Philippa Kaur

Vaurie, C. Taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Bulletin of the AMNH; v. 166, article 1. Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 166, 1–357 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I. & Römer, U. New observations of the Masafuera Rayadito Aphrastura masafuerae. Cotinga 6, 17–19 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I. & Römer, U. Threatened avifauna of the Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile: The impact of introduced mammals and conservation priorities. Cotinga 17, 66–72 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Remsen, J. V. Family Furnariidae (Ovenbirds) Vol 8 162–348 (Lynx Edicions, 2003).
Google Scholar 
Moreno, J., Merino, S., Lobato, E., Rodríguez-Gironés, M. A. & Vásquez, R. A. Sexual dimorphism and parental roles in the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Furnariidae). Condor 109, 312–320 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreno, J., Merino, S., Vásquez, R. A. & Armesto, J. J. Breeding biology of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Furnariidae) in south-temperate rainforests of Chile. Condor 107, 69–77 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. & Jiménez, J. Sub-Antarctic Magellanic Ornithology: The First Decade of Long-term Bird Studies at the Omora Ethnobotanical Park, Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile (Universidad de Magallanes, Chile-University of North Texas Press, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Schlatter, R. & Riveros, G. Historia natural del Archipiélago Diego Ramírez, Chile. Ser. Cie. Ina. 47, 87–112 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Barroso, O. et al. Scientific collaboration with the Chilean Navy for long-term ornithological studies in the Diego Ramírez Archipelago: First year-round monitoring of Gonzalo Island’s bird assemblage. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 149–168 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Range-wide genetic structure in the thorn-tailed rayadito suggests limited gene flow towards peripheral populations. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–14 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aguirre, F. et al. Gradientes climáticos y su influyente rol sobre los ecosistemas terrestres de la Reserva de Biosfera Cabo de Hornos, Chile. Anal. Inst. Patagonia (In press).Rozzi, R. et al. Parque Marino Cabo de Hornos-Diego Ramírez, Informe Técnico para la Propuesta de Creación (Universidad de Magallanes, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, A. W. & Goodall, J. The Birds of Chile and Adjacent Regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru (Platt Establecimientos Graficos, 1967).
Google Scholar 
Tomasevic, J. A., Hodum, P. J. & Estades, C. F. On the ecology and conservation of the critically endangered Masafuera Rayadito (Aphrastura masafuerae). Ornitol. Neotrop. 21, 535–543 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Ippi, S., Anderson, C. B., Rozzi, R. & Elphick, C. S. Annual variation of abundance and composition in forest bird assemblages on Navarino Island, Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Ornitol. Neotrop. 20, 231–245 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R., Martínez, D., Willson, M. F. & Sabag, C. In Ecología de los Bosques Nativos de Chile (eds Armesto, J. J. et al.) 135–152 (Editorial Universitaria, 1996).
Google Scholar 
Hahn, I., Römer, U. & Schlatter, R. Distribution, habitat use, and abundance patterns of land bird communities on the Juan Fernández Islands, Chile. Ornitol. Neotrop. 16, 371–385 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Vergara, P. M. & Marquet, P. A. On the seasonal effect of landscape structure on a bird species: The thorn-tailed rayadito in a relict forest in northern Chile. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 1059–1071 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelt, D. A. et al. The avifauna of Bosque Fray Jorge National Park and Chile’s Norte Chico. J. Arid Environ. 126, 23–36 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Espíndola-Hernández, P., Castaño-Villa, G. J., Vásquez, R. A. & Quirici, V. Sex-specific provisioning of nutritious food items in relation to brood sex ratios in a non-dimorphic bird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 65 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisano Valdés, E. & Schlatter, R. P. Vegetación y flora de las islas Diego Ramírez (Chile). 1. Características y relaciones de la flora Vascular. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 12, 183–194 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Pisano Valdés, E. & Schlatter, R. P. Vegetación y flora de las islas Diego Ramírez (Chile). 2. Comunidades vegetales vasculares. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 12, 195–204 (1981).
Google Scholar 
Mackenzie, R. et al. Vascular flora and vegetational types at the long-term socio-ecological studies site, Gonzalo Island, Diego Ramírez Archipelago (56°31’S), Chile. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 139–148 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Un centinela para el monitoreo del cambio climático y su impacto sobre la biodiversidad en la cumbre austral de América: La nueva red de estudios a largo Plazo Cabo de Hornos. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 48, 45–81 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, G. et al. Continued increase in the number of black-browed albatrosses (Thalassarche melanophris) at Diego Ramírez, Chile. Polar Biol. 40, 1035–1042 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arroniz-Crespo, M. et al. Bryophyte-cyanobacteria associations during primary succession in recently deglaciated areas of Tierra del Fuego (Chile). PLoS One 9, e96081 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve: A challenge for biodiversity conservation, and implementation of sustainable development in southernmost South America. Anal. Inst. Patagonia 36, 55–70 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. principles for biocultural conservation at the southern tip of the Americas: The approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. Ecol. Soc. 11, 25 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Gonzalez, J. & Wink, M. Genetic differentiation of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito Aphrastura spinicauda (Furnariidae: Passeriformes) revealed by ISSR profiles suggests multiple palaeorefugia and high recurrent gene flow. Ibis 152, 761–774 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filatov, D. A. ProSeq: A software for preparation and evolutionary analysis of DNA sequence data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2, 621–624 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4, 9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Bandelt, H.-J., Forster, P. & Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 37–48 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pons, O. & Petit, R. Measwring and testing genetic differentiation with ordered versus unordered alleles. Genetics 144, 1237–1245 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E. & Quattro, J. M. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Variation in fine-scale genetic structure and local dispersal patterns between peripheral populations of a South American passerine bird. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8363–8378 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E., Quirici, V., Vásquez, R. A. & Kempenaers, B. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in a continental island population of Thorn-tailed Rayadito. J. Hered. 111, 628–639 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goudet, J. & Jombart, T. hierfstat: Estimation and tests of hierarchical F-statistics. R package version 0.04-22. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hierfstat (2015).Jombart, T. adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Beugin, M. P., Gayet, T., Pontier, D., Devillard, S. & Jombart, T. A fast likelihood solution to the genetic clustering problem. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1006–1016 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288–295 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piry, S. et al. GENECLASS2: A software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J. Hered. 95, 536–539 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paetkau, D., Calvert, W., Stirling, I. & Strobeck, C. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol. 4, 347–354 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paetkau, D., Slade, R., Burden, M. & Estoup, A. Genetic assignment methods for the direct, real-time estimation of migration rate: A simulation-based exploration of accuracy and power. Mol. Ecol. 13, 55–65 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 20. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Linnaeus, C. Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Vol. 1 (Impensis Direct Laurentii Salvii, 1758).Gray, G. R. A List of the Genera of Birds, with an Indication of the Typical Species of Each Genus, Compiled from Various Sources (Richard and John E. Taylor, 1940).
Google Scholar 
Oberholser, H. C. Some untenable names in ornithology. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 20, 201–216 (1899).
Google Scholar 
Derryberry, E. P. et al. Lineage diversification and morphological evolution in a large-scale continental radiation: The Neotropical ovenbirds and woodcreepers (Aves: Furnariidae). Evol. Int. J. Organ. Evol. 65, 2973–2986 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fjeldsa, J., Christidis, L. & Ericson, P. G. The Largest Avian Radiation: The Evolution of Perching Birds, or the Order Passeriformes (Lynx Edicions, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Munsell Color Charts. Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color Company, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 10309–10313 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M., Riddle, B. & Whittaker, R. (Oxford University Press, 2016).Whittaker, R. J. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E. et al. Ecological and social correlates of natal dispersal in female and male Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda) in a naturally isolated and fragmented habitat. Auk Ornithol. Adv. 136, ukz016 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Botero-Delgadillo, E., Serrano, D., Orellana, N., Poblete, Y. & Vásquez, R. A. Effects of temperature and time constraints on the seasonal variation in nest morphology of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda). Emu-Austral Ornithol. 117, 181–187 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cornelius, C. Spatial variation in nest-site selection by a secondary cavity-nesting bird in a human-altered landscape. Condor 110, 615–626 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quilodrán, C. S., Estades, C. F. & Vásquez, R. A. Conspecific effect on habitat selection of a territorial cavity-nesting bird. Wilson J. Ornithol. 126, 534–543 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quilodrán, C. S., Vásquez, R. A. & Estades, C. F. Nesting of the Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda) in a pine plantation in southcentral Chile. Wilson J. Ornithol. 124, 737–742 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, N. A., Steadman, D. W. & Witt, C. C. Predictable evolution toward flightlessness in volant island birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4765–4770 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandvig, E. M., Coulson, T. & Clegg, S. M. The effect of insularity on avian growth rates and implications for insular body size evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20181967 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reznick, D. N. et al. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks predict the time course of rapid life-history evolution. Am. Nat. 194, 671–692 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clavel, J. & Morlon, H. Accelerated body size evolution during cold climatic periods in the Cenozoic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 4183–4188 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Philippi, R. & Landbeck, L. Beitrage zur Fauna Chiles. Arch Naturgesch 32, 121–132 (1866).
Google Scholar 
Vaurie, C. Taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Bull. AMNH 166, 1 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Vuilleumier, F. A quantitative survey of speciation phenomena in Patagonian birds. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2, 5–28 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Ippi, S., Vasquez, R. A., van Dongen, W. F. & Lazzoni, I. Geographical variation in the vocalizations of the suboscine Thorn-tailed Rayadito Aphrastura spinicauda. Ibis 153, 789–805 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Imberti, S. Internet Bird Collection: Thorn-tailed Rayadito (Aphrastura spinicauda). https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/204019791 (2001).Mikula, P. et al. A global analysis of song frequency in passerines provides no support for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis but suggests a role for sexual selection. Ecol. Lett. 24, 477–486 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meirmans, P. G. & Hedrick, P. W. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 5–18 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, B. J. et al. The evolution of the Patagonian Ice Sheet from 35 ka to the present day (PATICE). Earth Sci. Rev. 204, 103152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lamy, F. et al. Glacial reduction and millennial-scale variations in Drake Passage throughflow. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 13496–13501 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozzi, R. et al. Integrating ecology and environmental ethics: Earth stewardship in the southern end of the Americas. Bioscience 62, 226–236 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, R. & Cruickshank, R. H. The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 969–975 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Queiroz, K. Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst. Biol. 56, 879–886 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sendell-Price, A. T. et al. The genomic landscape of divergence across the speciation continuum in island-colonising silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 10, 3147–3163 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Päckert, M., Martens, J., Wink, M., Feigl, A. & Tietze, D. T. Molecular phylogeny of Old World swifts (Aves: Apodiformes, Apodidae, Apus and Tachymarptis) based on mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 63, 606–616 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lerner, H. et al. Phylogeny and new taxonomy of the booted eagles (Accipitriformes: Aquilinae). Zootaxa 4216, 301–320 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Silva, T. N., Peterson, A. T., Bates, J. M., Fernando, S. W. & Girard, M. G. Phylogenetic relationships of weaverbirds (Aves: Ploceidae): A first robust phylogeny based on mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 109, 21–32 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schüttler, E. et al. New records of invasive mammals from the sub-Antarctic Cape Horn Archipelago. Polar Biol. 42, 1093–1105 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. & Richardson, M. Rodent eradication scaled up: Clearing rats and mice from South Georgia. Oryx 53, 27–35 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schüttler, E., Klenke, R., McGehee, S., Rozzi, R. & Jax, K. Vulnerability of ground-nesting waterbirds to predation by invasive American mink in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1450–1460 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Fly population and maintenanceWe used an outbred population of Drosophila melanogaster established from 160 Wolbachia-infected fertilised females collected in Azeitão, Portugal54, and given to us by Élio Sucena. For at least 13 generations prior to the start of the experiments the flies were maintained on standard sugar yeast agar medium (SYA medium: 970 ml water, 100 g brewer’s yeast, 50 g sugar, 15 g agar, 30 ml 10% Nipagin solution and 3 ml propionic acid; ref. 61), in a population cage containing at least 5000 flies, with non-overlapping generations of 15 days. They were maintained at 24.3 ± 0.2 °C, on a 12:12 h light-dark cycle, at 60–80 % relative humidity. The experimental flies were kept under the same conditions. No ethical approval or guidance is required for experiments with D. melanogaster.Bacterial speciesWe used the Gram positive Lactococcus lactis (gift from Brian Lazzaro), Gram negative Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens (hereafter called E. cloacae; German collection of microorganisms and cell cultures, DSMZ; type strain: DSM-16657), Providencia burhodogranariea strain B (gift from Brian Lazzaro, DSMZ; type strain: DSM-19968) and Pseudomonas entomophila (gift from Bruno Lemaitre). L. lactis43, Pr. burhodogranariea44 and Ps. entomophila45 were isolated from wild-collected D. melanogaster and can be considered as opportunistic pathogens. E. cloacae was isolated from a maize plant, but has been detected in the microbiota of D. melanogaster46. All bacterial species were stored in 34.4% glycerol at −80 °C and new cultures were grown freshly for each experimental replicate.Experimental designFor each bacterial species, flies were exposed to one of seven treatments: no injection (naïve), injection with Drosophila Ringer’s (injection control) or injection with one of five concentrations of bacteria ranging from 5 × 106 to 5 × 109 colony forming units (CFUs)/mL, corresponding to doses of approximately 92, 920, 1,840, 9200 and 92,000 CFUs per fly. The injections were done in a randomised block design by two people. Each bacterial species was tested in three independent experimental replicates. Per experimental replicate we treated 252 flies, giving a total of 756 flies per bacterium (including naïve and Ringer’s injection control flies). Per experimental replicate and treatment, 36 flies were checked daily for survival until all flies were dead. A sub-set of the dead flies were homogenised upon death to test whether the infection had been cleared before death or not. To evaluate bacterial load in living flies, per experimental replicate, four of the flies were homogenised per treatment, for each of nine time points: one, two, three, four, seven, 14, 21, 28- and 35-days post-injection.Infection assayBacterial preparation was performed as in Kutzer et al.24, except that we grew two overnight liquid cultures of bacteria per species, which were incubated overnight for approximately 15 h at 30 °C and 200 rpm. The overnight cultures were centrifuged at 2880 × g at 4 °C for 10 min and the supernatant removed. The bacteria were washed twice in 45 mL sterile Drosophila Ringer’s solution (182 mmol·L-1 KCl; 46 mol·L-1 NaCl; 3 mmol·L-1 CaCl2; 10 mmol·L-1 Tris·HCl; ref. 62) by centrifugation at 2880 × g at 4 °C for 10 min. The cultures from the two flasks were combined into a single bacterial solution and the optical density (OD) of 500 µL of the solution was measured in a Ultrospec 10 classic (Amersham) at 600 nm. The concentration of the solution was adjusted to that required for each injection dose, based on preliminary experiments where a range of ODs between 0.1 and 0.7 were serially diluted and plated to estimate the number of CFUs. Additionally, to confirm post hoc the concentration estimated by the OD, we serially diluted to 1:107 and plated the bacterial solution three times and counted the number of CFUs.The experimental flies were reared at constant larval density for one generation prior to the start of the experiments. Grape juice agar plates (50 g agar, 600 mL red grape juice, 42 mL Nipagin [10% w/v solution] and 1.1 L water) were smeared with a thin layer of active yeast paste and placed inside the population cage for egg laying and removed 24 h later. The plates were incubated overnight then first instar larvae were collected and placed into plastic vials (95 × 25 mm) containing 7 ml of SYA medium. Each vial contained 100 larvae to maintain a constant density during development. One day after the start of adult eclosion, the flies were placed in fresh food vials in groups of five males and five females, after four days the females were randomly allocated to treatment groups and processed as described below.Before injection, females were anesthetised with CO2 for a maximum of five minutes and injected in the lateral side of the thorax using a fine glass capillary (Ø 0.5 mm, Drummond), pulled to a fine tip with a Narishige PC-10, and then connected to a Nanoject II™ injector (Drummond). A volume of 18.4 nL of bacterial solution, or Drosophila Ringer’s solution as a control, was injected into each fly. Full controls, i.e., naïve flies, underwent the same procedure but without any injection. After being treated, flies were placed in groups of six into new vials containing SYA medium, and then transferred into new vials every 2–5 days. Maintaining flies in groups after infection is a standard method in experiments with D. melanogaster that examine survival and bacterial load (e.g. refs. 22, 63, 64). At the end of each experimental replicate, 50 µL of the aliquots of bacteria that had been used for injections were plated on LB agar to check for potential contamination. No bacteria grew from the Ringer’s solution and there was no evidence of contamination in any of the bacterial replicates. To confirm the concentration of the injected bacteria, serial dilutions were prepared and plated before and after the injections for each experimental replicate, and CFUs counted the following day.Bacterial load of living fliesFlies were randomly allocated to the day at which they would be homogenised. Prior to homogenisation, the flies were briefly anesthetised with CO2 and removed from their vial. Each individual was placed in a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube containing 100 µL of pre-chilled LB media and one stainless steel bead (Ø 3 mm, Retsch) on ice. The microcentrifuge tubes were placed in a holder that had previously been chilled in the fridge at 4 °C for at least 30 min to reduce further growth of the bacteria. The holders were placed in a Retsch Mill (MM300) and the flies homogenised at a frequency of 20 Hz for 45 s. Then, the tubes were centrifuged at 420 × g for one minute at 4 °C. After resuspending the solution, 80 µL of the homogenate from each fly was pipetted into a 96-well plate and then serially diluted 1:10 until 1:105. Per fly, three droplets of 5 μL of every dilution were plated onto LB agar. Our lower detection limit with this method was around seven colony-forming units per fly. We consider bacterial clearance by the host to be when no CFUs were visible in any of the droplets, although we note that clearance is indistinguishable from an infection that is below the detection limit. The plates were incubated at 28 °C and the numbers of CFUs were counted after ~20 h. Individual bacterial loads per fly were back calculated using the average of the three droplets from the lowest countable dilution in the plate, which was usually between 10 and 60 CFUs per droplet.D. melanogaster microbiota does not easily grow under the above culturing conditions (e.g. ref. 42) Nonetheless we homogenised control flies (Ringer’s injected and naïve) as a control. We rarely retrieved foreign CFUs after homogenising Ringer’s injected or naïve flies (23 out of 642 cases, i.e., 3.6 %). We also rarely observed contamination in the bacteria-injected flies: except for homogenates from 27 out of 1223 flies (2.2 %), colony morphology and colour were always consistent with the injected bacteria (see methods of ref. 65). Twenty one of these 27 flies were excluded from further analyses given that the contamination made counts of the injected bacteria unreliable; the remaining six flies had only one or two foreign CFUs in the most concentrated homogenate dilution, therefore these flies were included in further analyses. For L. lactis (70 out of 321 flies), P. burhodogranaeria (7 out of 381 flies) and Ps. entomophila (1 out of 71 flies) there were too many CFUs to count at the highest dilution. For these cases, we denoted the flies as having the highest countable number of CFUs found in any fly for that bacterium and at the highest dilution23. This will lead to an underestimate of the bacterial load in these flies. Note that because the assay is destructive, bacterial loads were measured once per fly.Bacterial load of dead fliesFor two periods of time in the chronic infection phase, i.e., between 14 and 35 days and 56 to 78 days post injection, dead flies were retrieved from their vial at the daily survival checks and homogenised in order to test whether they died whilst being infected, or whether they had cleared the infection before death. The fly homogenate was produced in the same way as for live flies, but we increased the dilution of the homogenate (1:1 to 1:1012) because we anticipated higher bacterial loads in the dead compared to the live flies. The higher dilution allowed us more easily to determine whether there was any obvious contamination from foreign CFUs or not. Because the flies may have died at any point in the 24 h preceding the survival check, and the bacteria can potentially continue replicating after host death, we evaluated the infection status (yes/no) of dead flies instead of the number of CFUs. Dead flies were evaluated for two experimental replicates per bacteria, and 160 flies across the whole experiment. Similar to homogenisation of live flies, we rarely observed contamination from foreign CFUs in the homogenate of dead bacteria-injected flies (3 out of 160; 1.9 %); of these three flies, one fly had only one foreign CFU, so it was included in the analyses. Dead Ringer’s injected and naïve flies were also homogenised and plated as controls, with 6 out of 68 flies (8.8%) resulting in the growth of unidentified CFUs.Statistical analysesStatistical analyses were performed with R version 4.2.166 in RStudio version 2022.2.3.49267. The following packages were used for visualising the data: “dplyr”68, “ggpubr”69, “gridExtra”70, “ggplot2”71, “plyr”72, “purr”73, “scales”74, “survival”75,76, “survminer”77, “tidyr”78 and “viridis”79, as well as Microsoft PowerPoint for Mac v16.60 and Inkscape for Mac v 1.0.2. Residuals diagnostics of the statistical models were carried out using “DHARMa”80, analysis of variance tables were produced using “car”81, and post-hoc tests were carried out with “emmeans”82. To include a factor as a random factor in a model it has been suggested that there should be more than five to six random-effect levels per random effect83, so that there are sufficient levels to base an estimate of the variance of the population of effects84. In our experimental designs, the low numbers of levels within the factors ‘experimental replicate’ (two to three levels) and ‘person’ (two levels), meant that we therefore fitted them as fixed, rather than random factors84. However, for the analysis of clearance (see below) we included species as a random effect because it was not possible to include it as a fixed effect because PPP is already a species-level predictor. Below we detail the statistical models that were run according to the questions posed. All statistical tests were two-sided.Do the bacterial species differ in virulence?To test whether the bacterial species differed in virulence, we performed a linear model with the natural log of the maximum hazard as the dependent variable and bacterial species as a factor. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed using “emmeans”82 and “magrittr”85, using the default Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes given as Cohen’s d, were also calculated using “emmeans”, using the sigma value of 0.4342, as estimated by the package. The hazard function in survival analyses gives the instantaneous failure rate, and the maximum hazard gives the hazard at the point at which this rate is highest. We extracted maximum hazard values from time of death data for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. Each maximum hazard per species/dose/experimental replicate was estimated from an average of 33 flies (a few flies were lost whilst being moved between vials etc.). To extract maximum hazard values we defined a function that used the “muhaz” package86 to generate a smooth hazard function and then output the maximum hazard in a defined time window, as well as the time at which this maximum is reached. To assess the appropriate amount of smoothing, we tested and visualised results for four values (1, 2, 3 and 5) of the smoothing parameter, b, which was specified using bw.grid87. We present the results from b = 2, but all of the other values gave qualitatively similar results (see Supplementary Table 2). We used bw.method = “global” to allow a constant smoothing parameter across all times. The defined time window was zero to 20 days post injection. We removed one replicate (92 CFU for E. cloacae infection) because there was no mortality in the first 20 days and therefore the maximum hazard could not be estimated. This gave final sizes of n = 14 for E. cloacae and n = 15 for each of the other three species.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},1:,{{log }}left({{{{{rm{maximum}}}}}},{{{{{rm{hazard}}}}}}right), sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Are virulence differences due to variation in pathogen exploitation or PPP?To test whether the bacterial species vary in PPP, we performed a linear model with the natural log of the maximum hazard as the dependent variable, bacterial species as a factor, and the natural log of infection intensity as a covariate. We also included the interaction between bacterial species and infection intensity: a significant interaction would indicate variation in the reaction norms, i.e., variation in PPP. The package “emmeans”82 was used to test which of the reaction norms differed significantly from each other. We extracted maximum hazard values from time of death data for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate as described in section “Do the bacterial species differ in virulence?”. We also calculated the maximum hazard for the Ringer’s control groups, which gives the maximum hazard in the absence of infection (the y-intercept). We present the results from b = 2, but all of the other values gave qualitatively similar results (see results). We wanted to infer the causal effect of bacterial load upon host survival (and not the reverse), therefore we reasoned that the bacterial load measures should derive from flies homogenised before the maximum hazard had been reached. For E. cloacae, L. lactis, and Pr. burhodogranariea, for all smoothing parameter values, the maximum hazard was reached after two days post injection, although for smoothing parameter value 1, there were four incidences where it was reached between 1.8- and 2-days post injection. Per species/dose/experimental replicate we therefore calculated the geometric mean of infection intensity combined for days 1 and 2 post injection. In order to include flies with zero load, we added one to all load values before calculating the geometric mean. Geometric mean calculation was done using the R packages “dplyr”68, “EnvStats”88, “plyr”72 and “psych”89. Each mean was calculated from the bacterial load of eight flies, except for four mean values for E. cloacae, which derived from four flies each.For Ps. entomophila the maximum hazard was consistently reached at around day one post injection, meaning that bacterial sampling happened at around the time of the maximum hazard, and we therefore excluded this bacterial species from the analysis. We removed two replicates (Ringer’s and 92 CFU for E. cloacae infection) because there was no mortality in the first 20 days and therefore the maximum hazard could not be estimated. One replicate was removed because the maximum hazard occurred before day 1 for all b values (92,000 CFU for E. cloacae) and six replicates were removed because there were no bacterial load data available for day one (experimental replicate three of L. lactis). This gave final sample sizes of n = 15 for E. cloacae and n = 12 for L. lactis, and n = 18 for Pr. burhodogranariea.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},2 :,{{log }}({{{{{rm{maximum}}}}}},{{{{{rm{hazard}}}}}}), sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}),\ times ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$To test whether there is variation in pathogen exploitation (infection intensity measured as bacterial load), we performed a linear model with the natural log of infection intensity as the dependent variable and bacterial species as a factor. Similar to the previous model, we used the geometric mean of infection intensity combined for days 1 and 2 post injection, for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. The uninfected Ringer’s replicates were not included in this model. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed using “emmeans”, using the default Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes given as Cohen’s d, were also calculated using “emmeans”, using the sigma value of 2.327, as estimated by the package. Ps. entomophila was excluded for the reason given above. The sample sizes per bacterial species were: n = 13 for E. cloacae, n = 10 for L. lactis and n = 15 for Pr. burhodogranariea.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},3:,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}), sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Are persistent infection loads dose-dependent?We tested whether initial injection dose is a predictor of bacterial load at seven days post injection22,25. We removed all flies that had a bacterial load that was below the detection limit as they are not informative for this analysis. The response variable was natural log transformed bacterial load at seven days post-injection and the covariate was natural log transformed injection dose, except for P. burhodogranariea, where the response variable and the covariate were log-log transformed. Separate models were carried out for each bacterial species. Experimental replicate and person were fitted as fixed factors. By day seven none of the flies injected with 92,000 CFU of L. lactis were alive. The analysis was not possible for Ps. entomophila infected flies because all flies were dead by seven days post injection.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},4:,{{log }}({{{{{rm{day}}}}}},7,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}), sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{injection}}}}}},{{{{{rm{dose}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{replicate}}}}}},+,{{{{{rm{person}}}}}}$$Calculation of clearance indicesTo facilitate the analyses of clearance we calculated clearance indices, which aggregate information about clearance into a single value for each bacterial species/dose/experimental replicate. All indices were based on the estimated proportion of cleared infections (defined as samples with a bacterial load that was below the detection limit) of the whole initial population. For this purpose, we first used data on bacterial load in living flies to calculate the daily proportion of cleared infections in live flies for the days that we sampled. Then we used the data on fly survival to calculate the daily proportion of flies that were still alive. By multiplying the daily proportion of cleared flies in living flies with the proportion of flies that were still alive, we obtained the proportion of cleared infections of the whole initial population – for each day on which bacterial load was measured. We then used these data to calculate two different clearance indices, which we used for different analyses. For each index we calculated the mean clearance across several days. Specifically, the first index was calculated across days three and four post injection (clearance index3,4), and the second index was calculated from days seven, 14 and 21 (clearance index7,14,21).Do the bacterial species differ in clearance?To test whether the bacterial species differed in clearance, we used clearance index3,4, which is the latest timeframe for which we could calculate this index for all four species: due to the high virulence of Ps. entomophila we were not able to assess bacterial load and thus clearance for later days. The distribution of clearance values did not conform to the assumptions of a linear model. We therefore used a Kruskal-Wallis test with pairwise Mann-Whitney-U post hoc tests. Note that the Kruskal-Wallis test uses a Chi-square distribution for approximating the H test statistic. To control for multiple testing we corrected the p-values of the post hoc tests using the method proposed by Benjamini and Hochberg90 that is implemented in the R function pairwise.wilcox.test.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},5:,{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{3,4}, sim ,{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}$$Do exploitation or PPP predict variation in clearance?To assess whether exploitation or PPP predict variation in clearance we performed separate analyses for clearance index3,4 and clearance index7,14,21. As discussed above, this precluded analysing Ps. entomophila. For each of the two indices we fitted a linear mixed effects model with the clearance index as the response variable. As fixed effects predictors we used the replicate-specific geometric mean log bacterial load and the species-specific PPP. In addition, we included species as a random effect.In our analysis we faced the challenge that many measured clearance values were at, or very close to zero. In addition, clearance values below zero do not make conceptual sense. To appropriately account for this issue, we used a logit link function (with Gaussian errors) in our model, which restricts the predicted clearance values to an interval between zero and one. Initial inspections of residuals indicated violations of the model assumption of homogenously distributed errors. To account for this problem, we included the log bacterial load and PPP as predictors of the error variance, which means that we used a model in which we relaxed the standard assumption of homogenous errors and account for heterogenous errors by fitting a function of how errors vary. For this purpose, we used the option dispformula when fitting the models with the function glmmTMB91.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},6 :,{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{3,4},{{{{{rm{or}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{clearance}}}}}},{{{{{rm{index}}}}}}}_{7,14,21}, \ sim ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{geometric}}}}}},{{{{{rm{mean}}}}}},{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{load}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{PPP}}}}}}+{{{{{{rm{bacterial}}}}}},{{{{{rm{species}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{random}}}}}}}$$Does longer-term clearance depend upon the injection dose?In contrast to the analyses described above, we additionally aimed to assess the long-term dynamics of clearance based on the infection status of dead flies collected between 14 and 35 days and 56 to 78 days after injection. Using binomial logistic regressions, we tested whether initial injection dose affected the propensity for flies to clear an infection with E. cloacae or Pr. burhodogranariea before they died. The response variable was binary whereby 0 denoted that no CFUs grew from the homogenate and 1 denoted that CFUs did grow from the homogenate. Log-log transformed injection dose was included as a covariate as well as its interaction with the natural log of day post injection, and person was fitted as a fixed factor. Replicate was included in the Pr. burhodogranariea analysis only, because of unequal sampling across replicates for E. cloacae. L. lactis injected flies were not analysed because only 4 out of 39 (10.3%) cleared the infection. Ps. entomophila infected flies were not statistically analysed because of a low sample size (n = 12). The two bacterial species were analysed separately.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},7 :,{{{{{rm{CFU}}}}}},{{{{{{rm{presence}}}}}}/{{{{{rm{absence}}}}}}}_{{{{{{rm{dead}}}}}}}, sim ,{{log }}({{log }}({{{{{rm{injection}}}}}},{{{{{rm{dose}}}}}})),\ times ,{{log }}({{{{{rm{day}}}}}},{{{{{rm{post}}}}}},{{{{{rm{injection}}}}}}),+,{{{{{rm{replicate}}}}}},+,{{{{{rm{person}}}}}}$$To test whether the patterns of clearance were similar for live and dead flies we tested whether the proportion of live uninfected flies was a predictor of the proportion of dead uninfected flies. We separately summed up the numbers of uninfected and infected flies for each bacterial species and dose, giving us a total sample size of n = 20 (four species × five doses). For live and for dead homogenised flies we had a two-vector (proportion infected and proportion uninfected) response variable, which was bound into a single object using cbind. The predictor was live flies, and the response variable was dead flies, and it was analysed using a generalized linear model with family = quasibinomial.$${{{{{rm{Model}}}}}},8:,{{{{{rm{cbind}}}}}}({{{{{rm{dead}}}}}},{{{{{rm{uninfected}}}}}},,{{{{{rm{dead}}}}}},{{{{{rm{infected}}}}}}), sim ,{{{{{rm{cbind}}}}}}({{{{{rm{live}}}}}},{{{{{rm{uninfected}}}}}},,{{{{{rm{live}}}}}},{{{{{rm{infected}}}}}})$$Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

