r({X}_{i},{Y}_{j})}{{P}_{ij}+e}$$
(6)

where PVij represents the preference values between the variables Xi and Yj, Xi represents the ith production behavior factor (e.g., irrigation amount), and Yj represents the jth soil fertility factor (e.g., soil organic matter content), ({P}_{ij}) is obtained by looking up the table based on the t, and e is a constant, taking 0.001 in order to prevent the denominator of the formula from being 0.In order to make the preference values of the various indicators in the same order of magnitude more stable, the preference values were normalized:$${PV}_{normal}=pm frac{left|{PV}_{i}-{PV}_{avg}right|}{sqrt{frac{sum_{i=1}^{N}{({PV}_{i}-{PV}_{avg})}^{2}}{N-1}}}$$
(7)

where N represents the number of variables related to the experimental treatments, PVi -PVavg takes the absolute value, while the positive or negative values of the PVnormal were determined by the positive or negative values of the correlation r.The PNN integrated the preference matrixes into the neural network structures by identifying the Hadamard products of the learnable weights between the preference matrixes and the input and output data. By referring to Eq. (1) in the hierarchical affine transformation, the preference constraint of PNN could be expressed as follows:$${h}_{l}({h}_{l-1};{W}_{l},{b}_{l})={h}_{l-1}^{T}{W}_{l}odot P+{b}_{l}$$
(8)

where P is the preference matrix calculated by Eq. (8), and ⊙ represents the Hadamard product of the corresponding elements of the matrix. The structure of preference neural network and preference value are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.Figure 5Schematic diagram of the preference connection structures of the preference neural networks. The depth of the network detailed in the figure only illustrates the preference connection structure (for a better demonstration), and does not indicate the depth of the PNN used in the experiment.Full size imageFigure 6PVnormal between production behavior factors and natural factors. Since soil depth, days, irrigation amount and N rate were all artificially set variables, and there was no objective correlation in the data set. Therefore, the preference values among these variables were default e = 0.001.Full size imageHyper-parameters of PNNWe conducted experiments on the datasets with varying the hyper-parameters (such as the number of PNN layers and hidden layers, the number of nodes in each layer, learning rate, dropout rate and batch size) to understand that how the Hyper-parameters impact on the performance of PNN.We select the activation function and learning rate by referring to the neural network structure commonly used in similar fields (1 hidden layer and 64 hidden nodes)29,30. It is found that ReLU has better performance than other activation functions (sigmoid, tanh). The performance is best when the learning rate is around 0.005. It is generally believed that neural networks with more hidden layers are able, with the same number of resources, to address more complex problems31, but excessively increasing network depth will easily lead to overfitting32. Since there is no direct method to select the optimal number of hidden layers and nodes33, this study first calculated the structure of one hidden layer and 64 nodes in each layer, and found that the combined effect was poor (R2 of irrigation and nitrogen application were 0.3971 and 0.4124, respectively). Therefore, the trial-and-error method is adopted. The number of hidden layers starts from 1 and is incremented by 1 to test the maximum number of 10 hidden layers. The number of nodes in each layer were tested with a maximum number of 100 hidden neurons, starting with 5 and increasing by 5.We found that when the number of hidden layers of PNN exceeds 6, and the number of nodes in each layer exceeds 65, the performance will drop significantly. The reason behind this phenomenon could be the current dataset size is insufficient for larger scale of the PNN model. In the consideration of that the size of new dataset we can obtain very year is similar to the current dataset size, we believe that current hyper-paramter settings of PNN is in a reasonable condition.After that, the number of layers was fixed as 6, and the number of nodes in each layer were tested 10 times with 60 as the starting point and 1 as the increment, we found that when the number of nodes was 64, the improvement of the fit degree was no longer noticeable. On this basis, we changed different activation functions and learning rate again, and found that PNN still has the best performance when the activation function is ReLU and the learning rate is 0.005. Then, different batch sizes and dropout rates were tried. The two parameters had weaker effects on the performance than the other parameters, and the performance was optimal at 256 and 0.1, respectively.The hyper-parameters include:

1.

number of PNN layers;

2.

number of hidden layers;

3.

types of activation function;

4.

percentage of dropout;

5.

learning rate;

6.

loss function;

7.

optimizer;

8.

batch size;

9.

number of epochs;

10.

number of workers.

The ideal PNN structure for the study comprises these layers:

1.

number of PNN layers is 8;

2.

number of hidden layers is 6;

3.

