Philippa Kaur

Zimmer, H. D. et al. Memory for Action: A Distinct Form of Episodic Memory? (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Google Scholar 
Goswami, U. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (Wiley, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Fujita, K., Morisaki, A., Takaoka, A., Maeda, T. & Hori, Y. Incidental memory in dogs (Canis familiaris): Adaptive behavioral solution at an unexpected memory test. Anim. Cogn. 15, 1055–1063 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lind, J., Enquist, M. & Ghirlanda, S. Animal memory: A review of delayed matching-to-sample data. Behav. Processes 117, 52–58 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuczaj, S. A. II. & Eskelinen, H. C. (2014) The “creative dolphin” revisited: What do dolphins do when asked to vary their behavior. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 1, 66–77 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. Organ. Mem. 1, 381–403 (1972).
Google Scholar 
Tulving, E. How many memory systems are there?. Am. Psychol. 40, 385 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fugazza, C., Pongrácz, P., Pogány, Á., Lenkei, R. & Miklósi, Á. Mental representation and episodic-like memory of own actions in dogs. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 298, 1569–1579 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conway, M. A. Memory and the self. J. Mem. Lang. 53, 594–628 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scagel, A. & Mercado, E. III. Do that again! Memory for self-performed actions in dogs (Canis familiaris). J. Comp. Psychol. 20, 25 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Mercado, E., Murray, S. O., Uyeyama, R. K., Pack, A. A. & Herman, L. M. Memory for recent actions in the bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Repetition of arbitrary behaviors using an abstract rule. Learn. Behav. 26, 210–218 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paukner, A., Anderson, J. R., Donaldson, D. I. & Ferrari, P. F. Cued repetition of self-directed behaviors in macaques (Macaca nemestrina). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 33, 139 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smeele, S. Q. et al. Memory for own behaviour in pinnipeds. Anim. Cogn. 20, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Clayton, N. S. Episodic-like memory and mental time travel in animals. (2017).Clayton, N. S., Griffiths, D. P. & Dickinson, A. Declarative and episodic-like memory in animals: Personal musings of a Scrub Jay (2000).Clayton, N. S. & Dickinson, A. Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature 395, 272–274 (1998).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tulving, E. Episodic memory and autonoesis: Uniquely human. Missing Link Cogn. Orig. Self-Reflect. Conscious 20, 3–56 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Suddendorf, T. & Corballis, M. C. Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 123, 133–167 (1997).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Suddendorf, T. & Corballis, M. C. The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans?. Behav. Brain Sci. 30, 299–313 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crystal, J. D. Evaluating evidence from animal models of episodic memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 47, 337 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mercado, E. III., Uyeyama, R. K., Pack, A. A. & Herman, L. M. Memory for action events in the bottlenosed dolphin. Anim. Cogn. 2, 17–25 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zentall, T. R. Coding of stimuli by animals: Retrospection, prospection, episodic memory and future planning. Learn. Motiv. 41, 225–240 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fugazza, C., Pogány, Á. & Miklósi, Á. Recall of others’ actions after incidental encoding reveals episodic-like memory in dogs. Curr. Biol. 26, 3209–3213 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lambert, M. L., Jacobs, I., Osvath, M. & von Bayern, A. M. Birds of a feather? Parrot and corvid cognition compared. Behaviour 156, 505–594 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Emery, N. J. Cognitive ornithology: The evolution of avian intelligence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 361, 23–43 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olkowicz, S. et al. Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 7255–7260 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Emery, N. J. & Clayton, N. S. Evolution of the avian brain and intelligence. Curr. Biol. 15, R946–R950 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bradbury, J. W. & Balsby, T. J. The functions of vocal learning in parrots. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 293–312 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baciadonna, L., Cornero, F. M., Emery, N. J. & Clayton, N. S. Convergent evolution of complex cognition: Insights from the field of avian cognition into the study of self-awareness. Learn. Behav. 49, 9–22 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Osvath, M., Kabadayi, C. & Jacobs, I. Independent evolution of similar complex cognitive skills (2014).Zentall, T. R., Clement, T. S., Bhatt, R. S. & Allen, J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8, 685–690 (2001).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zentall, T. R., Singer, R. A. & Stagner, J. P. Episodic-like memory: Pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked. Behav. Processes 79, 93–98 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Healy, S. D. & Hurly, T. A. Spatial learning and memory in birds. Brain. Behav. Evol. 63, 211–220 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, A. H. Corvid cognition. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 5, 361–372 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boeckle, M. & Bugnyar, T. Long-term memory for affiliates in ravens. Curr. Biol. 22, 801–806 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marzluff, J. M., Walls, J., Cornell, H. N., Withey, J. C. & Craig, D. P. Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows. Anim. Behav. 79, 699–707 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pepperberg, I. M. & Pepperberg, I. M. The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey Parrots (Harvard University Press, 2009).Book 

Google Scholar 
Emery, N. J. & Clayton, N. S. Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies by scrub jays. Nature 414, 443–446 (2001).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Herzog, S. K. et al. First systematic sampling approach to estimating the global population size of the Critically Endangered Blue-throated Macaw Ara glaucogularis. Bird Conserv. Int. 31, 293–311 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Auersperg, A. M. & von Bayern, A. M. Who’sa clever bird—now? A brief history of parrot cognition. Behaviour 156, 391–407 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tassin de Montaigu, C., Durdevic, K., Brucks, D., Krasheninnikova, A. & von Bayern, A. Blue-throated macaws (Ara glaucogularis) succeed in a cooperative task without coordinating their actions. Ethology 126, 267–277 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Auersperg, A. M. et al. Social transmission of tool use and tool manufacture in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20140972 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brucks, D. & von Bayern, A. M. Parrots voluntarily help each other to obtain food rewards. Curr. Biol. 30, 292–297 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Krasheninnikova, A., Höner, F., O’Neill, L., Penna, E. & von Bayern, A. M. Economic decision-making in parrots. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jarvis, E. D. et al. Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 151–159 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gutiérrez-Ibáñez, C., Iwaniuk, A. N. & Wylie, D. R. Parrots have evolved a primate-like telencephalic-midbrain-cerebellar circuit. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–11 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smeele, S. Q. et al. Coevolution of relative brain size and life expectancy in parrots. Proc. R. Soc. B 289, 20212397 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kirsch, J. A., Güntürkün, O. & Rose, J. Insight without cortex: Lessons from the avian brain. Conscious. Cogn. 17, 475–483 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dunbar, R. I. & Shultz, S. Evolution in the social brain. Science 317, 1344–1347 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, A. A. & Katz, J. S. Mechanisms of same/different concept learning in primates and avians. Behav. Processes 72, 234–254 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smirnova, A. A., Obozova, T. A., Zorina, Z. A. & Wasserman, E. A. How do crows and parrots come to spontaneously perceive relations-between-relations?. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 37, 109–117 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schusterman, R. J. & Kastak, D. A California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. Psychol. Rec. 43, 823–839 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kastak, D. & Schusterman, R. J. Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Anim. Learn. Behav. 22, 427–435 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., Lazareva, O. F., Thompson, R. K. & Rattermann, M. J. Concept learning in animals. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 20, 25 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Marino, L. Convergence of complex cognitive abilities in cetaceans and primates. Brain. Behav. Evol. 59, 21–32 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Huber, L., Range, F. & Virányi, Z. Dog imitation and its possible origins. In Domestic dog Cognition and Behavior 79–100 (Springer, 2014).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Schmidjell, T., Range, F., Huber, L. & Virányi, Z. Do owners have a Clever Hans effect on dogs? Results of a pointing study. Front. Psychol. 3, 558 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C. & Tomasello, M. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634–1636 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lindqvist, C. & Jensen, P. Domestication and stress effects on contrafreeloading and spatial learning performance in red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers. Behav. Processes 81, 80–84 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pack, A. A., Herman, L. M. & Roitblat, H. L. Generalization of visual matching and delayed matching by a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Anim. Learn. Behav. 19, 37–48 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, M. S. Five breakthroughs: A first approximation of brain evolution from early bilaterians to humans. Front. Neuroanat. 15, 25 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cisek, P. Resynthesizing behavior through phylogenetic refinement. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 81, 2265–2287 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toft, C. A. & Wright, T. F. Parrots of the wild. Nat. Hist. World’s Most Captiv. Birds 20, 25 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Merkle, J. A., Sigaud, M. & Fortin, D. To follow or not? How animals in fusion–fission societies handle conflicting information during group decision-making. Ecol. Lett. 18, 799–806 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, J. R. & Gilby, I. C. A conceptual framework for nonkin food sharing: Timing and currency of benefits. Anim. Behav. 67, 603–614 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamil, A. C. & Roitblat, H. L. The ecology of foraging behavior—Implications for animal learning and memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 36, 141–169 (1985).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ortiz, S. T., Castro, A. C., Balsby, T. J. S. & Larsen, O. N. Problem-solving in a cooperative task in peach-fronted conures (Eupsittula aurea). Anim. Cogn. 23, 265–275 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krasheninnikova, A., Brucks, D., Blanc, S. & von Bayern, A. M. Assessing African grey parrots’ prosocial tendencies in a token choice paradigm. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190696 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Krasheninnikova, A. et al. Parrots do not show inequity aversion. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clayton, N. S., Griffiths, D. P., Emery, N. J. & Dickinson, A. Elements of episodic–like memory in animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 356, 1483–1491 (2001).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Chapman and Hall, 2020).Book 

Google Scholar  More

Alpha diversity differences among communitiesNematode gut microbiomes were assigned into their respective species categories of E. antarcticus and P. murrayi based on 18S host data that was consistent with morphology (see Methods “Microinvertebrate haplotypes”). In contrast, due to recovery of three undiscernible 18S tardigrade haplotypes, the gut microbiomes were assigned to Tardigrada. Mat bacterial communities were significantly (Tukey’s HSD, P  0.65, χ2(1)  0.38, χ2(3)  More