MaterialsStudy areaThe Sinbilawin town is located southeast of Dakahleia Governorate, Egypt. It is bounded to the east by the Timai El-Amded city, west by the Aga city, north by the Mansoura city and to the south by the Diarb Negm city. The Sinbilawin lies between 31° 27′ 38.07″ E longitude and 30° 53′ 1.55″ N latitude (Google Earth) (Fig. 1). The total area of Sinbilawin town is about 304.5 km2 with total cultivated area of Sinbilawin is about 64,362.28 Faddens5. The Sinbilawin town is characterized a flat land.Figure 1Map of the Sinbilawin city, 2015 (study area).Full size imageRice strawThe total area of rice crop in Egypt is 1,215,830 faddan and the production of rice is 4,817,964 tons. The average of productivity is 3.963 tons5. The total area of rice crop in Sinbilawin center is 34,078.12167 faddan and the production of rice straw is 148,376.1417 tons. The rice area map is shown in Fig. 2.Figure 2Rice area map.Full size imageDataGIS is a powerful tool which used for computerized mapping and spatial analysis. GIS is used in many applications such as geology, protection, natural resource management, risk management, urban planning, transportation, and various aspects of modeling in the environment. Also, it is using for decision making22. In this study GIS is used to select the best site to be suggested to collect the rice straw as shown in flowchart of Fig. 3.Figure 3Flowchart of rice straw collecting from Sinbilawin center.Full size imageSoftware programs