Fully connected layers with 64 nodes and ReLU activation function

4.

dropout with 0.1.

5.

the learning rate is 0.005;

6.

loss function is Huber Loss Methods (HLM);

7.

optimizer: ADAM;

8.

epochs is 500;

9.

the batch size is 256;

10.

number of workers is 6.

Hyper-parameters of other modelsLR algorithms and LOR do not have hyper-parameters that need to be adjusted. A part of the hyper-parameters of the SVR model was determined by referring to Guan Xiaoyan’s research34, and a part of the hyper-parameters of the BPNN model was determined by referring to Gu Jian’s research27. RMLP takes the same hyperparameters as PNN. The hyperparameters of SVR and BPNN models are shown in Table 5.Table 5 Hyper-parameters of other model.Full size tableModel performance evaluationThe proposed PNN model was trained and validated using the field measured data from 2020 and the performance achievements of PNN were evaluated by the root mean square errors, mean square errors, and mean absolute errors as follows:$$RMSE=sqrt{frac{{sum }_{i=1}^{n}{({y}_{ipre}-{y}_{imea})}^{2}}{n}}$$
(9)
$${R}^{2}=1-frac{{sum }_{i=1}^{n}{({y}_{ipre}-{y}_{imea})}^{2}}{{sum }_{i=1}^{n}{({y}_{ipre}-{y}_{iavg})}^{2}}$$
(10)
$$MAE=frac{{sum }_{i=1}^{n}left|{y}_{ipre}-{y}_{iavg}right|}{n}$$
(11)
Model multidimensional fertility targetsThe soil fertility grade classification of soil organic matter, soil total nitrogen content and salt content in this study was based on the soil fertility grade classification results by the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau of Bayannur City, along with the local standard Technical Specifications for the Assessment and Rating Criteria of Cultivated Land Quality (DB 15/T 1086, 2016), as the shown in Tables 6 and 7.Table 6 Soil organic matter and Soil total nitrogen degrees.Full size tableTable 7 Grading of the salinization degrees.Full size tableIn the evaluation system of soil fertility referencing the Technical Specifications for Assessment and Rating Criteria of Cultivated Land Quality (DB 15/T 1086, 2016), the pH was divided into four grades according to the membership degrees of the land productivity evaluations, as detailed in Table 8.Table 8 pH grading degrees of the cultivated land.Full size tableBased on the classification standard of soil fertility obtained by the Bureau of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry of Bayannur City, when the farmland soil is at the high fertility level, the soil organic matter and total nitrogen content should be more than 20 g/kg and 1.6 g/kg, respectively. Soil salt content was less than 2 g/kg. Meanwhile, the pH value is kept between 6.5 and 7.5. More