Population sampling and sequencingWe generated whole genome sequence data from 302 wild-caught individual An. minimus female mosquitoes collected from five different field sites in Cambodia using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform with 150 bp paired-end reads with a target coverage of 30X for each. Mosquito collections in Thmar Da, in Eastern Cambodia, were done in 2010. Longitudinal monthly collections were performed from February 2014 to January 2015 in two sites in each of the Preah Vihear, and Ratanakiri provinces. Quarterly collections were also done in 2016 in one site in Preah Vihear province, Cambodia.Variant discoveryThe methods for sequencing and variant calling closely follow those of the Anopheles gambiae 1000 Genomes project phase 2 (Ag1000G)27. Sequence reads were aligned to the An. minimus reference genome AminM128. We restricted our analysis to the largest 40 contigs, which cover 96.6% of the AminM1 reference genome, as many smaller-sized contigs can confound diversity and divergence calculations. We found that 138,161,075 (75.4%) of sites within these 40 largest contigs pass our site filters and thus were accessible to SNP calling. Of these, we discovered 38,000,285 segregating single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that passed all of our quality control filters of 55,307,039 total segregating SNPs. 13.4% of these SNPs were multiallelic, with 32,906,471 biallelic SNPs. There were 4,807,355 triallelic and 286,459 quadriallelic SNPs. A total of 100,160,790 sites were invariant. The median genome-wide coverage was 35X.Population structureA principal component analysis (PCA) over biallelic SNPs distributed over the genome of 302 individual field-collected mosquitoes showed that there is clear population structure of An. minimus in Cambodia. Samples collected from five sites in three provinces split into three distinct clusters; here, we report on 283 individuals that could be clearly assigned to these clusters (Fig. 1), excluding 9 anomalous and 10 outlying individuals. One cluster includes all samples from the western collection site Thmar Da and the northern collection sites in Preah Vihear province, with two further clusters with samples from Ratanakiri province in the northeast. These clusters split primarily along the first and second principal components. This was a surprising finding because this population structure did not correlate to the geographic sampling of these mosquitoes. Individuals collected from the western and northern sites cluster tightly together despite being hundreds of kilometers apart.Fig. 1: Population structure of An. minimus in Cambodia.The map indicates the five Cambodian collection sites. Principal component analysis (PCA) of whole genome sequences of 283 individual An. minimus s.s. collected in five villages in Cambodia shows that there is a distinct population structure and three populations. When performing the same PCA on a large X-chromosomal contig (KB664054), these individuals break into four populations: TD from the West, PV from the northern province in Preah Vihear, and RK1 and RK2, both collected in two sites in Ratanakiri province in the Northeast.Full size imageTo further explore this population structure, we performed the same PCA over individual contigs from different regions of the genome. Performing PCA over the largest X-chromosomal contig KB664054 resulted in a splitting of the western and northern samples, indicating four distinct populations of An. minimus in Cambodia (Fig. 1). PCA from this contig on a quickly evolving sex chromosome revealed more population structure compared to autosomal contigs. The populations defined by these PCA clusters are designated in this study as TD from Thmar Da, in Western Cambodia (n = 41), on the Thai-Cambodian border, PV from the Northern province Preah Vihear (n = 156), and the two distinct populations collected in Ratanakiri province in the Northeast, each including individuals collected at both collection sites, these are designated as populations RK1 (n = 58) and RK2 (n = 28).To confirm our results from PCA, we also performed an admixture analysis. We ran admixture on each of the largest 10 contigs for values of K between 2 and 6 (Supplemental Fig. 1). At K = 2, the samples from Northeastern Cambodia split from Northern and Western Cambodia samples. At K = 3, the two different groups in Ratanakiri were separated, consistent with the PCA results. At K = 4, there was some evidence for geographical population structure between the Western TD and Northern PV populations, but the admixture results did not perfectly correspond with geographic sampling, with some evidence of mixed ancestry in the PV samples. Again, this is consistent with the PCA groupings, with the generally weaker evidence of geographic population structure between TD and PV. A cross-validation analysis showed the lowest cross-validation error for K = 2 and K = 3, consistent with the strongest evidence for population structure between the two RK groups and other populations. Cross-validation error was higher at K = 4, consistent with the weaker differentiation between TD and PV. At no point was their an indication of admixture between RK1 and RK2.To examine population differentiation, we computed differences in allele frequencies between each population using Pairwise Fst. Pairwise Fst between all 4 populations over the largest contig, KB663610, representing 16% of the An. minimus genome, (Fig. 2) shows that differentiation was relatively low between populations of TD and PV with an average pairwise Fst of 0.003, while the difference between RK2 and the other three populations is tenfold higher, around 0.03. Pairwise Fst estimates comparing these populations over other large An. minimus contigs indicate a similar level of differentiation, with average pairwise Fst values over 0.03 (Supplementary Data 3). The two sympatric populations from the Ratanakiri collection sites are as differentiated from each other as they are from the northern and western clusters.Fig. 2: Population diversity and divergence.Nucleotide diversity (π), Watterson’s Theta (θW), and Tajima’s D statistics were calculated over fourfold degenerate sites on autosomal contigs. The error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals calculated over 100 bootstrap replicates over samples. An average pairwise Fst in the table here was calculated in 20 kb windows over the largest contig KB663610.Full size imageThis level of differentiation of RK2, even from the RK1 population, might indicate an emerging cryptic species within An. minimus A or a newly diverging clade. RK1 and RK2 are sympatric populations, both being collected in the same two sites in Northeastern Cambodia. The differences seen here between RK1 and RK2 populations are consistent with cryptic taxa in other anopheline groups. For example, in the An. gambiae complex, the level of differentiation between recently diverged sibling species An. coluzzii and An. gambiae in West Africa is approximately 0.0319.Population diversity and variationTo characterize population diversity among these populations, nucleotide diversity (π), Watterson’s Theta (θW), and Tajima’s D statistics were calculated over 4-fold degenerate sites on autosomal contigs larger than 2 megabases with 100 bootstrap replicates over samples. These 17 contigs represent 80% of the Anopheles minimus genome (Fig. 2). The populations were downsampled for these calculations to have sizes equal to that of the smallest population RK2 (n = 28).There are small but significant differences in the magnitude of the genetic diversity summary statistics between these four different populations. In particular, there were notable differences between the putatively cryptic taxa RK1 and RK2, two populations that were collected in the same sites in Northeastern Cambodia. RK1 had higher levels of nucleotide diversity and lower levels of Tajima’s D than RK2. These differences are consistent with different population size histories between these sympatric groups. Lower values of Tajima’s D suggest stronger population growth in RK1. Comparing all four populations, higher levels of genetic diversity indicate larger effective population sizes of TD and PV compared to RK1 and RK2.RK2 has a significantly reduced nucleotide diversity and Watterson’s Theta compared to the other three populations. This may indicate a smaller population size and a recent bottleneck of the RK2 population in Cambodia. All four An. minimus populations have a negative Tajima’s D, indicating an excess of rare variants, particularly in RK1. This suggests recent population expansions in all populations.Signals of evolutionary selectionWe used Fst to scan across the Anopheles minimus genome to look for regions of the genome with increased differentiation. When we scanned the genome using pairwise Fst, there were no apparent long signals of differentiation that might indicate a large inversion or other structural variants, known to be major drivers of adaptive evolution in other Anopheles groups. To investigate increased differentiation across large regions of the genome, we performed scans of nucleotide diversity (π), Watterson’s Theta (θW), and Tajima’s D over the largest 14 contigs (representing 80% of the An. minimus genome). As with the Fst scans, there were no large regions of higher differentiation in any of the populations that might indicate major structural variants or inversions (Supplementary Figs. 2–4).Whole-genome sequencing allowed us to identify pointed signals occurring across the entire genome using scans of average pairwise Fst. Isolated points of high differentiation were compared over single contigs with average pairwise Fst calculated over windows of 1000 SNPs each and plotted over whole contigs. The strongest signals, indicated by the highest Fst value at the peak of a strong signal of differentiation, were ranked and compared. The five top signals in each of the six comparisons between the four populations are listed in Table 1. These isolated points of high differentiation are one indication of a signal of evolutionary selection. The most differentiated regions by Fst occurred when comparing the RK2 population to the other three populations, with the highest selection peaks with pairwise Fst over 0.4. RK2 also had more distinct signals of selection when compared to the other populations than RK1. Since these signals of differentiation were highly localized, we could look to known gene annotations and gene predictions across the AminM1 reference genome to see which genes were within 100 kbp of the peaks of these signals. We have noted candidate genes of interest that were near the strongest Fst signal peaks and also had known or predicted gene functions (Table 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Fig. 8).Table 1 The top five Fst signals of high differentiation within each of six population comparisons are reported here.Full size tableThere is almost no indication of selection when comparing the Thmar Da population with Preah Vihear, with all but one signal with Fst values below 0.05. The one strong signal between TD and PV (Fst = 0.125) is near a Carbohydrate sulfotransferase, which is involved in detoxification processes. Comparing TD to RK1 and RK2 reveals multiple strong signals of selection, some which are present in both Northeastern populations, as well as many unique RK2-specific signals (Fig. 3, Supplementary Fig. 5).Fig. 3: Signals of selection over a single autosomal contig.Pairwise Fst was calculated in 1000 SNP windows over autosomal contig KB664266, comparing the Thmar Da population to the three other populations, Ratanakiri 2, Ratanakiri 1, and Preah Vihear. There is almost no indication of selection when comparing Thmar Da with Preah Vihear. There is a strongly supported signal of differentiation in both Ratanakiri 1 and Ratanakiri 2 populations at 7.5 Mbp, which is in the same location as a cluster of GSTe genes, including GSTe2, which are known to be involved in metabolic resistance to DDT and pyrethroids. The signal with the highest Fst peak here in RK2, at 6 Mbp is close to an Ecdysteroid UDP-glucosyltransferase gene, shown to confer pyrethroid insecticide resistance in other anophelines. These are a few of many selection signals identified in this study that may be associated with insecticide pressure on these An. minimus populations.Full size imageMany of the strongest signals identified in this study may be associated with insecticide pressure on these An. minimus populations. The strongest selection signals in every population comparison were close to genes that are involved in detoxification, signal transduction, and adaptations to oxidative stress, or have been functionally validated to have mutations that confer resistance to insecticides (Table 1). Some signals of interest include