a.

Google Earth program
Google Earth combines the power of Google Search with satellite imagery, maps, Terrain and 3D buildings to put the world’s geographic information at your fingertips. It displays satellite images of varying resolution of the Earth’s surface, allowing users to see things like cities and houses looking perpendicularly down or at an oblique angle, with perspective23.

b.

Image Processing and Analysis Software (ENVI) program
It has been used to separate layers from the satellite image as layer of road, layer of urban, layer of canal and layer of sites to the rice crop planting. ENVI 5.6.2 Classic is the ideal software for the visualization, analysis and presentation of all types of digital imagery. ENVI Classic’s complete image-processing package includes advanced, yet easy-to-use, spectral tools, geometric correction, terrain analysis, radar analysis, raster and vector GIS capabilities, extensive support for images from a wide variety of sources, and much more24.

c.

GIS program
ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 will be using in the present study. It is the newest version of a popular GIS software which produced by ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop is comprised of a set of integrated applications. All figure numbers were created using GIS software.

Design a model for assembling rice strawArcGIS10.1 was selected in this study to design a model for selecting the suitable sites to collect rice straw amounts in Sinbilawin center. To achieve the former goal must be gotten the satellite images (landsat 8) for the province of Dakahleia and the Sinbilawin center. These images were called operation land imager (OLI). Thus, layers will be obtained from the satellite images such as water channels, drainages, urban areas, main and sub- roads, rice crop areas and sites. ENVI program has been used to separate layers and place it in a file which named (Shp. file) for easy insertion in ArcGIS10.1 program. In this present study, design a model will be done on the main layers which will be obtained from the satellite image as follows:

Location and the administrative limits of Dakahleia Governorate and Sinbilawin center.

The rice crop area and sites in Dakahleia governorate as the main layer.

Layer of rice area and their sites in Sinbilawin center. Sinbilawin center was selected in the study because it is cultivated largest rice area in Dakahleia and Dakahleia biggest governorate cultivates rice.

Layer of roads network in Sinbilawin center. The network of roads was included the main roads and submain to aggregation rice straw. Given the problems associated with transport cost, disposal, and issues that arise from inadequate agriculture crop residues management, the collect units become essential to be nearest of the network of road to facilitate the process of transportation and minimize cost.

Layer of the urban locations in Sinbilawin center. Crop residues collection sites have an enormous impact on urban in general due to contamination and fires. This study proposes the collecting rice straw sites not be near of the urban, because it causes many health problems for the population.

Layer of the canal locations in Sinbilawin center. Collecting rice straw sites must be nearest from the source of water as canal for safety, protect it from fire and important for any recycle operation.

Layer of the drain locations in Sinbilawin center. Also, drain is important as the source of water but less than canal.

Arc GIS 10.1 to select the suitable sites for assembling rice strawThree Scenarios were suggesting for completing the design of the modeling to select best sites for collecting rice straw. From the three scenarios wall be reached to the best collecting sites for rice straw in Sinbilawin center as follows:

The first scenario: Modeling for Sinbilawin center
In this case, modeling was running on the Sinbilawin center as the whole unit.

The second scenario: Modeling for the village in Sinbilawin center.
The Sinbilawin center consists of 97 villages and some other area surrounding. In this case, modeling was running on each village and each accessory in Sinbilawin center.

The third scenario: Modeling for the best site in each village in Sinbilawin center.
In this case, the modeling was running on each best site which located in each village (on the 97 sites in Sinbilawin center).

MethodsTo achieve the former objective in this study wall be done as follows:

Location and the administrative limits of Dakahleia Governorate and Sinbilawin center were uploaded as map by Google earth program.

The rice crop area and sites in Dakahleia governorate. The data of area and sites to rice crop in Dakahleia governorate were collected from the Ministry of Agricultural—Central Administration of Economy and Statistics as numerical data for each center in Dakahleia governorate. Map for Dakahleia governorate was obtained via satellite image from the Remote Sensing Authority.

Rice production (ton) = Cultivated area(fed)*Average production (4.354 ton/fed)5.

Total rice straw (ton) = Rice production (ton) / 2.5.

Satellite image layersAreas and sites of satellite layers for rice in Sinbilawin centerArea and sites of rice crop in Sinbilawin center as the database were obtained and collected Extraction layer from the Ministry of Agricultural. Central Administration of Economy and Statistics as numerical data for each village. Sinbilawin map as layer of molding was obtained via satellite image from the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to inference the sites and area of rice crop in the Sinbilawin center villages.Layer for the road network in Sinbilawin centerThe network of roads is very important factor and effective for collecting rice straw. The network roads map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to inference the main and sub roads in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the urban locations in Sinbilawin centerCrop residues collection sites have an enormous impact on urban general due to contamination, environmental pollution and fires, which are causing many health problems for the population. The urban map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all the urban sites in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the water source in Sinbilawin centerRice straw collection sites must be nearest from the source of water as canal for safety and protect it from fire also water is very important for any recycle operation. The canal map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all source of water as canal in the Sinbilawin center.Layer for the drain locations in Sinbilawin centerThe drain is important as the source of water but less than canal. The drain map as the layer was extracted from satellite image via the Remote Sensing Authority. It was used with ArcGIS 10.1 software to appear all drain in the Sinbilawin center.ArcGIS 10.1 to select the suitable sites for collecting rice strawModeling was designed as shown in Fig. 4 to apply with the three scenarios.Figure 4Short form for modeling to select suitable sites to assembly rice straw.Full size imageFrom the three scenarios shall be reached to the best collecting sites for recycling rice straw in Sinbilawin center as follows:

The first scenario was running modeling for Sinbilawin center.

The second scenario was running modeling for the village in it.

The third scenario was running modeling for the best site in each village in it.

Different steps were running with modeling to select the best sites to assembly rice straw in Sinbilawin center: 1- Euclidean distance. 2- Reclassify (or changes). 3-Weighted overlay. Assuming common measurement scale and weights for each layer according to its importance as follows:—Roads 50%, Channels 40%, Urban 10% so that the total is 100%0.4- Select Layer by Location (Data Management). In this step, order of selecting layer sites was given through Arc tool box at ArcGIS10.1 for selecting sites through the Arc toolbox at ArcGIS10.1 software as follow: 1- Intersection with roads. 2- Intersection with canals water.Total cost of collecting rice strawTransportation for collecting crop residues is important factors because it affects the success or failure of crop residues utilization. GIS was used to determine suitable sites for collecting rice straw and converting it through given parameters as:

Total length of road (km).