Buisson, E., Archibald, S., Fidelis, A. & Suding, K. N. Ancient grasslands guide ambitious goals in grassland restoration. Science 377, 594–598. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo4605 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Archibald, S. et al. Biological and geophysical feedbacks with fire in the Earth system. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 033003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ead (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keeley, J. E., Pausas, J. G., Rundel, P. W., Bond, W. J. & Bradstock, R. A. Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci. 16, 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.04.002 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Whitman, T. et al. Soil bacterial and fungal response to wildfires in the Canadian boreal forest across a burn severity gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 138, 107571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107571 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Platt, W. J., Ellair, D. P., Huffman, J. M., Potts, S. E. & Beckage, B. Pyrogenic fuels produced by savanna trees can engineer humid savannas. Ecol. Monogr. 86, 352–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1224 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, T., Lamont, B. B. & Pausas, J. G. Fire as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 1983–2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12544 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bond, W. J. & Keeley, J. E. Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 387–394 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hopkins, J. R., Huffman, J. M., Platt, W. J. & Sikes, B. A. Frequent fire slows microbial decomposition of newly deposited fine fuels in a pyrophilic ecosystem. Oecologia 193, 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04699-5 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Platt, W. J., Orzell, S. L. & Slocum, M. G. Seasonality of fire weather strongly influences fire regimes in south Florida savanna-grassland landscapes. PLoS ONE 10, e0116952 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Semenova-Nelsen, T. A., Platt, W. J., Patterson, T. R., Huffman, J. & Sikes, B. A. Frequent fire reorganizes fungal communities and slows decomposition across a heterogeneous pine savanna landscape. New Phytol. 224, 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16096 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, P. M., Semenova-Nelsen, T. A., Platt, W. J. & Sikes, B. A. Recurrent fires do not affect the abundance of soil fungi in a frequently burned pine savanna. Fungal Ecol. 42, 100852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2019.07.006 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Köster, K. et al. The long-term impact of low-intensity surface fires on litter decomposition and enzyme activities in boreal coniferous forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 25, 618–618 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beals, K. K., Scearce, A. E., Swystun, A. T. & Schweitzer, J. A. Belowground mechanisms for oak regeneration: Interactions among fire, soil microbes, and plant community alter oak seedling growth. For. Ecol. Manage. 503, 119774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119774 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huffman, M. S. & Madritch, M. D. Soil microbial response following wildfires in thermic oak-pine forests. Biol. Fertil. Soils 54, 985–997 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Certini, G. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia 143, 1–10 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Allison, S. D. & Martiny, J. B. H. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 11512–11519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801925105 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Badía, D. et al. Burn effects on soil properties associated to heat transfer under contrasting moisture content. Sci. Total Environ. 601–602, 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.254 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mino, L. et al. Watershed and fire severity are stronger determinants of soil chemistry and microbiomes than within-watershed woody encroachment in a tallgrass prairie system. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, fiab154. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiab154 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mataix-Solera, J., García-Orenes, F., Bárcenas-Moreno, G. & Torres, M. Forest Fire Effects on Soil Microbiology.
In Fire Effects on Soils and Restoration Strategies, (eds A. Cerdà & P. Robichaud) 133–175 (Science Publishers, Inc., 2009). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439843338-c5.McLauchlan, K. K. et al. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers. J. Ecol. 108, 2047–2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13403 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prober, S. M. et al. Plant diversity predicts beta but not alpha diversity of soil microbes across grasslands worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 18, 85–95 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Veldman, J. W. et al. Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1890/140270 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peet, R., Platt, W. & Costanza, J. Fire-maintained Pine Savannas and Woodlands of the Southeastern US Coastal Plain. in Ecology and Recovery of Eastern Old-Growth Forests (eds Barton, A. M. & Keeton, W. S.) Ch. 3, (2018).Costanza, J. K., Terando, A. J., McKerrow, A. J. & Collazo, J. A. Modeling climate change, urbanization, and fire effects on Pinus palustris ecosystems of the southeastern US. J. Environ. Manage. 151, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.032 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ibanez, T. et al. Altered cyclone–fire interactions are changing ecosystems. Trends Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.08.005 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, K. M., Platt, W. J. & Faires, C. E. Patchy fires promote regeneration of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in pine savannas. Forests https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050367 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Platt, W. J., Evans, G. W. & Rathbun, S. L. The population dynamics of a long-lived conifer (Pinus palustris). Am. Nat. 131, 491–525 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Noel, J., Platt, W. J. & Moser, E. Structural characteristics of old- and second-growth stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the gulf coastal region of the USA. Conserv. Biol. 12, 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96124.x (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellair, D. P. & Platt, W. J. Fuel composition influences fire characteristics and understorey hardwoods in pine savanna. J. Ecol. 101, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12008 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Senn, S. et al. The functional biogeography of eDNA metacommunities in the post-fire landscape of the Angeles national forest. Microorganisms https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10061218 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ammitzboll, H., Jordan, G. J., Baker, S. C., Freeman, J. & Bissett, A. Contrasting successional responses of soil bacteria and fungi to post-logging burn severity. For. Ecol. Manage. 