a strongly supported signal of selection in both RK1 and RK2 populations at 7.5 Mbp on the contig KB664266, which is in the same location as a cluster of glutathione-S-transferases, including GSTe2, which has been shown to be involved in the metabolism of DDT and pyrethroids, mutations in which mediate metabolic insecticide resistance29. The signal with the highest pairwise Fst peak on the same contig KB664266, at 6 Mbp is an RK2-specific signal and close to an Ecdysteroid UDP-glucosyltransferase gene, which has been shown to confer pyrethroid insecticide resistance in An. stephensi30.Another notable signal is between the RK1 and RK2 populations on the contig KB663610, a Peptidase S1 domain-containing protein AMIN002286, which has been shown to be involved in response to parasite pathogens in insects31. The signals of selection observed in this study are mostly distinct from the main selection signals seen in An. gambiae complex mosquitoes19, the primary vectors of Plasmodium falciparum in Africa.Insecticide resistanceWe report here variants at known insecticide resistance-associated alleles for each of the four An. minimus populations. Variants occurring at a frequency of more than 2% in at least one of the four populations are reported in the known insecticide-resistance-associated genes Ace1, Rdl, KDR, and GSTe2 (Supplementary Data 2). GSTe2 mutants are present in multiple populations, at a low rate, and there are a few individuals in Thmar Da and Preah Vihear with the Rdl resistance mutation, which is known to confer resistance to cyclodiene insecticides, despite evidence from other studies that species in this region lack this resistance mutation32. We did not investigate copy number variation, which is one mechanism by which GSTe2 confers insecticide resistance. These SNP variants indicate variation throughout these insecticide-resistance-associated genes, and though most of these populations do not currently have high rates of validated insecticide resistance-associated mutations, this underlying variation provides the potential for structural and transcriptional events resulting in greater levels of insecticide resistance in An. minimus populations. More

Variation in environmental parameters across space and time in Bohai BayThe environmental parameters of samples collected near the Tianjin coastal area from different stations and seasons exhibited high temporal and spatial heterogeneity. The seawater temperature was 28.09 ± 0.53 °C in Aug, 17.48 ± 2.36 °C in May, and 19.55 ± 1.26 °C in Oct (Table 1). The seasonal variation in seawater temperature corresponded to the meteorological characteristics in Bohai Bay, with warm seawater in summer and relatively cool seawater in spring. The salinity was 29.69 ± 2.71‰ in Aug, 33.19 ± 0.33‰ in May, and 30.15 ± 1.63‰ in Oct. Seasonal variations in salinity may be mainly related to freshwater loading. According to the precipitation observed data of Bohai Bay in previous years, the rainfall amount and days in summer are the most19, which may lead to the increase in runoff and the relatively low salinity in summer. Chlorophyll a (Chl a) was highest in May, with lower levels in Aug and Oct. The dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) was significantly higher in May and Aug than in Oct. The higher level of DIN in May and Aug may be related to terrestrial input and supply for the demand of phytoplankton growth. In October, the temperature and DIN content were both not suitable for phytoplankton growth, and Chl_a showed the lowest value. Spatially, the DIN distribution across the three seasons was rather similar, with high values observed in nearshore waters and low values in offshore waters (Dataset S1 & Fig. S1), which suggested that terrestrial input was an important source of DIN. The pH, soluble reactive phosphate (SRP) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) showed relatively higher values in October than in August and May, which may be caused by the dead phytoplankton release and terrestrial loadings through coasts and rivers. The dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity and depth did not show significant variation among sampling times (Table 1), while the conductivity and depth had relatively higher values at offshore stations (Dataset S1) since the more remote the sampling water was, the greater the depth was in Bohai Bay and the closer it was to the open sea with higher salinity and conductivity. The ordination plot showed distinct partitioning of samples from nearshore and offshore sites along principal component axis 1 (PC1) (Fig. 1). The ordination plot could explain 73.49% of the total variation in the geo-physical–chemical parameters and revealed a linear positive correlation between different parameters (Fig. 1). AN, DIN, nitrate and Chl_a were most crucial in the partitioning of samples from May and the other 2 months; salinity, longitude, depth and conductivity were crucial for the partitioning of samples from offshore and nearshore stations; pH, COD, SRP, nitrite and temperature were crucial for the partitioning of samples from nearshore stations in August and October and samples from offshore stations. Overall, the principal component analysis (PCA) plot clearly showed both the temporal and spatial variation of the measured environmental parameters, indicating that complex biogeochemical processes and hydrodynamic conditions lead to the variation among sites and seasons.Table 1 The independent-samples t test of environmental variables and α-diversity among different months.Full size tableFigure 1Biplot of the principal component analysis (PCA) for environmental parameters in the seawater samples of the Bohai Bay coastal area across different seasons and sites. The two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explained 73.49% of the total variation in the environmental data and showed clear partitioning of offshore samples (in blue font) from other nearshore samples along PC1 and partitioning of May samples from August and October along PC2. The variables transparency and latitude were strongly correlated with PC1, and the variables ammonia nitrogen (AN), COD, pH, soluble reactive phosphate (SRP), and nitrite were strongly correlated with PC2. Chlorophyll a (Chl_a), dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), nitrate and DO were mainly positively correlated with samples from May, while salinity, longitude, depth and conductivity were mainly positively correlated with offshore samples. Blue arrows represent environmental parameters, and circles in color represent sampling points.Full size imageProkaryotic α/β-diversity variationMeasures of α-diversity showed significant differences in shannon, evenness, faith_pd and OTU richness between samples from May/Aug and Oct (Fig. 2, Table 1). Principal coordinates analysis (PCoAs) based on weighted UniFrac (WUF) distance and unweighted UniFrac (UUF) distance showed that the PCC from different sampling months separated across the first and second principal coordinates (Fig. 3A-B). Both the analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA/ADONIS) results indicated that the prokaryotic communities varied significantly across different sampling months when using a WUF distance metric (ANOSIM, r = 0.709, P = 0.001; ADONIS, R2 = 40.0%, P = 0.001) and UUF distance metric (ANOSIM, r = 0.934, P = 0.001; ADONIS, R2 = 38.7%, P = 0.001). At the same time, the prokaryotic α– and β-diversity both showed high within-month variability in Aug (Figs. 2, 3C–D), which indicated that the community varied greatly among different sites in Aug.Figure 2Alpha diversity of shannon, eveness, faith_pd (phylogenetic diversity) and OTU richness value of the prokaryotic community of all the samples from different stations at different sampling times.Full size imageFigure 3Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on unweighted (A) and weighted (B) UniFrac distances for prokaryotic communities in the surface waters; box plots showing the unweighted (C) and weighted (D) UniFrac distances among each station at different sampling times.Full size imageCorrelation between prokaryotic α/β-diversity and physical, chemical and geographic factorsThe α-diversity measurements exhibited significant positive correlations with temperature, pH, SRP, AN and un_ionN (Dataset S2). The correlation between α-diversity indexes and geo factors (longitude and latitude) was not strong or significant both in samples across the three sampling times or from each sampling time (Dataset S2).The environmental variation significantly correlated with β-diversity among the three seasons (r_weighted = 0.4558, r_unweighted = 0.4631, P = 0.001, Table 2), with pH, AN, temperature, un_ionN, COD, nitrite, SRP, salinity, DO and DIN as the main individual determinants. However, it did not show significant correlations with β-diversity at any sampling time except in Oct (Table S1).Table 2 Spearman’s rank correlation between environmental/spatial variability (Euclidean distance) and prokaryotic β-diversity (weighted/unweighted UniFrac distance) among all samples from different season.Full size tableThe geographic distance was not correlated with prokaryotic β-diversity (variation in community composition; r  0.05; Table 2) among the three sampling times. However, samples from Aug and Oct exhibited a significant correlation between β-diversity and geographic distance (Table S1).Factors driving the PCC variationPERMANOVA using the UUF/WUF distance indicated that temperature variation explained the largest part of community variation among the investigated factors (34.90%/19.83%, P = 0.001, Dataset S3), with AN (31.84%/13.56%, P = 0.001) and salinity (12.91%/6.21%, P = 0.001) as the second and third most significant sources of variation.The variance partitioning analysis (VPA) conducted on both UUF/WUF distances showed that almost 100% percent of the variation in PCC among all three sampling times was explained by the detected environmental factors. In May, no environmental or spatial factors could be selected as significantly explain the PCC variation; in Aug, the joint effects of environmental and spatial factors could explain 49.5% of the variation; in Oct, based on WUF distance, the spatial factors could purely explain 10.5%, environmental factors could purely explain 38.8%, their joint effects could explain 28.2%, and based on UUF distance, the joint effects of environmental factors and trend could explain 13.7% of the PCC variation. These results indicated dramatic shifts in the spatial or environmental factor effects on the PCC variation at different sampling times in Bohai Bay (Table 3).Table 3 Variance partitioning analysis of prokaryotic community in Bohai Bay according to seawater environmental factors and geospatial factors. The spatial factors including linear trend and PCNM variables. Forward selection procedures were used to select the best subset of environmental, trend, and PCNM variables explaining community variation, respectively. The community variation was calculated on the weighted and unweighted UniFrac distance matrix, respectively. Monte Carlo permutation test was performed on each set without the effect of the other by permuting samples freely (999 permutations).Full size tableDistinct seasonal features at the phylum and OTU levelsThere were notable differences in the proportions of various phyla among different seasons (sampling month). In May, there was a greater proportion of Alphaproteobacteria (41.41%), Planctomycetes (6.42%), Actinobacteria (3.86%), Firmicutes (1.48%), Acidobacteria (0.45%), TM7 (0.16%), Tenericutes (0.16%), OD1 (0.13%), and WPS-2 (0.09%) than in Aug and Oct, whereas Gammaproteobacteria (44.23%), GN02 (0.08%) and SAR406 (0.04%) were depleted in May and Aug but enriched in Oct. In Aug, Bacteroidetes (13.98%), Deltaproteobacteria (6.93%), Verrucomicrobia (4.5%), Chloroflexi (0.36%), Lentisphaerae (0.97%), TM6 (0.25%), Nitrospirae (0.08%), Chlamydiae (0.07%), Chlorobi (0.07%), Spirochaetes (0.04%) and OP8 (0.03%) were significantly enriched than in the other two sampling times (Duncan test; Table S2).At the OTU level, OTUs with relative abundance  > 0.01% (1040 OTUs) were used to perform the difference analysis, and 175 OTUs in May, 281 OTUs in Aug, and 210 OTUs in Oct were identified as seasonal specific OTUs (ssOTUs). The cooccurrence network showed that the ssOTUs were clustered separately (Fig. 4A). Furthermore, the separation of the three modules contained most of the ssOTUs specific to different seasons (Fig. 4A-B). All the ssOTUs of different seasons comprised a taxonomically broad set of prokaryotes at the phylum (phylum Proteobacteria is grouped at the class level) level (Fig. 4C) belonging to various phyla with different proportions. Betaproteobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Gemmatimonadetes, Epsilonproteobacteria, PAUC34f., and Euryarchaeota did not show significant differences among the three sampling times at the phylum level, but features belonging to these phyla showed differences at the OTU level (Fig. 4C, Dataset