Total weight of rice straw (ton).

Speed of tractor in sub roads (30 km/h)

Total time of transfer (h).

All experimental protocols were approved by Benha University Research Committee and all methods used in this study was carried out according to the guidelines regulations of Benha University. This work is approved by the ethic committee at Benha University. More

Fraisl, D. et al. Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 15, 1735–1751 (2020). This is the first article to quantitatively assess the potential of citizen science for SDG indicator monitoring.
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. et al. Contours of citizen science: a vignette study. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202108 (2021). This article comprehensively explores the diverse perceptions of citizen science.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kullenberg, C. & Kasperowski, D. What is citizen science? — A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11, e0147152 (2016). This article analyses the main topical focal points of citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Lemmens, R., Antoniou, V., Hummer, P. & Potsiou, C. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds. Vohland, K. et al.) 461–474 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Wynn, J. Citizen Science In The Digital Age: Rhetoric, Science, And Public Engagement (Univ. Alabama Press, 2017).Roser, M. & Ortiz-Ospina, E. Literacy. Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/literacy (2016).Pateman, R., Dyke, A. & West, S. The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 6, 9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 13–33 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Odenwald, S. A citation study of citizen science projects in space science and astronomy. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 3, 5 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bedessem, B., Julliard, R. & Montuschi, E. Measuring epistemic success of a biodiversity citizen science program: a citation study. PLoS ONE 16, e0258350 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gardiner, M. M. & Roy, H. E. The role of community science in entomology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 67, 437–456 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Kasperowski, D. & Hillman, T. The epistemic culture in an online citizen science project: programs, antiprograms and epistemic subjects. Soc. Stud. Sci. 48, 564–588 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Lambers, K., Verschoof-van der Vaart, W. & Bourgeois, Q. Integrating remote sensing, machine learning, and citizen science in Dutch archaeological prospection. Remote. Sens. 11, 794 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Froeling, F. et al. Narrative review of citizen science in environmental epidemiology: setting the stage for co-created research projects in environmental epidemiology. Environ. Int. 152, 106470 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hilton, N. H. Stimmen: a citizen science approach to minority language sociolinguistics. Linguist. Vanguard. 7, 20190017 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Maisonneuve, N., Stevens, M., Niessen, M. E. & Steels, L. in Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering (eds Athanasiadis, I. N., Rizzoli, A. E., Mitkas, P. A. & Gómez, J. M.) 215–228 (Springer, 2009).Arias, R., Capelli, L. & Diaz Jimenez, C. A new methodology based on citizen science to improve environmental odour management. Chem. Eng. Trans. 68, 7–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Nascimento, S., Rubio Iglesias, J. M., Owen, R., Schade, S. & Shanley, L. in Citizen Science — Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (eds Hecker, S. et al.) 219–240 (UCL Press, 2018).Den Broeder, L., Devilee, J., Van Oers, H., Schuit, A. J. & Wagemakers, A. Citizen Science for public health. Health Promot. Int. 33, 505–514 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bio Innovation Service. Citizen Science For Environmental Policy: Development Of An EU Wide Inventory And Analysis Of Selected Practices (Publications Office, 2018).Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H. & Ellenbeck, S. Ideals, practices, and future prospects of stakeholder involvement in sustainability science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E10648–E10657 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Adv. Ecol. Res. 59, 169–223 (2018). This article describes the opportunities of citizen science for biodiversity research.
Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., Strien, A. J., August, T. A., Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060 (2014). This article describes bias-correction approaches for ecological trend estimates.
Google Scholar 
Tengö, M., Austin, B. J., Danielsen, F. & Fernández-Llamazares, Á. Creating synergies between citizen science and Indigenous and local knowledge. BioScience 71, 503–518 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Krick, E. Citizen experts in participatory governance: democratic and epistemic assets of service user involvement, local knowledge and citizen science. Curr. Sociol. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211059225 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. in Citizen Science (eds Hecker, S. et al.) 110–123 (UCL Press, 2018).Luzar, J. B. et al. Large-scale environmental monitoring by Indigenous peoples. BioScience 61, 771–781 (2011).
Google Scholar 
UNESCO. UNESCO recommendation on open science. UNESCO https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en (2021).Wehn, U. et al. Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1683–1699 (2021). This article presents guidelines for a common approach in assessing citizen science impacts.
Google Scholar 
Aristeidou, M. & Herodotou, C. Online citizen science: a systematic review of effects on learning and scientific literacy. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Peter, M., Diekötter, T. & Kremer, K. Participant outcomes of biodiversity citizen science projects: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 11, 2780 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Turrini, T., Dörler, D., Richter, A., Heigl, F. & Bonn, A. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science — generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol. Conserv. 225, 176–186 (2018).
Google Scholar 
ECSA. Ten principles of citizen science. ECSA https://zenodo.org/record/5127534 (2015).Haklay, M. et al. ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science. ECSA https://zenodo.org/record/3758668 (2020).Danielsen, F. Community-based Monitoring In The Arctic (Univ. Alaska Press, 2020).Cooper, C. B. et al. Inclusion in citizen science: the conundrum of rebranding. Science 372, 1386–1388 (2021). This article discusses issues around justice, equity, diversity and inclusion related to citizen science.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Eitzel, M. V. et al. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2, 1 (2017). This article highlights how choice of concepts and terms affects knowledge creation.
Google Scholar 
Bonney, R. et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59, 977–984 (2009). This article presents an early model for building and operating citizen science projects.
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. in Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice (eds Sui, D., Elwood, S. & Goodchild, M.) 105–122 (Springer, 2013).Wiggins, A. & Crowston, K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. In 44th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences 1–10 (IEEE, 2011).Shirk, J. L. et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. 17, art29 (2012). This article describes multiple forms of public participation in science.
Google Scholar 
Tweddle, J. C., Robinson, L. D., Pocock, M. J. O. & Roy, H. E. Guide to citizen science: developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and the environment in the UK. UK Environmental Observation Framework https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/citizenscienceguide.pdf (2012).Wiggins, A. et al. Data management guide for public participation in scientific research. DataONE https://old.dataone.org/sites/all/documents/DataONE-PPSR-DataManagementGuide.pdf (2013). This document describes essential steps of the data management life cycle.Silvertown, J., Buesching, C. D., Jacobson, S. K. & Rebelo, T. in Key Topics in Conservation Biology Vol. 2 (eds Macdonald, D. W. & Willis, K. J.) 127–142 (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).Pocock, M. J. O., Chapman, D. S., Sheppard, L. J. & Roy, H. E. Choosing and using citizen science: a guide to when and how to use citizen science to monitor biodiversity and the environment. SEPA https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/sepa_choosingandusingcitizenscience_interactive_4web_final_amended-blue1.pdf (2014).Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership (PMMP). Manaus Letter: recommendations for the participatory monitoring of biodiversity. Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership (PMMP) https://doi.org/10.25607/OBP-965 (2015).Lepczyk, C. A., Boyle, O. D., Vargo, T. L. V. & Noss, R. F. Handbook Of Citizen Science In Ecology And Conservation (Univ. California Press, 2020).US GSA. Citizen science toolkit: basic steps for your project planning. citizenscience.gov https://www.citizenscience.gov/toolkit/howto/ (2022).García, F. S. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 419–437 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Van Brussel, S. & Huyse, H. Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62, 534–551 (2019).
Google Scholar 
de Sherbinin, A. et al. The critical importance of citizen science data. Front. Clim. 3, 650760 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hyder, K., Townhill, B., Anderson, L. G., Delany, J. & Pinnegar, J. K. Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Mar. Policy 59, 112–120 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wehn, U. et al. Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: a storytelling approach. J. Environ. Manag. 295, 113082 (2021).
Google Scholar 
van Strien, A. J., van Swaay, C. A. M. & Termaat, T. Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1450–1458 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Laso Bayas, J. C. et al. Crowdsourcing LUCAS: citizens generating reference land cover and land use data with a mobile app. Land 9, 446 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, C. B. Is there a weekend bias in clutch-initiation dates from citizen science? Implications for studies of avian breeding phenology. Int. J. Biometeorol. 58, 1415–1419 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pettibone, L. et al. Citizen Science For All. A Guide For Citizen Science Practitioners (Deutsches Zentrum für Integrative Biodiversitätsforschung, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Berlin-Brandenburgisches Institut für Biodiversitätsforschung, Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz-Institut, 2016).Pernat, N. et al. How media presence triggers participation in citizen science — the case of the mosquito monitoring project ‘Mückenatlas’. PLoS ONE 17, e0262850 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Crowston, K. & Prestopnik, N. R. Motivation and data quality in a citizen science game: a design science evaluation. In 46th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences 450–459 (IEEE, 2013).Funder, M., Danielsen, F., Ngaga, Y., Nielsen, M. R. & Poulsen, M. K. Reshaping conservation: the social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania’s community-managed forests. Conserv. Soc. 11, 218–232 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Deterding, S. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19, 14–17 (2012).
Google Scholar 
West, S. & Pateman, R. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: what can be learned from the volunteering literature? Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 1, 15 (2016). This article discusses participant motivations for engagement and volunteering.
Google Scholar 
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S. & Everett, G. Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF. SEI https://www.sei.org/publications/understanding-motivations-for-citizen-science/ (2016).Baruch, A., May, A. & Yu, D. The motivations, enablers and barriers for voluntary participation in an online crowdsourcing platform. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 923–931 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Larson, L. R. et al. The diverse motivations of citizen scientists: does conservation emphasis grow as volunteer participation progresses? Biol. Conserv. 242, 108428 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. The concept, practice, application, and results of locally based monitoring of the environment. BioScience 71, 484–502 (2021). This article summarizes the potential and intricacies of community-led citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Salmon, R. A., Rammell, S., Emeny, M. T. & Hartley, S. Citizens, scientists, and enablers: a tripartite model for citizen science projects. Diversity 13, 309 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bowser, A., Shilton, K., Preece, J. & Warrick, E. Accounting for privacy in citizen science: ethical research in a context of openness. In Proc. 2017 ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing 2124–2136 (ACM, 2017).Ward-Fear, G., Pauly, G. B., Vendetti, J. E. & Shine, R. Authorship protocols must change to credit citizen scientists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 187–190 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pandya, R. E. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 314–317 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Sorensen, A. E. et al. Reflecting on efforts to design an inclusive citizen science project in West Baltimore. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 4, 13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L. & Enck, J. W. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public. Underst. Sci. 25, 2–16 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hermoso, M. I., Martin, V. Y., Gelcich, S., Stotz, W. & Thiel, M. Exploring diversity and engagement of divers in citizen science: insights for marine management and conservation. Mar. Policy 124, 104316 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Barahona-Segovia, R. M. et al. Combining citizen science with spatial analysis at local and biogeographical scales for the conservation of a large-size endemic invertebrate in temperate forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 497, 119519 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Bowser, A., Wiggins, A., Shanley, L., Preece, J. & Henderson, S. Sharing data while protecting privacy in citizen science. Interactions 21, 70–73 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Wiggins, A., Newman, G., Stevenson, R. D. & Crowston, K. Mechanisms for data quality and validation in citizen science. In IEEE Seventh Int. Conf. on e-Science Workshops 14–19 (IEEE, 2011).Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560 (2016). This article discusses common assumptions and evidence about citizen science data quality.
Google Scholar 
Downs, R. R., Ramapriyan, H. K., Peng, G. & Wei, Y. Perspectives on citizen science data quality. Front. Clim. 3, 615032 (2021). This article describes perspectives on quality assessment and control issues.
Google Scholar 
Fritz, S. et al. Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 922–930 (2019). This article identifies the full potential of citizen science for SDG monitoring and implementation.
Google Scholar 
Phillips, T., Ferguson, M., Minarchek, M., Porticella, N. & Bonney, R. Evaluating learning outcomes from citizen science. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology https://www.birds.cornell.edu/citizenscience/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/USERS-GUIDE_linked.pdf (2014).Tredick, C. A. et al. A rubric to evaluate citizen-science programs for long-term ecological monitoring. BioScience 67, 834–844 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kieslinger, B. et al. in Citizen Science — Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (eds Hekler, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Vogel, J. & Bonn, A.) 81–95 (UCL Press, 2018).Schaefer, T., Kieslinger, B., Brandt, M. & van den Bogaert, V. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 495–514 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Prysby, M. & Oberhauser, K. S. in The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation (eds Oberhauser, K. S. & Solensky, M. J.) 9–20 (Cornell Univ. Press, 2004).Danielsen, F. et al. A multicountry assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience 64, 236–251 (2014). The article presents the largest quantitative study to date of the accuracy of citizen science across the three tropical continents.
Google Scholar 
Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C. & Packer, C. A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conserv. Biol. 30, 520–531 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Serret, H., Deguines, N., Jang, Y., Lois, G. & Julliard, R. Data quality and participant engagement in citizen science: comparing two approaches for monitoring pollinators in France and South Korea. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 4, 22 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R. & Ehrenfeld, J. G. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol 25, 1148–1154 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., de Flores, M., Loïs, G., Julliard, R. & Fontaine, C. Fostering close encounters of the entomological kind. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 202–203 (2018).
Google Scholar 