508, 120059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120059 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rother, M. T., Huffman, J. M., Guiterman, C. H., Robertson, K. M. & Jones, N. A history of recurrent, low-severity fire without fire exclusion in southeastern pine savannas, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 475, 118406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118406 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Noss, R. F. et al. How global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: lessons from the North American Coastal Plain. Divers. Distrib. 21, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12278 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Platt, W. J. Southeastern pine savannas. in Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America, 23–51 (1999).Fill, J. M., Platt, W. J., Welch, S. M., Waldron, J. L. & Mousseau, T. A. Updating models for restoration and management of fiery ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage. 356, 54–63 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fill, J. M., Davis, C. N. & Crandall, R. M. Climate change lengthens southeastern USA lightning-ignited fire seasons. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3562–3569. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14727 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weakley, A. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States, (2015).Multivariate analysis of Ecological Data, Version 6.0 for Windows (MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA, 2011).Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 4516. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000080107 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Renaud, G., Stenzel, U., Maricic, T., Wiebe, V. & Kelso, J. deML: Robust demultiplexing of Illumina sequences using a likelihood-based approach. Bioinformatics 31, 770–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu719 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xia, Z. et al. Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection. Ecol. Evol. 8, 11799–11807. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4636 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. in Encyclopedia of Metagenomics: Genes, Genomes and Metagenomes: Basics, Methods, Databases and Tools (ed Nelson, K. E.) 626–635 (Springer US, 2015).Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Balvočiūtė, M. & Huson, D. H. SILVA, RDP, Greengenes, NCBI and OTT—how do these taxonomies compare?. BMC Genomics 18, 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3501-4 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 1–21 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology. (Elsevier, 2012).Jorgensen, B. Exponential dispersion models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 49, 127–162 (1987).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2019).Wood, S. Package ‘mgcv’. R Package Version 1, 29 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Jones, G. M. & Tingley, M. W. Pyrodiversity and biodiversity: A history, synthesis, and outlook. Divers. Distrib. 28, 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13280 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfeiffer, B. et al. Leaf litter is the main driver for changes in bacterial community structures in the rhizosphere of ash and beech. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 72, 150–160 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Purahong, W. et al. Life in leaf litter: novel insights into community dynamics of bacteria and fungi during litter decomposition. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13739 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Angst, Š et al. Tree species identity alters decomposition of understory litter and associated microbial communities: A case study. Biol. Fertil. Soils 55, 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-019-01360-z (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liang, X., Yuan, J., Yang, E. & Meng, J. Responses of soil organic carbon decomposition and microbial community to the addition of plant residues with different C:N ratio. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 82, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.08.005 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonanomi, G. et al. Litter chemistry explains contrasting feeding preferences of bacteria, fungi, and higher plants. Sci. Rep. 7, 9208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09145-w (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, W., Niu, S., Liu, X. & Wang, J. Short-term response of the soil bacterial community to differing wildfire severity in Pinus tabulaeformis stands. Sci. Rep. 9, 1148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38541-7 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ficken, C. D. & Wright, J. P. Effects of fire frequency on litter decomposition as mediated by changes to litter chemistry and soil environmental conditions. PLoS ONE 12, e0186292 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bani, A. et al. The role of microbial community in the decomposition of leaf litter and deadwood. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 126, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.02.017 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowd, E. J. et al. Direct and indirect effects of fire on microbial communities in a pyrodiverse dry-sclerophyll forest. J. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13903 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S., Deluca, T., Newman, G., Mackenzie, M. D. & Boyle, S. Post-fire vegetative dynamics as drivers of microbial community structure and function in forest soils. For. Ecol. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.012 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Mondéjar, R. et al. Decomposer food web in a deciduous forest shows high share of generalist microorganisms and importance of microbial biomass recycling. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0084-2 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Valera, E., Verdú, M., Navarro Cano, J. & Goberna, M. Resilience to fire of phylogenetic diversity across biological domains. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14729 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, F. et al. Change in soil bacterial community during secondary succession depend on plant and soil characteristics. CATENA 173, 246–252 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mikita-Barbato, R. A., Kelly, J. J. & Tate, R. L. Wildfire effects on the properties and microbial community structure of organic horizon soils in the New Jersey Pinelands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 86, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.03.021 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adkins, J., Docherty, K. M., Gutknecht, J. L. M. & Miesel, J. R. How do soil microbial communities respond to fire in the intermediate term? Investigating direct and indirect effects associated with fire occurrence and burn severity. Sci. Total Environ. 