S4). In addition, the phylum ssOTUs belonging to, such as Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Deltaproteobacteria, were not only enriched at one sampling time (Dataset S4) but also enriched at the other two sampling times (Fig. 4C, Dataset S4). These results revealed that different seasons do not strictly select specific microbial lineages at the phylum level, but a finer level analysis could more strictly reflect the seasonal variation.Figure 4Co-occurrence patterns of seasonal sensitive OTUs (A). Co-occurrence network visualizing significant correlations (ρ  > 0.7, P  0.01%. Different colors represent ssOTUs in May (green), Aug (red) and Oct (blue). Cumulative relative abundance (as counts per million, CPM; y-axis in × 1000) of all the sensitive modules in the networks (B). The phylum attribution of ssOTUs in each season (C). The y-axis is the percentage of the number of OTUs that belong to a particular phylum that accounts for the total number of all the OTUs.Full size imageRegression analysis between the relative abundance of modules to which the ssOTUs belonged and the environmental factors was also conducted, and module 1 abundance, to which the Aug-ssOTUs belonged, showed a significant positive correlation with temperature (R2 = 0.77, P = 6.609e−62), AN (R2 = 0.43, P = 7.416e−25), and un_ionN (R2 = 0.75, P = 1.366e−58) and a negative correlation with SRP (R2 = 0.81, P = 6.762e-17). This may be caused by the functional role of the microbes in Aug. In the Aug-ssOTUs, Deltaproteobacteria showed a higher ratio than in the other 2 months (Fig. 4c), and in the following functional analysis, Deltaproteobacteria contributed to the genes related to nitrogen fixation, which may help to explain why there was a positive correlation of Aug-ssOTUs to AN and un_ionN. The module 2 abundance to which the May-ssOTUs belonged showed a significant negative correlation with pH (R2 = 0.65, P = 4.026e−44), temperature (R2 = 0.19, P = 2.325e−10), un_ionN (R2 = 0.025, P = 0.01779), and SRP (R2 = 0.12, P = 4.104e−07) and a positive correlation with AN (R2 = 0.26, P = 5.174e−14). In the May-ssOTUs, the ratio of Alphaproteobacteria was the highest, and Alphaproteobacteria were reported to be pH-sensitive groups in marine environments20, which prefer neutral pH environments21. In this study, the pH in May was 8.04 ± 0.07, in Aug was 8.39 ± 0.09, in Oct was 8.38 ± 0.07, and the pH in May was the closest to neutral, and the ratio decreased with increasing pH in Oct and Aug. The abundance of module 3, to which the Oct-ssOTUs belonged, showed a significant positive correlation with SRP (R2 = 0.81, P = 0.16e-10) and pH (R2 = 0.054, P = 0.00075) and a negative correlation with temperature (R2 = 0.44, P = 2.276e−25), AN (R2 = 0.75, P = 4.51e−58), and un_ionN (R2 = 0.6, P = 3.995e-39) (Fig. S2). Phosphate has been identified to limit primary productivity22, which is of great importance in the structure of dominant bacterial taxa in marine environments23. In the Oct-ssOTUs, the ratio of Gammaproteobacteria was the highest, as reported. Gammaproteobacteria was significantly explained by SRP during the seasonal variation in the Western English Channel, with Rho equal to 0.7523, which suggested the sensitivity of it to SRP, and in that study, it also showed a negative correlation between temperature and Gammaproteobacteria and a positive correlation between SRP and Gammaproteobacteria. Although the correlation was not significant, the variation trend was consistent, which indicates that the phenomenon observed in this study was not unexpected. In addition, most ammonia-oxidizing bacteria belong to the Betaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes are chemolithoautotrophs that oxidize ammonia to nitrite24. Gammaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria both had higher ratios in Oct-ssOTUs, and the functional prediction results also showed that pmoA/amoA and pmoB/amoB, which encode ammonia monooxygenase, were mainly contributed by OTUs from Gammaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria (Dataset S10). The utilization of ammonia may explain the negative correlation between the Oct-ssOTUs and AN.Community assembly processes across different sampling months and sitesBased on the analysis of phylogenetic turnover, unweighted βNTI mostly ranged from -2 to 2 across different sites at a single sampling time in May, Aug and Oct, revealing that PCC variations across different sampling sites at a single time were mostly affected by stochastic processes. The unweighted βNTI was greater than 2 across May–Aug, May–Oct and Aug-Oct (Fig. 5A), which revealed that the variations in PCC across different sampling times were mostly affected by deterministic processes. The RCbray values across any two sampling times were equal to 1, and in each sampling time, the RCbray values ranged from − 1 to 1 (Fig. 5B). Combining the βNTI and RCbray values, the community assembly processes were quantified at each sampling time and at any two sampling times. As shown in Fig. 5C, turning over of the community during different sampling times was mainly governed by selection; among the different sites in May and Oct, it was mainly governed by “undominated” processes; community turn over in Aug was mainly governed by the influence of “Dispersal Limitation”. These results indicated that the shifts in the assembly of prokaryotic communities during different sampling times were caused by strong “heterogeneous selection” (βNTI  > 2), and the community variation at each sampling time was mainly caused by stochastic processes.Figure 5Patterns of distribution of unweighted βNTI (A) and RCbray (B) values across different sampling times. Quantification of the features that impose community assembly processes in and among different sampling times. (C) Pie charts give the percent of turnover in community composition governed primarily by Selection acting alone (white fill), Dispersal Limitation (green line fill), Homogenizing Dispersal (blue line fill) and undominated process (cyan fill).Full size imagePrediction of the metabolic potential at different sampling timesThe NSTI scores of each sample ranged from 0.033 to 0.096, with a mean of 0.058 (Dataset S5). Microbial functions were detected in all the samples from the three sampling times, and it was found that the relative abundances of 242 pathways were significantly changed between samples from May and samples from Aug (Dataset S6). The relative abundances of 321 pathways were significantly changed between samples from May and Oct (Dataset S7), and the relative abundances of 370 pathways were significantly changed between samples from Aug and Oct (Dataset S8).Genes related to energy metabolism were given more attention. For nitrogen metabolism genes relevant with nitrogen fixation (nifD, nifK) were detected only enriched in Aug, while genes relevant with nitrate reduction and denitrification (narG, narZ, nxrA, narH, narY, nxrB, narI, narV, nirD, nasA, nasB) were detected enriched in May, genes related with ammonia oxidation were both detected enriched in Oct and Aug. For sulfur metabolism, genes relevant with thiosulfate oxidation (soxA, soxB, soxC, soxX, soxY and soxZ) were only enriched in Aug, while genes relevant with sulfate and sulfite reduction (cysNC, aprA, aprB, cysJ, cysI, cysK, dsrA) were detected enriched in May and Oct (Fig. 6).Figure 6The LEfSe analysis indicated significantly differential abundances of PICRUSt predicted genes relevant to energy metabolism in different months of samples.Full size imageProkaryotic taxa contributed to the significantly varied functional genes related to nitrogen and sulfur metabolism at different sampling times. At the species level, the taxa contributing to nifK and nifD mainly belonged to Deltaproteobacteria and Firmicutes, and the taxa contributing to the sox-series genes mainly belonged to Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria (Fig. S3). The denitrification-related functional genes that were enriched in May were mainly contributed by members from Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria. The taxa contributing to dsrA, aprA and aprB were mainly from Deltaproteobacteria, including members of Desulfarculaceae, Desulfobacteraceae, Desulfobulbaceae, Desulfovibrionaceae and Syntrophobacteraceae (Fig. S4). More

Keenan, T. F. & Williams, C. A. The terrestrial carbon sink. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 219–243 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Terrer, C. et al. A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature 591, 599–603 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. N. Phytol. 229, 2413–2445 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fossum, C. et al. Belowground allocation and dynamics of recently fixed plant carbon in a California annual grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 165, 108519 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M.-F. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269, 341–356 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, Sara, E., Karlsen-Ayala, E. & Bradford, M. A. Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. N. Phytol. 221, 233–246 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Calvo, O. C., Franzaring, J., Schmid, I. & Fangmeier, A. Root exudation of carbohydrates and cations from barley in response to drought and elevated CO2. Plant Soil 438, 127–142 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fransson, P. M. A. & Johansson, E. M. Elevated CO2 and nitrogen influence exudation of soluble organic compounds by ectomycorrhizal root systems. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 71, 186–196 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, E. M., Fransson, P. M. A., Finlay, R. D. & van Hees, P. A. W. Quantitative analysis of soluble exudates produced by ectomycorrhizal roots as a response to ambient and elevated CO2. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1111–1116 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, R. P., Finzi, A. C. & Bernhardt, E. S. Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO2 fumigation. Ecol. Lett. 14, 187–194 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jilling, A., Keiluweit, M., Gutknecht, J. L. M. & Grandy, A. S. Priming mechanisms providing plants and microbes access to mineral-associated organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 158, 108265 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K. & Paul, E. The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 988–995 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokol, N. W., Sanderman, J. & Bradford, M. A. Pathways of mineral-associated soil organic matter formation: integrating the role of plant carbon source, chemistry, and point of entry. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 12–24 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, M. A., Keiser, A. D., Davies, C. A., Mersmann, C. A. & Strickland, M. S. Empirical evidence that soil carbon formation from plant inputs is positively related to microbial growth. Biogeochemistry 113, 271–281 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keiluweit, M. et al. Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 588–595 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuzyakov, Y., Friedel, J. K. & Stahr, K. Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1485–1498 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, D. L., Dennis, P. G., Owen, A. G. & van Hees, P. A. W. Organic acid behavior in soils—misconceptions and knowledge gaps. Plant Soil 248, 31–41 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cleveland, C. C. & Liptzin, D. C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85, 235–252 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meier, I. C., Finzi, A. C. & Phillips, R. P. Root exudates increase N availability by stimulating microbial turnover of fast-cycling N pools. Soil Biol. Biochem. 106, 119–128 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Canarini, A., Kaiser, C., Merchant, A., Richter, A. & Wanek, W. Root exudation of primary metabolites: mechanisms and their roles in plant responses to environmental stimuli. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 157 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koo, B.-J., Adriano, D. C., Bolan, N. S. & Barton, C. D. in Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment (ed. Hillel, D.) 421–428 (Elsevier, 2005); https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00461-6Oldfield, E. E., Crowther, T. W. & Bradford, M. A. Substrate identity and amount overwhelm temperature effects on soil carbon formation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 124, 218–226 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mason-Jones, K., Schmücker, N. & Kuzyakov, Y. Contrasting effects of organic and mineral nitrogen challenge the N-mining hypothesis for soil organic matter priming. Soil Biol. Biochem. 124, 38–46 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokol, N. W. & Bradford, M. A. Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input. Nat. Geosci. 12, 46–53 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drake, J. E. et al. Stoichiometry constrains microbial response to root exudation—insights from a model and a field experiment in a temperate forest. Biogeosciences 10, 821–838 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Falchini, L., Naumova, N., Kuikman, P. J., Bloem, J. & Nannipieri, P. CO2 evolution and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles of bacterial communities in soil following addition of low molecular weight substrates to simulate root exudation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 775–782 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasmussen, C., Southard, R. J. & Horwath, W. R. Soil mineralogy affects conifer forest soil carbon source utilization and microbial priming. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71, 1141–1150 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frey, S. D., Lee, J., Melillo, J. M. & Six, J. The temperature response of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 395–398 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angst, G., Mueller, K. E., Nierop, K. G. J. & Simpson, M. J. Plant- or microbial-derived? A review on the molecular composition of stabilized soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 156, 108189 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craig, M. E. et al. Fast-decaying plant litter enhances soil carbon in temperate forests but not through microbial physiological traits. Nat. Commun. 13, 1229 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blagodatsky, S., Blagodatskaya, E., Yuyukina, T. & Kuzyakov, Y. Model of apparent and real priming effects: linking microbial activity with soil organic matter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1275–1283 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, P. W., Farrar, J. F. & Jones, D. L. Decoupling of microbial glucose uptake and mineralization in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 616–624 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asmar, F., Eiland, F. & Nielsen, N. E. Interrelationship between extracellular enzyme activity, ATP content, total counts of bacteria and CO2 evolution. Biol. Fertil. Soils 14, 288–292 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fontaine, S., Mariotti, A. & Abbadie, L. The priming effect of organic matter: a question of microbial competition? Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 837–843 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
McFarlane, K. J. et al. Comparison of soil organic matter dynamics at five temperate deciduous forests with physical fractionation and radiocarbon measurements. Biogeochemistry 112, 457–476 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R., Zinke, P. J. & Stangenberger, A. G. Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298, 156–159 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, W. H. Character and significance of forest tree root exudates. Ecology 57, 324–331 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dong, J. et al. Impacts of elevated CO2 on plant resistance to nutrient deficiency and toxic ions via root exudates: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 754, 142434 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, M. A., Running, S. W. & Thornton, P. E. The impact of growing-season length variability on carbon assimilation and evapotranspiration over 88 years in the eastern US deciduous forest. Int. J. Biometeorol. 42, 139–145 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giasson, M.-A. et al. Soil respiration in a northeastern US temperate forest: a 22-year synthesis. Ecosphere 4, 140 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mrak, T. et al. Elevated ozone prevents acquisition of available nitrogen due to smaller root surface area in poplar. Plant Soil 450, 585–599 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cotrufo, M. F., Ranalli, M. G., Haddix, M. L., Six, J. & Lugato, E. Soil carbon storage informed by particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Nat. Geosci. 12, 989–994 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G. & Jenkinson, D. S. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17, 837–842 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haney, R. L., Franzluebbers, A. J., Hons, F. M. & Zuberer, D. A. Soil C extracted with water or K2SO4: pH effect on determination of microbial biomass. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79, 529–533 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahmed, M. J. & Hossan, J. Spectrophotometric determination of aluminium by morin. Talanta 42, 1135–1142 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Viollier, E., Inglett, P. W., Hunter, K., Roychoudhury, A. N. & Van Cappellen, P. The ferrozine method revisited: Fe(II)/Fe(III) determination in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 15, 785–790 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Extent and location of critical natural assetsCritical natural assets providing the 12 local NCP (Fig. 1a) occupy only 30% (41 million km2) of total land area (excluding Antarctica) and 24% (34 million km2) of marine Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), reflecting the steep slope of the aggregate NCP accumulation curve (Fig. 1b). Despite this modest proportion of global land area, the shares of countries’ land areas that are designated as critical can vary substantially. The 20 largest countries require only 24% of their land area, on average, to maintain 90% of current levels of NCP, while smaller countries (10,000 to 1.5 million km2) require on average 40% of their land area (Supplementary Data 1). This high variability in the NCP–area relationship is primarily driven by the proportion of countries’ land areas made up by natural assets (that is, excluding barren, ice and snow, and developed lands), but even when this is accounted for, there are outliers (Extended Data Fig. 2). Outliers may be due to spatial patterns in human population density (for example, countries with dense population centres and vast expanses with few people, such as Canada and Russia, require far less area to achieve NCP targets) or large ecosystem heterogeneity (if greater ecosystem diversity yields higher levels of diverse NCP in a smaller proportion of area, which may explain patterns in Chile and Australia).The highest-value critical natural assets (the locations delivering the highest magnitudes of NCP in the smallest area, denoted by the darkest blue or green shades in Fig. 1c) often coincide with diverse, relatively intact natural areas near or upstream from large numbers of people. Many of these high-value areas coincide with areas of greatest spatial congruence among multiple NCP (Extended Data Fig. 3). Spatially correlated pairs of local NCP (Supplementary Table 4) include those related to water (flood risk reduction with nitrogen retention and nitrogen with sediment retention); forest products (timber and fuelwood); and those occurring closer to human-modified habitats (pollination with nature access and with nitrogen retention). Coastal risk reduction, forage production for grazing, and riverine fish harvest are the most spatially distinct from other local NCP. In the marine realm, there is substantial overlap of fisheries with coastal risk reduction and reef tourism (though not between the latter two, which each have much smaller critical areas than exist for fisheries).Number of people benefitting from critical natural assetsWe estimate that ~87% of the world’s current population, 6.4 billion people, benefit directly from at least one of the 12 local NCP provided by critical natural assets, while only 16% live on the lands providing these benefits (and they may also benefit; Fig. 2a). To quantify the number of beneficiaries of critical natural assets, we spatially delineate their benefitting areas (which varies on the basis of NCP: for example, areas downstream, within the floodplain, in low-lying areas near the coast, or accessible by a short travel). While our optimization selects for the provision of 90% of the current value of each NCP, it is not guaranteed that 90% of the world’s population would benefit (since it does not include considerations for redundancy in adjacent pixels and therefore many of the areas selected benefit the same populations), so it is notable that an estimated 87% do. This estimate of ‘local’ beneficiaries probably underestimates the total number of people benefitting because it includes only NCP for which beneficiaries can be spatially delineated to avoid double-counting, yet it is striking that the vast majority, 6.1 billion people, live within 1 h travel (by road, rail, boat or foot, taking the fastest path17) of critical natural assets, and more than half of the world’s population lives downstream of these areas (Fig. 2b). Material NCP are often delivered locally, but many also enter global supply chains, making it difficult to delineate beneficiaries spatially for these NCP. However, past studies have calculated that globally more than 54 million people benefit directly from the timber industry18, 157 million from riverine fisheries19, 565 million from marine fisheries20 and 1.3 billion from livestock grazing21, and across the tropics alone 2.7 billion are estimated to be dependent on nature for one or more basic needs22.Fig. 2: People benefitting from and living on critical natural assets (CNA).a,b, ‘Local’ beneficiaries were calculated through the intersection of areas benefitting from different NCP, to avoid double-counting people in areas of overlap; only those NCP for which beneficiaries could be spatially delineated were included (that is, not material NCP that enter global supply chains: fisheries, timber, livestock or crop pollination). Bars show percentages of total population globally and for large and small countries (a) or the percentage of relevant population globally (b). Numbers inset in bars show millions of people making up that percentage. Numbers to the right of bars in b show total relevant population (in millions of people, equivalent to total global population from Landscan 2017 for population within 1 h travel or downstream, but limited to the total population living within 10 km of floodplains or along coastlines 80%) of their populations benefitting from critical natural assets, but small countries have much larger proportions of their populations living within the footprint of critical natural assets than do large countries (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Data 2). When people live in these areas, and especially when current levels of use of natural assets are not sustainable, regulations or incentives may be needed to maintain the benefits these assets provide. While protected areas are an important conservation strategy, they represent only 15% of the critical natural assets for local NCP (Supplementary Table 5); additional areas should not necessarily be protected using designations that restrict human access and use, or they could cease to provide some of the diverse values that make them so critical23. Other area-based conservation measures, such as those based on Indigenous and local communities’ governance systems, Payments for Ecosystem Services programmes, and sustainable use of land- and seascapes, can all contribute to maintaining critical flows of NCP in natural and semi-natural ecosystems24.Overlaps between local and global prioritiesUnlike the 12 local NCP prioritized here at the national scale, certain benefits of natural assets accrue continentally or even globally. We therefore optimize two additional NCP at a global scale: vulnerable terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage (that is, the amount of total ecosystem carbon lost in a typical disturbance event25, hereafter ‘ecosystem carbon’) and vegetation-regulated atmospheric moisture recycling (the supply of atmospheric moisture and precipitation sustained by plant life26, hereafter ‘moisture recycling’). Over 80% of the natural asset locations identified as critical for the 12 local NCP are also critical for the two global NCP (Fig. 3). The spatial overlap between critical natural assets for local and global NCP accounts for 24% of land area, with an additional 14% of land area critical for global NCP that is not considered critical for local NCP (Extended Data Fig. 4). Together, critical natural assets for securing both local and global NCP require 44% of total global land area. When each NCP is optimized individually (carbon and moisture NCP at the global scale; the other 12 at the country scale), the overlap between carbon or moisture NCP and the other NCP exceeds 50% for all terrestrial (and freshwater) NCP except coastal risk reduction (which overlaps only 36% with ecosystem carbon, 5% with moisture recycling; Supplementary Table 4).Fig. 3: Spatial overlaps between critical natural assets for local and global NCP.Red and teal denote where critical natural assets