van der Wal, R., Sharma, N., Mellish, C., Robinson, A. & Siddharthan, A. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 30, 550–561 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Watson, D. & Floridi, L. Crowdsourced science: sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese 195, 741–764 (2018).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Silvertown, J. et al. Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: a case-study of iSpot. ZooKeys 480, 125–146 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Edgar, G. & Stuart-Smith, R. Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities — a continental-scale analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 388, 51–62 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S. & Leung, B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 10, 117–128 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, N., Druckenmiller, M. L., Danielsen, F. & Pulsifer, P. L. The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. BioScience 71, 452–466 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hochmair, H. H., Scheffrahn, R. H., Basille, M. & Boone, M. Evaluating the data quality of iNaturalist termite records. PLoS ONE 15, e0226534 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Torres, A.-C., Bedessem, B., Deguines, N. & Fontaine, C. Online data sharing with virtual social interactions favor scientific and educational successes in a biodiversity citizen science project. J. Responsible Innov. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.2019970 (2022).Hochachka, W. M. et al. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 130–137 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Robinson, O. J., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fink, D. Correcting for bias in distribution modelling for rare species using citizen science data. Divers. Distrib. 24, 460–472 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Moran, N., Musgrove, A., Fink, D. & Baillie, S. R. Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data. Ecol. Model. 422, 108927 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kelling, S. et al. Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves? PLoS ONE 10, e0139600 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M. & Kelling, S. Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 88–97 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Giraud, C., Calenge, C., Coron, C. & Julliard, R. Capitalizing on opportunistic data for monitoring relative abundances of species. Biometrics 72, 649–658 (2016).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Fithian, W., Elith, J., Hastie, T. & Keith, D. A. Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 424–438 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Kelling, S., Yu, J., Gerbracht, J. & Wong, W.-K. Emergent filters: automated data verification in a large-scale citizen science project. In IEEE Seventh Int. Conf. on e-Science Workshops 20–27 (IEEE, 2011).Kelling, S. et al. Taking a ‘Big Data’ approach to data quality in a citizen science project. Ambio 44, 601–611 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Palmer, J. R. B. et al. Citizen science provides a reliable and scalable tool to track disease-carrying mosquitoes. Nat. Commun. 8, 916 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G. B., Hofmann, M., Roberts, C. J. & Pereira, H. M. Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data. Sci. Rep. 11, 19073 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brashares, J. S. & Sam, M. K. How much is enough? Estimating the minimum sampling required for effective monitoring of African reserves. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2709–2722 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Andrianandrasana, H. T., Randriamahefasoa, J., Durbin, J., Lewis, R. E. & Ratsimbazafy, J. H. Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra Wetlands in Madagascar. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2757–2774 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Jiguet, F., Devictor, V., Julliard, R. & Couvet, D. French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences. Acta Oecologica 44, 58–66 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, G., Devictor, V., Motard, E., Machon, N. & Porcher, E. Short-term climate-induced change in French plant communities. Biol. Lett. 15, 20190280 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Guillera-Arroita, G. Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. Ecography 40, 281–295 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Gregory, R. D. et al. Developing indicators for European birds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 269–288 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Cima, V. et al. A test of six simple indices to display the phenology of butterflies using a large multi-source database. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105885 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Weisshaupt, N., Lehikoinen, A., Mäkinen, T. & Koistinen, J. Challenges and benefits of using unstructured citizen science data to estimate seasonal timing of bird migration across large scales. PLoS ONE 16, e0246572 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B. et al. Data integration for large-scale models of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 56–67 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., Julliard, R., de Flores, M. & Fontaine, C. Functional homogenization of flower visitor communities with urbanization. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1967–1976 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Desaegher, J., Nadot, S., Fontaine, C. & Colas, B. Floral morphology as the main driver of flower-feeding insect occurrences in the Paris region. Urban. Ecosyst. 21, 585–598 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Osenga, E. C., Vano, J. A. & Arnott, J. C. A community-supported weather and soil moisture monitoring database of the Roaring Fork catchment of the Colorado River Headwaters. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14081 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Ryan, S. F. et al. The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20181977 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Paap, T., Wingfield, M. J., Burgess, T. I., Hulbert, J. M. & Santini, A. Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology. NeoBiota 62, 301–332 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Newman, G. et al. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 298–304 (2012). This article gives a history account of the development of citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Clark, G. F. et al. A visualization tool for citizen-science marine debris big data. Water Int. 46, 211–223 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gray, A., Robertson, C. & Feick, R. CWDAT — an open-source tool for the visualization and analysis of community-generated water quality data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 10, 207 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hoyer, T., Moritz, J. & Moser, J. Visualization and perception of data gaps in the context of citizen science projects. KN J. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. 71, 155–172 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Liu, H.-Y., Dörler, D., Heigl, F. & Grossberndt, S. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 439–459 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R. & Bonney, R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 285–290 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Kobori, H. et al. Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation. Ecol. Res. 31, 1–19 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Clavero, M. & Revilla, E. Mine centuries-old citizen science. Nature 510, 35–35 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kalle, R., Pieroni, A., Svanberg, I. & Sõukand, R. Early citizen science action in ethnobotany: the case of the folk medicine collection of Dr. Mihkel Ostrov in the territory of present-day Estonia, 1891–1893. Plants 11, 274 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294 (2017). This article highlights the magnitude of citizen science contributions to global biodiversity datasets.
Google Scholar 
Groom, Q., Weatherdon, L. & Geijzendorffer, I. R. Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations? J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 612–617 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, C. B., Shirk, J. & Zuckerberg, B. The invisible prevalence of citizen science in global research: migratory birds and climate change. PLoS ONE 9, e106508 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Morales, C. L. et al. Does climate change influence the current and future projected distribution of an endangered species? The case of the southernmost bumblebee in the world. J. Insect Conserv. 26, 257–269 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Campbell, H. & Engelbrecht, I. The Baboon Spider Atlas — using citizen science and the ‘fear factor’ to map baboon spider (Araneae: Theraphosidae) diversity and distributions in southern Africa. Insect Conserv. Divers. 11, 143–151 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. BioScience 71, 55–63 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Croft, S., Chauvenet, A. L. M. & Smith, G. C. A systematic approach to estimate the distribution and total abundance of British mammals. PLoS ONE 12, e0176339 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Hsing, P. et al. Economical crowdsourcing for camera trap image classification. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 361–374 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Altwegg, R. & Nichols, J. D. Occupancy models for citizen-science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 8–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Green, S. E., Rees, J. P., Stephens, P. A., Hill, R. A. & Giordano, A. J. Innovations in camera trapping technology and approaches: the integration of citizen science and artificial intelligence. Animals 10, 132 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hsing, P.-Y. et al. Citizen scientists: school students conducting, contributing to and communicating ecological research — experiences of a school–university partnership. Sch. Sci. Rev. 101, 67–74 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Degnan, L. MammalWeb citizen science wildlife monitoring. Vimeo https://vimeo.com/237565215 (2017).Hsing, P.-Y. et al. Large-scale mammal monitoring: the potential of a citizen science camera-trapping project in the UK. Ecol. Solut. Evid. (in the press).Chapman, H. Spotting wildlife helps teens cope with life in lockdown. The Northern Echo https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18459359.spotting-wildlife-helps-teens-cope-life-lockdown/ (2020).McKie, R. How an army of ‘citizen scientists’ is helping save our most elusive animals. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/28/britain-elusive-animals-fall-into-camera-trap-citizen-scientist (2019).Deguines, N., Julliard, R., de Flores, M. & Fontaine, C. The whereabouts of flower visitors: contrasting land-use preferences revealed by a country-wide survey based on citizen science. PLoS ONE 7, e45822 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Levé, M., Baudry, E. & Bessa-Gomes, C. Domestic gardens as favorable pollinator habitats in impervious landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 420–430 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Aparicio Camín, N., Comaposada, A., Paul, E., Maceda-Veiga, A. & Piera, J. Analysis of species richness in Barcelona beaches using a citizen science based approach (Sociedad Ibérica de Ecología, 2019).Chao, A., Colwell, R. K., Chiu, C. & Townsend, D. Seen once or more than once: applying Good–Turing theory to estimate species richness using only unique observations and a species list. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1221–1232 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Mominó, J. M., Piera, J. & Jurado, E. in Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research (eds Ceccaroni, L. & Piera, J.) 231–245 (IGI Global, 2017).Salvador, X. et al. Guia Participativa Marina del Barcelonès (Marcombo, 2021).Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D. & Campbell, D. F. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J. Innov. Entrep. 1, 2 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Goodchild, M. F. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69, 211–221 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Capineri, C. et al. European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information (Ubiquity Press, 2016).Skarlatidou, A. & Haklay, M. Geographic Citizen Science Design: No One Left Behind (UCL Press, 2021).Haklay, M. & Weber, P. OpenStreetMap: user-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 7, 12–18 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Jeddi, Z. et al. Citizen seismology in the Arctic. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00139 (2020).Eurostat. LUCAS — Land use and land cover survey. eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=LUCAS_-_Land_use_and_land_cover_survey (2021).Laso Bayas, J. et al. Crowdsourcing in-situ data on land cover and land use using gamification and mobile technology. Remote. Sens. 8, 905 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
EU. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council, Article 5(c). EU https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (2016).Danielsen, F. et al. Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecol. Soc. 18, 41 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Boissière, M., Herold, M., Atmadja, S. & Sheil, D. The feasibility of local participation in measuring, reporting and verification (PMRV) for REDD. PLoS ONE 12, e0176897 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Walker, D. W., Smigaj, M. & Tani, M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water 8, e1488 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. Community monitoring of natural resource systems and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022325 (2022).Pecl, G. T. et al. Redmap Australia: challenges and successes with a large-scale citizen science-based approach to ecological monitoring and community engagement on climate change. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00349 (2019).Shinbrot, X. A. et al. Quiahua, the first citizen science rainfall monitoring network in Mexico: filling critical gaps in rainfall data for evaluating a payment for hydrologic services program. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 19 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Little, K. E., Hayashi, M. & Liang, S. Community-based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen-science approach. Groundwater 54, 317–324 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wolff, E. The promise of a “people-centred” approach to floods: types of participation in the global literature of citizen science and community-based flood risk reduction in the context of the Sendai Framework. Prog. Disaster Sci. 10, 100171 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hauser, D. D. W. et al. Co-production of knowledge reveals loss of Indigenous hunting opportunities in the face of accelerating Arctic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 095003 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Soroye, P., Ahmed, N. & Kerr, J. T. Opportunistic citizen science data transform understanding of species distributions, phenology, and diversity gradients for global change research. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5281–5291 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Robles, M. C. et al. Clouds around the world: how a simple citizen science data challenge became a worldwide success. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, E1201–E1213 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Beeden, R. J. et al. Rapid survey protocol that provides dynamic information on reef condition to managers of the Great Barrier Reef. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 8527–8540 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Miller-Rushing, A. J., Gallinat, A. S. & Primack, R. B. Creative citizen science illuminates complex ecological responses to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 720–722 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kress, W. J. et al. Citizen science and climate change: mapping the range expansions of native and exotic plants with the mobile app Leafsnap. BioScience 68, 348–358 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kirchhoff, C. et al. Rapidly mapping fire effects on biodiversity at a large-scale using citizen science. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142348 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D. & Carroll, C. Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS ONE 11, e0156720 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service & USDA. Web soil survey. USDA https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (2019).Cooper, C. B., Hochachka, W. M. & Dhondt, A. A. in Citizen Science (eds Dickinson, J. L. & Bonney, R.) 99–113 (Cornell Univ. Press, 2012).Bastin, L., Schade, S. & Schill, C. in Mapping and the Citizen Sensor (eds Foody, G. et al.) 249–272 (Ubiquity Press, 2017).Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C. & Miller, A. K. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 475–481 (2015). This article outlines basic considerations for ethical research practices in citizen science.
Google Scholar 
Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P. & Sam, M. K. Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 2473–2478 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Lotfian, M., Ingensand, J. & Brovelli, M. A. The partnership of citizen science and machine learning: benefits, risks, and future challenges for engagement, data collection, and data quality. Sustainability 13, 8087 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kissling, W. D. et al. Towards global interoperability for supporting biodiversity research on essential biodiversity variables (EBVs). Biodiversity 16, 99–107 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K. & Stall, S. Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci. Data 8, 108 (2021).
Google Scholar 
UKEOF Citizen Science Working. Data management planning for citizen science. Ocean Best Practices https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1406 (2020). This document provides advice about the development of data management plans.Hansen, J. S. et al. Research data management challenges in citizen science projects and recommendations for library support services. A scoping review and case study. Data Sci. J. 20, 25 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Croucher, M., Graham, L., James, T., Krystalli, A. & Michonneau, F. A guide to reproducible code. British Ecological Society https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/publications/guides-to/ (2019).Parker, A., Dosemagen, S., Molloy, J., Bowser, A. & Novak, A. Open hardware: an opportunity to build better science. Wilson Center https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/open-hardware-opportunity-build-better-science (2021).Palmer, M. S., Dewey, J. & Huebner, S. Snapshot Safari educational materials. Libraries Digital Conservancy https://hdl.handle.net/11299/217102 (2020).Campbell, J., Bowser, A., Fraisl, D. & Meloche, M. in Data for Good Exchange (IIASA, 2019).Fraisl, D. et al. Demonstrating the potential of Picture Pile as a citizen science tool for SDG monitoring. Environ. Sci. Policy 128, 81–93 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Humm, C. & Schrögel, P. Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clary, E. G. & Snyder, M. The motivations to volunteer: theoretical and practical considerations. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 156–159 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Hobbs, S. J. & White, P. C. L. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 364–373 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lukyanenko, R., Wiggins, A. & Rosser, H. K. Citizen science: an information quality research frontier. Inf. Syst. Front. 22, 961–983 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mair, L. & Ruete, A. Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa. PLoS ONE 11, e0147796 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Petrovan, S. O., Vale, C. G. & Sillero, N. Using citizen science in road surveys for large-scale amphibian monitoring: are biased data representative for species distribution? Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 1767–1781 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A. & Kaiser, E. W. Weekend bias in Citizen Science data reporting: implications for phenology studies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 715–720 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cretois, B. et al. Identifying and correcting spatial bias in opportunistic citizen science data for wild ungulates in Norway. Ecol. Evol. 11, 15191–15204 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Haklay, M. E. in European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information (eds Capineri, C. et al.) 35–44 (Ubiquity Press, 2016).Haklay, M. in Citizen Science (eds Haklay, M. et al.) 52–62 (UCL Press, 2018).Schade, S., Herding, W., Fellermann, A. & Kotsev, A. Joint statement on new opportunities for air quality sensing — lower-cost sensors for public authorities and citizen science initiatives. Res. Ideas Outcomes 5, e34059 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Moustard, F. et al. Using Sapelli in the field: methods and data for an inclusive citizen science. Front. Ecol. Evol https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.638870 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pettibone, L. et al. Transdisciplinary sustainability research and citizen science: options for mutual learning. GAIA — Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 27, 222–225 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Low, R., Schwerin, T. & Codsi, R. Citizen Science As A Tool For Transdisciplinary Research And Stakeholder Engagement (ESSOAr, 2020).Ottinger, G. in The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science (eds Tyfield, D., Lave, R., Randalls, S. & Thorpe, C.) 351–364 (Routledge, 2017).Rey-Mazón, P., Keysar, H., Dosemagen, S., D’Ignazio, C. & Blair, D. Public lab: community-based approaches to urban and environmental health and justice. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24, 971–997 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Brown, A., Franken, P., Bonner, S., Dolezal, N. & Moross, J. Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. J. Radiol. Prot. 36, S82–S101 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. Developing the global potential of citizen science: assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 274–281 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gollan, J., de Bruyn, L. L., Reid, N. & Wilkie, L. Can volunteers collect data that are comparable to professional scientists? A study of variables used in monitoring the outcomes of ecosystem rehabilitation. Environ. Manag. 50, 969–978 (2012).ADS 