745, 140957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140957 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ponder, F. Jr., Tadros, M. & Loewenstein, E. F. Microbial properties and litter and soil nutrients after two prescribed fires in developing savannas in an upland Missouri Ozark Forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 257, 755–763 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gołębiewski, M. et al. Rapid microbial community changes during initial stages of pine litter decomposition. Microb. Ecol. 77, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-018-1209-x (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Coetsee, C., Bond, W. J. & February, E. C. Frequent fire affects soil nitrogen and carbon in an African savanna by changing woody cover. Oecologia 162, 1027–1034 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alcañiz, M., Outeiro, L., Francos, M. & Ubeda, X. Effects of prescribed fires on soil properties: A review. Sci Total Environ 613–614, 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.144 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ferrenberg, S. et al. Changes in assembly processes in soil bacterial communities following a wildfire disturbance. ISME J. 7, 1102–1111 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kranz, C. & Whitman, T. Surface charring from prescribed burning has minimal effects on soil bacterial community composition two weeks post-fire in jack pine barrens. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 144, 134–138 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitman, T., Woolet, J., Sikora, M., Johnson, D. B. & Whitman, E. Resilience in soil bacterial communities of the boreal forest from one to five years after wildfire across a severity gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 172, 108755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108755 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ammitzboll, H., Jordan, G. J., Baker, S. C., Freeman, J. & Bissett, A. Diversity and abundance of soil microbial communities decline, and community compositions change with severity of post-logging fire. Mol. Ecol. 30, 2434–2448. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15900 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maquia, I. S. A. et al. The nexus between fire and soil bacterial diversity in the African miombo woodlands of niassa special reserve, Mozambique. Microorganisms https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9081562 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shen, J.-P., Chen, C. & Lewis, T. Long term repeated fire disturbance alters soil bacterial diversity but not the abundance in an Australian wet sclerophyll forest. Sci. Rep. 6, 19639. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19639 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Williams, R. J., Hallgren, S. W. & Wilson, G. W. T. Frequency of prescribed burning in an upland oak forest determines soil and litter properties and alters the soil microbial community. For. Ecol. Manage. 265, 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.032 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Zhong, M. & Wang, S. A meta-analysis on the response of microbial biomass, dissolved organic matter, respiration, and N mineralization in mineral soil to fire in forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage. 271, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.02.006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brockway, D. G., Gatewood, R. G. & Paris, R. B. Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. J. Environ. Manage. 65, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0540 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deka, H. & Mishra, P. Effect of fuel burning on the microbial population of soil. Folia Microbiol. 29, 330–336 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weber, C., Lockhart, J., Charaska, E., Aho, K. & Lohse, K. Bacterial composition of soils in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests exposed to different wildfire burn severity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 69, 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.11.010 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choromanska, U. & DeLuca, T. H. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in forest mineral soils following heating: evaluation of post-fire effects. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00180-8 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saccá, M. L., Barra Caracciolo, A., Di Lenola, M. & Grenni, P. in Soil Biological Communities and Ecosystem Resilience. (eds Lukac, M., Grenni, P. & Gamboni, M.) 9–24 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).Maquia, I. S. et al. Mining the microbiome of key species from African savanna woodlands: Potential for soil health improvement and plant growth promotion. Microorganisms 8(9), 1291 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pressler, Y., Moore, J. C. & Cotrufo, M. F. Belowground community responses to fire: meta-analysis reveals contrasting responses of soil microorganisms and mesofauna. Oikos 128, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05738 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Valera, E. et al. Fire modifies the phylogenetic structure of soil bacterial co-occurrence networks. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13609 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Baldrian, P. et al. Active and total microbial communities in forest soil are largely different and highly stratified during decomposition. ISME J. 6, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.95 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kobziar, L. N. et al. Pyroaerobiology: The aerosolization and transport of viable microbial life by wildland fire. Ecosphere 9, e02507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2507 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carini, P. et al. Relic DNA is abundant in soil and obscures estimates of soil microbial diversity. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16242. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.242 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lennon, J. T., Muscarella, M. E., Placella, S. A. & Lehmkuhl, B. K. How, when, and where relic DNA affects microbial diversity. MBio 9, e00637-00618. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00637-18 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leff, J. W. et al. Consistent responses of soil microbial communities to elevated nutrient inputs in grasslands across the globe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 10967–10972 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dolan, K. L., Peña, J., Allison, S. D. & Martiny, J. B. Phylogenetic conservation of substrate use specialization in leaf litter bacteria. PLoS ONE 12, e0174472 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Woolet, J. & Whitman, T. Pyrogenic organic matter effects on soil bacterial community composition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 141, 107678 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buscardo, E. et al. Spatio-temporal dynamics of soil bacterial communities as a function of Amazon forest phenology. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–13 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tláskal, V., Zrůstová, P., Vrška, T. & Baldrian, P. Bacteria associated with decomposing dead wood in a natural temperate forest. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, fix157 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shade, A. & Handelsman, J. Beyond the Venn diagram: the hunt for a core microbiome. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02585.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