for global NCP (providing 90% of ecosystem carbon and moisture recycling globally) or for local NCP (providing 90% of the 12 NCP listed in Fig. 1), respectively, but not both, occur; gold shows areas where the two overlap (24% of the total area). Together, local and global critical natural assets account for 44% of total global land area (excluding Antarctica). Grey areas show natural assets not defined as ‘critical’ by this analysis, though still providing some values to certain populations. White areas were excluded from the optimization.Full size imageSynergies can also be found between NCP and biodiversity and cultural diversity. Critical natural assets for local NCP at national levels overlap with part or all of the area of habitat (AOH, mapped on the basis of species range maps, habitat preferences and elevation27) for 60% of 28,177 terrestrial vertebrates (Supplementary Data 3). Birds (73%) and mammals (66%) are better represented than reptiles and amphibians (44%). However, these critical natural assets represent only 34% of the area for endemic vertebrate species (with 100% of their AOH located within a given country; Supplementary Data 3) and 16% of the area for all vertebrates if using a more conservative representation target framework based on the IUCN Red List criteria (though, notably, achieving Red List representation targets is impossible for 24% of species without restoration or other expansion of existing AOH; Supplementary Data 4). Cultural diversity (proxied by linguistic diversity) has far higher overlaps with critical natural assets than does biodiversity; these areas intersect 96% of global Indigenous and non-migrant languages28 (Supplementary Data 5). The degree to which languages are represented in association with critical natural assets is consistent across most countries, even at the high end of language diversity (countries containing >100 Indigenous and non-migrant languages, such as Indonesia, Nigeria and India). This high correspondence provides further support for the importance of safeguarding rights to access critical natural assets, especially for Indigenous cultures that benefit from and help maintain them. Despite the larger land area required for maintaining the global NCP compared with local NCP, global NCP priority areas overlap with slightly fewer languages (92%) and with only 2% more species (60% of species AOH), although a substantially greater overlap is seen with global NCP if Red List criteria are considered (36% compared with 16% for local NCP; Supplementary Data 4). These results provide different insights than previous efforts at smaller scales, particularly a similar exercise in Europe that found less overlap with priority areas for biodiversity and NCP29. However, the 40% of all vertebrate species whose habitats did not overlap with critical natural assets could drive very different patterns if biodiversity were included in the optimization.Although these 14 NCP are not comprehensive of the myriad ways that nature benefits and is valued by people23, they capture, spatially and thematically, many elements explicitly mentioned in the First Draft of the CBD’s post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework13: food security, water security, protection from hazards and extreme events, livelihoods and access to green and blue spaces. Our emphasis here is to highlight the contributions of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to human wellbeing, specifically contributions that are often overlooked in mainstream conservation and development policies around the world. For example, considerations for global food security often include only crop production rather than nature’s contributions to it via pollination or vegetation-mediated precipitation, or livestock production without partitioning out the contribution of grasslands from more intensified feed production.Gaps and next stepsOur synthesis of these 14 NCP represents a substantial advance beyond other global prioritizations that include NCP limited to ecosystem carbon stocks, fresh water and marine fisheries30,31,32, though still falls short of including all important contributions of nature such as its relational values33. Despite the omission of many NCP that were not able to be mapped, further analyses indicate that results are fairly robust to inclusion of additional NCP. Dropping one of the 12 local NCP at a time results in More

Study sites and coloniesAll the experiments were carried out during the apple and pear blooming seasons of 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2014 in different locations of the province of Rio Negro, Argentina, while some laboratory experiments performed in the city of Buenos Aires. We used individual foragers of Apis mellifera L. and their colonies containing a mated queen, brood, and food reserves in ten-frame Langstroth hives. All beehives used had similar sizes and the same management history from the beekeeper. The honey bees studied belonged to commercial Langstroth-type hives rented to pollinate these plots. Each hive had a fertilized queen, 3 or 4 capped brood frames, reserves and approximately 15,000 individuals56.Testing generalization of memories from pear mimic odours to pear and apple natural floral scentsThe absolute conditioning assays were performed in the laboratories of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires (34° 32′ S, 58° 26′ W), Buenos Aires, Argentina. We used honey bee foragers collected at the entrance of the hives settle in the experimental field of the School of Exacts and Natural Sciences. The apple (‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Red Delicious’ varieties) and pear (‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’ varieties) bud samples that we used as conditioned stimuli (CS) during the conditioning were collected at the end of the blossom of 2011 in Ingeniero Huergo (39° 03′ 27.5″ S; 67° 13′ 53.5″ W), province of Río Negro, Argentina, and taken to the laboratory in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, to be used within the following 2 days.We first developed the three different synthetic mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) that could be generalized to the fragrance of the pear flower by foraging bees. The pear synthetic mixtures were formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of pear blossoms57. Then, we chose the synthetic mixture most perceptually similar to the pear flower fragrance and measured its generalisation response to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. The chemical compounds used to prepare the different synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. The compounds used for the three pear mixtures (PM, PMI and PMII) were composed by alpha-pinene, 2-ethyl-hexanol, (R)-(+)-limonene, and (±)-linalool. For details of the PM and mixture proportions see Patent PCT/IB2018/05555058.To test generalization, we took advantages of the fact that honey bees reflexively extend their proboscises when sugar solution is applied to their antennae59. The proboscis extension reflex (PER) can be used to condition bees to an odour if a neutral olfactory stimulus (CS) is paired with a sucrose reward as unconditioned stimulus, US60. Conditioned honey bees extend their proboscises towards the odour alone, a response that indicates that this stimulus has been learned and predicts the oncoming food reward. Conditioned bees can generalize such a learned response to a novel odour if it is perceived like the conditioned one (CS). Then we performed three absolute PER conditionings where we paired each of the three PMs with a sucrose-water solution (30%) reward along three learning trials (exp. 4.2a). Afterwards, pear floral scent was presented as novel odour to test generalization. Based on the generalization level to the pear odour, we chose the synthetic mixture that showed the highest generalisation towards pear flower fragrance, and we used it in all the experiments that follow. In an additional 3-trial PER conditioning with the chosen mixture, we quantified generalisation towards both the pear and apple fragrances as novel stimuli (exp. 4.2b).The experimental bees were all foragers, captured from colonies that had no access to any pear and/or apple tree, hence completely naïve for the CSs. Immediately after capture, bees were anaesthetized at 4 °C and harnessed in metal tubes so that they could only move their mouthparts and antennae60. They were fed 30% weight/weight unscented sucrose solution for about three seconds and kept in a dark incubator (30 °C, 55% relative humidity) for about two hours. Only those bees that showed the unconditioned response (the reflexive extension of the proboscis after applying a 30% w/w sucrose solution to the antennae) and did not respond to the mechanical air flow stimulus were used. Trials lasted 46 s and presented three steps: 20 s of clean air, 6 s of odour presentation (CS) and the last 20 s of clean air. During rewarded trials (CS), the reward (US, a drop of 30% w/w sucrose solution) was delivered upon the last 3 s of CS presentation. The synthetic mixtures (PM) were delivered in a constant air flow (15 ml/s) that passed through a 1 ml syringe containing 4 µl of the synthetic mixture on a small strip of filter paper. On the other hand, pear and apple floral volatiles were swept from a 100 g of fresh pear buds (var. ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’) or apple buds (var. ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) inside a kitasato by means of an air flow (54 ml/s).Testing discrimination between mimics and natural floral scentsThe differential conditioning assays were performed in a field laboratory in Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina. Conditioning trials with AM as CS were carried out in September 2007 and 2008, prior to the beginning of flowering of the fruit trees. Conditioning trials with PM as CS were carried out in September 2011 in the same area (Ingeniero Huergo, province of Río Negro, Argentina). Apple and pear bud samples used as CS were collected in plots that start blooming located around Ingeniero Huergo, but distant (more than 1 km) from the plot where we collected the bees. The bud samples presented the following varieties: M. domesticus sp., ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’, and ‘Red Delicious’; P. communis sp., ‘Packham’ and ‘D’Anjou’.With the aim to develop a synthetic mixture that presents difficult to discriminate with the fragrance of the apple flower by foraging bees, an apple synthetic mixture (AM) was formulated considering the previously reported volatile profile of apple blossoms61. The chemical compounds used to prepare the apple synthetic mixtures for the behavioural assays were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany. Apple mimic (AM) was composed by benzaldehyde, limonene and citral. For details of the AM proportions see Patent AR2011010244162. Jasmine mimic (JM) was a commercial extract obtained from Firmenich S.A.I.C. y F, Argentina.If the synthetic mixture chosen were perceptually similar to the apple flower fragrance, experimental bees should have difficult to discriminate to the apple flower fragrance to test the compounds’ specificity. Thus, we performed differential PER conditioning between synthetic mixtures (AM and Jasmine mimic, JM) or between synthetic mixtures (AM or JM) and the apple natural fragrance. We followed a differential PER conditioning34 to assess to what extent the bees were able to discriminate the synthetic mimics from their natural flower scents. PER differential conditioning consisted of four pairs of trials, four rewarded trials (CS+) and four non-rewarded trials (CS−) that were presented in a pseudo-randomized manner. Conditionings were performed using the synthetic mixtures PM and AM and the natural floral scents, pear and apple, either as CS+ and CS−. We followed the same procedure that in 3.3 to capture the bees and to present the stimuli during trials.Feeding protocolWe used the offering of scented sucrose solution in the hive as a standardized procedure to establish long-term olfactory memory in honey bees23,24,24,26,63. Scented sucrose solution was obtained by diluting 50 µl of PM or AM per litre of sucrose solution (50% weight/weight, henceforth: w/w). For the ‘apple’ series, colonies were fed 1500 ml of sugar solution offered in an internal plastic feeder for 2 days, about 3 days before the apple trees began to bloom. For the ‘pear’ series, hives were fed 500 ml of sugar solution that we spread over the top of the central frames. Both feeding procedures have been found to be functional for establishing olfactory in-hive memories26. Depending on the pear varieties, the scented sucrose solution was offered when the pear trees were 10–40% in bloom.Colony activityThe effects of the AM-treatment on colony nest entrance activity were studied in 18 colonies located in an agricultural setting of apple and pear trees in Ingeniero Huergo, on an 8-ha plot, half of which was planted with apple trees (varieties: ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’ and ‘Red Delicious’) and the other 4 ha with pear trees (varieties: ‘Packham’ and ‘D’anjou’). The effect of the PM-treatment on colony activity was studied in 14 colonies located in three adjoining pear plots (total surface: 8 ha) in Otto Krause (39° 06′ 22″ S 66° 59′ 46″ O, Supplementary Fig. S5), province of Río Negro, Argentina. The varieties of these plots corresponded to ‘Packham’ and ‘Williams’. Pollen collection (exp. 4.5.2) was also studied in colonies located in these plots.We focused on the nest entrance activity since once the first successful foragers return to the hive and display dances and/or unload the food collected, it promotes the activation or reactivation of inactive foragers and, in a minor proportion, those hive mates ready to initiate foraging tasks39,65,66,67,67. Then, we choose number of incoming bees as an indicator of colony foraging activity, since most of these bees are expected to return from foraging sites33. Thus, we compared the activity level at the nest entrance between 7 SS + PM-treated colonies and 7 SS-treated colonies. We also compared the nest entrance activity level between 5 colonies treated with SS + AM and 5 colonies fed with SS. This activity value was estimated by the number of incoming foragers at the entrance of the hive for one minute, every morning at the same time (10:30 a.m.) during the entire experiment (9 consecutive days). A first measurement was done one day before feeding the colonies (used as covariate) and 7 measurements afterwards.We measured the amount of pollen loads collected by two colonies: one fed with SS + PM and one fed with SS. Pollen loads were collected using conventional pollen traps (frontal-entrance trap), consisting of a wooden structure with a removable metal mesh inside. Pollen samples were collected for 3 days, two hours per day during the late morning, 3, 7 and 8 days after the offering of SS + PM or SS. Pollen pellets identified based on pollen colour as coming from the pear flower or from other species were separated and counted. In addition, we estimated the weight of pear pollen loads during a 5 days period, from 6 to 10 days after the offering of scented or unscented sucrose solution. To reduce measurement error, pollen loads were weighed in groups of 10.Crop yieldPear crop yield was studied in pear plots in General Roca (39° 02′ 00″ S; 67° 35′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S4, Supplementary Table S3), province of Río Negro, Argentina. In an area of 15.2 ha (4 plots of 3.8 ha each), 45 beehives were equidistantly located in groups. We measured the number of fruits per tree set of 30 trees in the surrounding areas of the PM-treated colonies (2 groups of 8 hives) and control colonies (2 groups of 8 hives). A third group category contained 13 untreated colonies. The varieties of the pear trees were ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Packham’.Apple crop yield estimated by means of number of fruits per plant was studied in General Roca (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S1), province of Río Negro, Argentina. We measured fruit set in the two plots that covered a surface of 3.8 ha and contained a total of 74 colonies distributed in groups (the control plot, 39 SS-treated-colonies treated with SS; and the treated plot, 35 SS + AM-treated-colonies treated with SS + AM). The varieties of the apple trees were ‘Red Delicious’ (clone 1), ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Granny Smith’.A second studied on apple fruit yield by means of kg of fruits per hectare was performed in Coronel Belisle (39° 11′ 00″ S 65° 59′ 00″ O, Supplementary Fig. S3, Supplementary Table S2), province of Río Negro, Argentina. Four apple plots with ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Hi Early’ and ‘Red Delicious’, clone 1 varieties of 15.4 ha each were randomly assigned to different treatments (treated plot 1, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; treated plot 2, 40 SS + AM-treated-hives treated with SS + AM; control plot 1, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS; control plot 2, 40 SS-treated-hives treated with SS).During the fruit harvest, the fruit yield was estimated in the surroundings (150 m around) of two groups of 8 colonies each. We fed one group SS + PM and the other unscented sucrose solution (SS). Yield was estimated as the number of fruits per trees in 30 randomly selected trees within each area, alternating the counts between the North and South faces of the plots. Following the same procedure, we also estimated the number of fruits per trees in the surroundings of two groups of 14 colonies each that pollinated apple crops. Again, we fed one group SS + AM and the other SS. Additionally, a total of 218 colonies in General Roca and 180 colonies in Coronel Belisle have been separated in the two experimental groups, in which yield had been provided by the producer and expressed in kg of fruits per ha. It is worth remarking that in some plots the distance between treated and control beehive groups was around 300 m, suggesting that might have been overlapping flying areas between treated and control hives. Additionally, the apple fields studied in the surrounding of Coronel Belisle, presented many trees without flowers. It was considered that the absence of flowers in numerous trees would bias the counts performed in those fields. Then, to quantify this situation, which might be associated with the masting phenomenon68, samples with the proportions of trees without flowers for every 20 trees in each plot was done. Trees that had between 80 and 100% of their surface devoid of flowers were considered “without flowers” trees, and “trees with available flowers” those that had more than 20% of their surface covered with flowers. An average of 30% of the trees within these plots were devoid of flowers. Thus, a correction factor was considered to evaluate the yield data provided by the grower per plot analysed (Supplementary Table S4).StatisticsAll statistical analyses were performed with R Core Team 201969. For Experiment 4.2 and 4.3, we analysed PER proportion by means of a binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “glmer” function of the ‘lme4’ package70.For experiment 4.2a we considered the pear mimics (three-level factor corresponding to PM, PMI and PMII) and the event (two-level factor corresponding to 3rd trial and test) as fixed factors and each “bee” as a random factor.For experiment 4.2b we considered the tested odours (three-level factor corresponding to Apple, Pear and PM) as fixed factors.For experiment 4.3 we considered the tested odours (two-level factor corresponding to CS+ and CS−) as fixed factors. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.7.071 with a significance level of 0.05.For experiment 4.5.1 we analysed “rate of incoming bees” using a generalized linear mixed model. As Poisson model for incoming bees was overdispersed72, we used a negative binomial distribution using the ‘glmmTMB’ package (function ‘glmmTMB’73. We considered “treatment” [two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM (or SS + PM) and SS], “days” (7-level factor corresponding to the date after treatment), the rate of incoming bees before the offering of food (to control for pre-existing colony differences) as covariate (a quantitative fixed effects variable), and “colony” as a random factor.For experiment 4.6, we analysed fruits per trees by means of a negative binomial multiplicative generalized linear mixed model using the “log” function of the ‘ml’ package70. Post hoc contrasts were conducted on models to assess effects and significance between fixed factors using the “emmeans” function of the ‘emmeans’ package version 1.8.071 with a significance level of 0.05. For experiment 4.6b we analysed “yield” (as weight of fruits per unit area) using a general linear mixed model. We checked homoscedasticity and normality assumptions (Levene and Shapiro–Wilk tests, respectively). We considered “treatment” (two-level factor corresponding to SS + AM and SS) and “apple varieties” (3-level factor corresponding to Hi Early, Granny Smith and Chañar 28) as fixed factors and “location” (2-level factor corresponding to General Roca and Coronel Belisle) as random factors. More

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pendrill, F. et al. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 56, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Haupt, F., Bakhtary, H., Schulte, I., Galt, H. & Streck, C. Progress on Corporate Commitments and their Implementation (Tropical Forest Alliance, 2018); https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/assets/Uploads/Progress-on-Corporate-Commitments-and-their-Implementation.pdfAustin, K. G. et al. Mapping and monitoring zero-deforestation commitments. Bioscience 71, 1079–1090 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leijten, F. C., Sim, S., King, H. & Verburg, P. H. Which forests could be protected by corporate zero deforestation commitments? A spatial assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 064021 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Garrett, R. D. et al. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003 (2019).Lehmann, C. E. R. & Parr, C. L. Tropical grassy biomes: linking ecology, human use and conservation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0329 (2016).Miles, L. et al. A global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. J. Biogeogr. 33, 491–505 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0181 (2015).Jopke, P. & Schoneveld, G. C. Corporate Commitments to Zero Deforestation: An Evaluation of Externality Problems and Implementation Gaps (CIFOR, 2018); https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006827Parr, C. L., Lehmann, C. E. R., Bond, W. J., Hoffmann, W. A. & Andersen, A. N. Tropical grassy biomes: misunderstood, neglected, and under threat. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.02.004 (2014).Ratnam, J. et al. When is a ‘forest’ a savanna, and why does it matter? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00634.x (2011).Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. et al. Research priorities for neotropical dry forests. Biotropica 37, 477–485 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PLoS ONE 11, e0159668 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Principles & Criteria for the Production of Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO, 2018).Rosoman, G. et al. (eds) The HCS Approach Toolkit (HCS Approach Steering Group, 2017).Brown, E. & Senior, M. J. M. (eds) Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values (HCV Resource Network, 2017).Furumo, P. R. & Aide, T. M. Characterizing commercial oil palm expansion in Latin America: land use change and trade. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 024008 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014 (2017).Descals, A. et al. High-resolution global map of smallholder and industrial closed-canopy oil palm plantations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 1211–1231 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Woittiez, L. S., van Wijk, M. T., Slingerland, M., van Noordwijk, M. & Giller, K. E. Yield gaps in oil palm: a quantitative review of contributing factors. Eur. J. Agron. 83, 57–77 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kuepper, B., Drost, S. & Piotrowski, M. Latin American Palm Oil Linked to Social Risks, Local Deforestation (Chain Reaction Research, 2021); https://chainreactionresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Latin-American-Palm-Oil-Linked-to-Social-Issues-Local-Deforestation-1.pdfHoyle, D. et al. RSPO New Planting Procedures: Summary Report of ESIA, HCV Assessments and Management Plan (Terea, Proforest and Olam Palm Gabon, 2017).Universal Mill List (World Resources Institute, Rainforest Alliance, Proforest & Daemeter, 2018); https://data.globalforestwatch.org/documents/gfw::universal-mill-list/aboutPirker, J., Mosnier, A., Kraxner, F., Havlík, P. & Obersteiner, M. What are the limits to oil palm expansion? Glob. Environ. Change 40, 73–81 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Fischer, G. et al. Global Agro-Ecological Zones 4 (GAEZ v4) – Model Documentation (FAO, 2021); https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4744enGlobal Agro-Ecological Zoning Version 4 (GAEZ v4) (FAO & IIASA, 2021); http://www.fao.org/gaez/Tao, H. H. et al. Long-term crop residue application maintains oil palm yield and temporal stability of production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0439-5 (2017).Wei, L., John Martin, J. J., Zhang, H., Zhang, R. & Cao, H. Problems and prospects of improving abiotic stress tolerance and pathogen resistance of oil palm. Plants 10, 2622 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Corley, R. H. & Tinker, P. B. The Oil Palm (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. & Coomes, O. T. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 024002 (2010).