Google Scholar 
van Noordwijk, T. C. G. E. et al. in The Science of Citizen Science (eds Vohland, K. et al.) 373–395 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).Auerbach, J. et al. The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15336–15337 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gold, M., Wehn, U., Bilbao, A. & Hager, G. EU Citizen observatories landscape report II: addressing the challenges of awareness, acceptability, and sustainability. EU https://zenodo.org/record/4472670 (2020).WeObserve Consortium. Roadmap for the uptake of the citizen observatories’ knowledge base. WeObserve Consortium https://zenodo.org/record/4646774 (2021).UNECE. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). UNECE https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf (1998).UNECE. Draft updated recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools. UNECE https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_MP.PP_2021_20_E.pdf (2021).UNECE. Draft updated recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools, Addendum. UNECE https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_MP.PP_2021_20_Add.1_E.pdf (2021).UNEP. Measuring progress: environment and the SDGs. UNEP http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/measuring-progress-environment-and-sdgs (2021).SDSN TReNDS. Strengthening measurement of marine litter in Ghana. How citizen science is helping to measure progress on SDG 14.1.1b. SDSN TReNDS https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2622af0a0c7d4c709c3d09f4cc249f7d (2021).Goudeseune, L. et al. Citizen science toolkit for biodiversity scientists. biodiversa https://zenodo.org/record/3979343 (2020).Veeckman, C., Talboom, S., Gijsel, L., Devoghel, H. & Duerinckx, A. Communication in citizen science. A practical guide to communication and engagement in citizen science. SCivil https://www.scivil.be/sites/default/files/paragraph/files/2020-01/Scivil%20Communication%20Guide.pdf (2019).Durham, E., Baker, S., Smith, M., Moore, E. & Morgan, V. BiodivERsA: stakeholder engagement handbook. biodiversa https://www.biodiversa.org/702 (2014).WeObserve Consortium. WeObserve Cookbook. WeObserve Consortium https://zenodo.org/record/5493543 (2021).Danielsen, F. et al. Testing focus groups as a tool for connecting Indigenous and local knowledge on abundance of natural resources with science-based land management systems. Conserv. Lett. 7, 380–389 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S. & Dietz, T. Values in environmental research: citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values. PLoS ONE 12, e0186049 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, Y. T. Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate. Public. Underst. Sci. 21, 101–125 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Danielsen, F. et al. in Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation (eds Lepczyk, C. A., Boyle, O. D., Vargo, T. L. V. & Noss, R. F.) 25–29 (Univ. California Press, 2020).Eicken, H. et al. Connecting top-down and bottom-up approaches in environmental observing. BioScience 71, 467–483 (2021). This article highlights the benefits of linking community- and science/policy-led approaches.
Google Scholar 
Slough, T. et al. Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015367118 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Wilderman, C. C., Barron, A. & Imgrund, L. Top down or bottom up? ALLARM’s experience with two operational models for community science. In 4th Natl Monitoring Conf. (National Water Quality Monitoring Council, 2004).Johnson, N. et al. Community-based monitoring and Indigenous knowledge in a changing Arctic: a review for the sustaining Arctic Observing Networks. Ocean Best Practices https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1314 (2016).Lau, J. D., Gurney, G. G. & Cinner, J. Environmental justice in coastal systems: perspectives from communities confronting change. Glob. Environ. Change 66, 102208 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Lyver, P. O. B. et al. An Indigenous community-based monitoring system for assessing forest health in New Zealand. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 3183–3212 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cuyler, C. et al. Using local ecological knowledge as evidence to guide management: a community-led harvest calculator for muskoxen in Greenland. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e159 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Fox, J. A. Social accountability: what does the evidence really say? World Dev. 72, 346–361 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wheeler, H. C. et al. The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People Nat. 2, 544–556 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Storey, R. G., Wright-Stow, A., Kin, E., Davies-Colley, R. J. & Stott, R. Volunteer stream monitoring: do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making? Ecol. Soc. 21, art32 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Brofeldt, S. et al. Community-based monitoring of tropical forest crimes and forest resources using information and communication technology — experiences from Prey Lang, Cambodia. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 3, 4 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Menton, M. & Le Billon, P. Environmental Defenders: Deadly Struggles For Life And Territory (Routledge, 2021).Eastman, L. B., Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Macaya-Caquilpán, V., Núñez, P. & Thiel, M. The potential for young citizen scientist projects: a case study of Chilean schoolchildren collecting data on marine litter. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 14, 569–579 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. & Thiel, M. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science project. Mar. Environ. Res. 87–88, 12–18 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Kruse, K., Kiessling, T., Knickmeier, K., Thiel, M. & Parchmann, I. in Engaging Learners with Chemistry (eds Ilka P., Shirley S. & Jan A.) 225–240 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020).Wichman, C. S. et al. Promoting pro-environmental behavior through citizen science? A case study with Chilean schoolchildren on marine plastic pollution. Mar. Policy 141, 105035 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Bravo, M. et al. Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1718–1726 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. et al. Spatio-temporal variation of anthropogenic marine debris on Chilean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 126, 516–524 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Honorato-Zimmer, D. et al. Mountain streams flushing litter to the sea — Andean rivers as conduits for plastic pollution. Environ. Pollut. 291, 118166 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Amenábar Cristi, M. et al. The rise and demise of plastic shopping bags in Chile — broad and informal coalition supporting ban as a first step to reduce single-use plastics. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 187, 105079 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kiessling, T. et al. Plastic Pirates sample litter at rivers in Germany — riverside litter and litter sources estimated by schoolchildren. Environ. Pollut. 245, 545–557 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kiessling, T. et al. Schoolchildren discover hotspots of floating plastic litter in rivers using a large-scale collaborative approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 789, 147849 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar  More