Knowing the distribution of species is crucial for effective conservation action. However, accurate and high-resolution spatial data are only available for a limited number of species1,2. For mammals and birds, the most comprehensive and widely used global distribution dataset is the set of range maps compiled as part of the assessments for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. These represent each species’ distributional limits and tend to minimize omission errors (i.e. false absences) at the expense of commission errors (i.e. false presences)3,4. Therefore, they often contain sizeable areas not regularly occupied by the species.Maps of the Area of Habitat (AOH; previously known as Extent of Suitable Habitat, ESH) complement range maps by indicating potential occupancy within the range, thereby reducing commission errors5. AOH is defined as ‘the habitat available to a species, that is, habitat within its range’5. These models are produced by subtracting areas unsuitable for the species within their range, using information on each species’ associations with habitat and elevation5,6,7,8. Comprehensive sets of AOH maps have been produced in the past for mammals6 and amphibians7, as well as subsets of birds8,9. The percentage of a species’ range covered by the AOH varies depending on the methodology used to associate species to their habitats, and their habitats to land-cover, the coarseness of the range map, the region in which the species is distributed, and the species’ habitat specialization and elevation limits5. For example, Rondinini et al.6 found that, when considering elevation and land cover features for terrestrial mammals, the AOH comprised, on average, 55% of the range. Ficetola et al.7 obtained a similar percentage when analyzing amphibians (55% for forest species, 42% for open habitat species and 61% for habitat generalists). Beresford et al.8 found that AOH covered a mean of 27.6% of the range maps of 157 threatened African bird species. In 2019, Brooks et al.5 proposed a formal definition and standardized methodology to produce AOH, limiting the inputs to habitat preferences, elevation limits, and geographical range.AOH production requires knowledge of which habitat types a species occurs in and their location within the range1. Information on habitat preference is documented for each species assessed in the IUCN Red List10, following the IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme11. However, the IUCN does not define habitat classes in a spatially explicit way, therefore, we used a recently published translation table that associates IUCN Habitat Classification Scheme classes with land cover classes12. Species’ elevation limits were also extracted from the IUCN Red List.We developed AOH maps for 5,481 terrestrial mammal species and 10,651 terrestrial bird species (Fig. 1). For 1,816 bird species defined by BirdLife International as migratory, we developed separate AOH maps, for the resident, breeding, and non-breeding ranges, according to the migratory distribution of the species (Fig. 2). The maps are presented in a regular latitude/longitude grid with an approximate 100 m resolution at the equator. On average, the AOH covers 66 ± 28% of the geographical range for mammals and 64 ± 27% for birds. We used the resulting AOH maps to produce four global species richness layers for: mammals, birds, globally threatened mammals and globally threatened birds13 (Fig. 3).Fig. 1Spatial distribution maps of Tangara abbas. Maps represent (a) the geographic range21, and (b) the Area of Habitat (AOH) of the species. The AOH was produced by subtracting unsuitable habitats from the geographical range. This species’ habitats are forest and terrestrial artificial habitats and has elevation range of 0 – 1600 m.Full size imageFig. 2Spatial distribution maps of Cardellina rubrifrons, divided into resident, breeding and non-breeding areas for this migratory species. Maps represent (a) the geographic range21, and (b) the Area of Habitat (AOH) of the species. The AOH was produced by subtracting unsuitable habitats from the ranges. This species is a forest species with elevation rangelimits of 1500 – 3100 m.Full size imageFig. 3Global species richness maps for (a) terrestrial mammals (considering 5,481species) and (b) terrestrial birds (considering 10,651 species). Calculated by overlaying all species’ AOH per class, resulting inon the number of species at each grid cell, latitude/longitude grid at a resolution of 1°/1008 or approximately 100 m at the equator (EPSG:4326) with the ellipsoid WGS 1984.Full size imageThe AOH maps presented in this paper are more useful for some purposes than global species distribution models, as they reduce and standardize commissions14. They are especially useful for not well-known and wide-range species. However, we note that for well-known species alternative sources may have more accurate distributions15. Moreover, AOHs are affected by the bias and errors of the underlying data, especially relevant errors associated with documentation of species’ habitats and elevations, and the translation of habitats into land cover classes, given that habitat is a complex multidimensional concept that is challenging to match to land-cover classes12, and that the current version of the IUCN Habitat Classification Scheme on IUCN’s website is described as a draft version11.The AOH maps have multiple conservation applications5,16,17, such as assessing species’ distributions and extinction risk, improving the accuracy of conservation planning, monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation, and guiding conservation actions. AOH has been proposed as an additional spatial metric to be documented in the Red List5, and is used for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas18. More