Google Scholar 
ten Kate, A., Kuepper, B. & Piotrowski, M. NDPE Policies Cover 83% of Palm Oil Refineries; Implementation at 78% (Chain Reaction Research, 2020); https://chainreactionresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NDPE-Policies-Cover-83-of-Palm-Oil-Refining-Market.pdfThe Trase Yearbook: The State Of Forest Risk Supply Chains (Trase, 2020); https://insights.trase.earth/yearbook/summaryAustin, K. G. et al. Shifting patterns of oil palm driven deforestation in Indonesia and implications for zero-deforestation commitments. Land Use Policy 69, 41–48 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Furumo, P. R., Rueda, X., Rodríguez, J. S. & Parés Ramos, I. K. Field evidence for positive certification outcomes on oil palm smallholder management practices in Colombia. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118891 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Carlson, K. M. et al. Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 121–126 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M. & Benedict, J. J. Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 075002 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Impact (RSPO, 2022); https://www.rspo.org/impactBastos Lima, M. G., Persson, U. M. & Meyfroidt, P. Leakage and boosting effects in environmental governance: a framework for analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 105006 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Corley, R. H. V. How much palm oil do we need? Environ. Sci. Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.011 (2009).FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Data (FAO, 2020); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Murphy, B. P., Andersen, A. N. & Parr, C. L. The underestimated biodiversity of tropical grassy biomes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150319 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Smith, J. R., Hendershot, J. N., Nova, N. & Daily, G. C. The biogeography of ecoregions: descriptive power across regions and taxa. J. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13871 (2020).Klink, C. A. & Machado, R. B. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv. Biol. 19, 707–713 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099 (2017).le Polain de Waroux, Y. et al. The restructuring of South American soy and beef production and trade under changing environmental regulations. World Dev. 121, 188–202 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Nepstad, L. S. et al. Pathways for recent Cerrado soybean expansion: extending the soy moratorium and implementing integrated crop livestock systems with soybeans. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 044029 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Searchinger, T. D. et al. High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa’s wet savannahs to cropland. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2584 (2015).Cardoso Da Silva, J. M. & Bates, J. M. Biogeographic patterns and conservation in the South American Cerrado: a tropical savanna hotspot. BioScience 52, 225–233 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Poggio, L. et al. SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. SOIL 7, 217–240 (2021).Hill, T. C., Williams, M., Bloom, A. A., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Ryan, C. M. Are inventory based and remotely sensed above-ground biomass estimates consistent? PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074170 (2013).Ryan, C. M. et al. Ecosystem services from southern African woodlands and their future under global change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0312 (2016).Grace, J., Jose, J. S., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S. & Montes, R. A. Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. J. Biogeogr. 33, 387–400 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Scharlemann, J. P., Tanner, E. V., Hiederer, R. & Kapos, V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag. 5, 81–91 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quezada, J. C., Etter, A., Ghazoul, J., Buttler, A. & Guillaume, T. Carbon neutral expansion of oil palm plantations in the Neotropics. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw4418 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Aleman, J. C., Blarquez, O. & Staver, C. A. Land-use change outweighs projected effects of changing rainfall on tree cover in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13299 (2016).Espírito-Santo, M. M. et al. Understanding patterns of land-cover change in the Brazilian Cerrado from 2000 to 2015. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0435 (2016).Overbeck, G. E. et al. Conservation in Brazil needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Divers. Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12380 (2015).Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H. & Roberts, C. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x (2005).RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production Version 3.1 (RTRS, 2017); https://responsiblesoy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/RTRS%20Standard%20Responsible%20Soy%20production%20V3.1%20ING-LOW.pdfBatlle-Bayer, L., Batjes, N. H. & Bindraban, P. S. Changes in organic carbon stocks upon land use conversion in the Brazilian Cerrado: a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 137, 47–58 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Lannerstad, M. & Karlberg, L. The planetary water drama: dual task of feeding humanity and curbing climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, LXXXXX (2012).
Google Scholar 
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Ghazoul, J. & Etter, A. Quantifying impacts of oil palm expansion on Colombia’s threatened biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.024 (2018).Gilroy, J. J. et al. Minimizing the biodiversity impact of Neotropical oil palm development. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1531–1540 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bonn Challenge 2020 Report (IUCN, 2020); https://www.bonnchallenge.org/resources/bonn-challenge-2020-reportGilroy, J. J. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 503–507 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Evans, M. C. et al. Carbon farming via assisted natural regeneration as a cost-effective mechanism for restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 50, 114–129 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010 (2017).Beyer, R. & Rademacher, T. Species richness and carbon footprints of vegetable oils: can high yields outweigh palm oil’s environmental impact? Sustainability 13, 1813 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Lee, J. S. H., Ghazoul, J., Obidzinski, K. & Koh, L. P. Oil palm smallholder yields and incomes constrained by harvesting practices and type of smallholder management in Indonesia. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 501–513 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Murphy, D. J. The future of oil palm as a major global crop: opportunities and challenges. J. Oil Palm Res. 26, 1–24 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Giam, X., Koh, L. P. & Wilcove, D. S. Tropical crops: cautious optimism. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6212.928-a (2014).Villoria, N. B., Golub, A., Byerlee, D. & Stevenson, J. Will yield improvements on the forest frontier reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A global analysis of oil palm. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95, 1301–1308 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Koh, L. P. & Lee, T. M. Sensible consumerism for environmental sustainability. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.029 (2012).Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Harris, N., Goldman, E. & Gibbes, S. Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT) Version 1.0 (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/tree-plantationsSutanudjaja, E. H. et al. PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2429–2453 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Global Land Cover (Copernicus, 2019); https://lcviewer.vito.be/Tsendbazar, N.-E. et al. Copernicus Global Land Operations ‘Vegetation and Energy’ ‘CGLOPS−1’ Validation Report. Moderate Dynamic Land Cover 100m Version 2 (WUR, 2019); https://land.copernicus.eu/global/sites/cgls.vito.be/files/products/CGLOPS1_VR_LC100m-V2.0_I1.00.pdfSantoro, M. et al. GlobBiomass – global datasets of forest biomass. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.894711 (2018).Santoro, M. et al. A detailed portrait of the forest aboveground biomass pool for the year 2010 obtained from multiple remote sensing observations. Geophys. Res. Abstr. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086 (2018).Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693 (2013).Gumbricht, T. et al. Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands Distribution Version 7 (CIFOR, 2017); https://doi.org/10.17528/CIFOR/DATA.00058The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2018−1 (IUCN, 2018); https://www.iucnredlist.orgBird Species Distribution Maps of the World Version 6.0 (BirdLife International & Handbook of the Birds of the World, 2016); http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdisR Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).Silalertruksa, T. et al. Environmental sustainability of oil palm cultivation in different regions of Thailand: greenhouse gases and water use impact. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1009–1019 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fourcade, Y., Engler, J. O., Rödder, D. & Secondi, J. Mapping species distributions with Maxent using a geographically biased sample of presence data: a performance assessment of methods for correcting sampling bias. PLoS ONE 9, e97122 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Z. et al. Shifts in the extent and location of rice cropping areas match the climate change pattern in China during 1980–2010. Reg. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0677-x (2015).Singh, K., McClean, C. J., Büker, P., Hartley, S. E. & Hill, J. K. Mapping regional risks from climate change for rainfed rice cultivation in India. Agric. Syst. 156, 76–84 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Estes, L. D. et al. Comparing mechanistic and empirical model projections of crop suitability and productivity: implications for ecological forecasting. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12034 (2013).Thuiller, W., Georges, D., Engler, R. & Breiner, F. biomod2: Ensemble Platform for Species Distribution Modelling (2016).Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L. & Albert, D. L. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29, 773–785 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., Silander, J. A., Merow, C. & Silander, J. A. A practical guide to Maxent for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36, 1058–1069 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 (2006).VanDerWal, J., Shoo, L. P., Graham, C. & Williams, S. E. Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol. Modell. 220, 589–594 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Hirzel, A. H., Le Lay, G., Helfer, V., Randin, C. F. & Guisan, A. Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol. Modell. 199, 142–152 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Engler, R., Guisan, A. & Rechsteiner, L. An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00881.x (2004).Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x (2006).Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data for 2010 Version 1.1. (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2019); https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PRFF8V/M2EMBNHofste, R. W. et al. Aqueduct 3.0: Updated Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk Indicators (World Resources Institute, 2019); https://www.wri.org/research/aqueduct-30-updated-decision-relevant-global-water-risk-indicatorsCarr, M. K. V. The water relations and irrigation requirements of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis): a review. Exp. Agric. 47, 629–652 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Yusop, Z., Hui, C. M., Garusu, G. J. & Katimon, A. Estimation of evapotranspiration in oil palm catchments by short-time period water-budget method. Malays. J. Civ. Eng. 20, 160–174 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Hargreaves, G. H. & Allen, R. G. History and evaluation of Hargreaves evapotranspiration equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129, 53–63 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Trabucco, A. & Zomer, R. J. Global aridity index and potential evapotranspiration (ET0) climate database v2. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v3 (2019).Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2020); www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/wdpaDudley, N. (ed.) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 2008).Juffe-Bignoli, D. et al. World Database on Protected Areas User Manual 1.5 (UNEP-WCMC, 2017); https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/resources/wdpa-manualChave, J. J. et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145, 87–99 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S. & Dobson, A. P. Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050157 (2007).Beyer, R. M. & Manica, A. Historical and projected future range sizes of the world’s mammals, birds, and amphibians. Nat. Commun. 11, 5633 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Beyer, R. M. & Manica, A. Global and country-level data of the biodiversity footprints of 175 crops and pasture. Data Brief 36, 106982 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cobertura de la Tierra 100K Periodo 2018 (IDEAM, Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, 2021); http://www.siac.gov.co/catalogo-de-mapasSouza, C. M. et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 12, 2735 (2020).
Google Scholar 
MapBiomas Project – Collection 6 of the Annual Series of Land Use and Land Cover Maps of Brazil (MapBiomas, 2021); https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org/Veldman, J. W. & Putz, F. E. Grass-dominated vegetation, not species-diverse natural savanna, replaces degraded tropical forests on the southern edge of the Amazon Basin. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.011 (2011).Portillo-Quintero, C. A. & Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A. Extent and conservation of tropical dry forests in the Americas. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.020 (2010).Veldman, J. W. et al. Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1890/140270 (2015).Zaloumis, N. P. & Bond, W. J. Reforestation or conservation? The attributes of old growth grasslands in South Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0310 (2016).Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6 (2018).Djoudi, H., Vergles, E., Blackie, R. R., Koame, C. K. & Gautier, D. Dry forests, livelihoods and poverty alleviation: understanding current trends. Int. For. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815815834868 (2015).Ground-Truthing to Improve Due Diligence on Human Rights in Deforestation-Risk Supply Chains (Forest Peoples Programme, 2020); https://www.forestpeoples.org/en/ground-truthing-to-improve-due-diligenceDrost, S., Rijk, G. & Piotrowski, M. Oil Palm Growers Exposed to USD 0.4-5.9B in Social Compensation Risk (Chain Reaction Research, 2019); https://chainreactionresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Social-compensation-risks-for-palm-growers-4.pdf More