Trivers, R. L. Parental investment and sexual selection. in Sexual selection and the descent of man 136–179 (Aldine, 1972).Evans, R. M. The relationship between parental input and investment. Anim. Behav. 39, 797–798 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H. The Evolution of Parental Care (Princeton University Press, 1991).Book 

Google Scholar 
Willson, M. F. & Pianka, E. R. Sexual selection, sex ratio and mating system. Am. Nat. 97, 405–407 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trivers, R. L. & Willard, D. E. Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science 179, 90–92 (1973).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Major, M., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Early development and population dynamics in red deer. I. Density-dependent effects on juvenile survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 53–67 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruuk, L. E. B., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Rose, K. E. & Guinness, F. E. Early determinants of lifetime reproductive success differ between the sexes in red deer. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 266, 1655–1661 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Reproductive success in male and female red deer. in Reproductive success 325–343 (University of Chicago Press, 1988).Pérez-Barbería, F. J. & Yearsley, J. M. Sexual selection for fighting skills as a driver of sexual segregation in polygynous ungulates: an evolutionary model. Anim. Behav. 80, 745–755 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Barbería, F. J. et al. Heat stress reduces growth rate of red deer calf: Climate warming implications. PLoS ONE 15, e0233809 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nussey, D. H. et al. Inter- and intrasexual variation in aging patterns across reproductive traits in a wild red deer population. Am. Nat. 174, 342–357 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Geist, V. Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior & Ecology (Stackpole Books, 1998).
Google Scholar 
Ricklefs, R. E. Evolutionary theories of aging: Confirmation of a fundamental prediction, with implications for the genetic basis and evolution of life span. Am. Nat. 152, 24–44 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, O. R. et al. Senescence rates are determined by ranking on the fast-slow life-history continuum. Ecol. Lett. 11, 664–673 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oftedal, O. T. Pregnancy and lactation. in Bioenergetics of wild herbivores 215–238 (CRC-Press, 1985).Linn, J. G. Factors Affecting the Composition of Milk from Dairy Cows. in Designing Foods: Animal Product Options in the Marketplace (National Academies Press (US), 1988).Hinde, K., Power, M. L. & Oftedal, O. T. Rhesus macaque milk: magnitude, sources, and consequences of individual variation over lactation. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 138, 148–157 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gomendio, M., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Guinness, F. E. & Simpson, M. J. Mammalian sex ratios and variation in costs of rearing sons and daughters. Nature 343, 261–263 (1990).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berube, C. H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Jorgenson, J. T. Reproductive costs of sons and daughters in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Behav. Ecol. 7, 60–68 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T., García, A., López-Serrano, F. R. & Gallego, L. Maternal quality and differences in milk production and composition for male and female Iberian red deer calves (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 267–274 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K. First-time macaque mothers bias milk composition in favor of sons. Curr. Biol. 17, R958–R959 (2007).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K. Richer milk for sons but more milk for daughters: Sex-biased investment during lactation varies with maternal life history in rhesus macaques. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 21, 512–519 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Powe, C. E., Knott, C. D. & Conklin-Brittain, N. Infant sex predicts breast milk energy content. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 22, 50–54 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fujita, M. et al. In poor families, mothers’ milk is richer for daughters than sons: A test of Trivers-Willard hypothesis in agropastoral settlements in Northern Kenya. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 149, 52–59 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Robert, K. A. & Braun, S. Milk composition during lactation suggests a mechanism for male biased allocation of maternal resources in the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii). PLoS ONE 7, e51099 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oftedal, O. T. Pregnancy and lactation. Bioenerg. Wild Herbiv. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351070218-10 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, G. & Stewart, J. The effects of some nutritional and non-nutritional factors on milk protein concentration and yield [dairy cattle]. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 26–32 (1982).Lubritz, D. L., Forrest, K. & Robison, O. W. Age of cow and age of dam effects on milk production of hereford cows. J. Anim. Sci. 67, 2544–2549 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, M. S. & Shook, G. E. Effects of age on milk yield: Time trends and method of adjustment. J. Dairy Sci. 79, 1057–1064 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenness, R. Biochemical and nutritional aspects of milk and colostrum. in Lactation / edited by Bruce L. Larson ; written by Ralph R. Anderson … [et al.] 164–197 (Iowa State University, 1985).Ng-Kwai-Hang, K. F., Hayes, J. F., Moxley, J. E. & Monardes, H. G. Environmental influences on protein content and composition of bovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 65, 1993–1998 (1982).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kroeker, E. M., Ng-Kwai-Hang, K. F., Hayes, J. F. & Moxley, J. E. Effect of β-lactoglobulin variant and environmental factors on variation in the detailed composition of bovine milk serum proteins. J. Dairy Sci. 68, 1637–1641 (1985).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Barbería, F. J. et al. Water sprinkling as a tool for heat abatement in farmed Iberian red deer: Effects on calf growth and behaviour. PLoS ONE 16, e0249540 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abecia, J. A. & Palacios, C. Ewes giving birth to female lambs produce more milk than ewes giving birth to male lambs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 17, 736–739 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinde, K., Carpenter, A. J., Clay, J. S. & Bradford, B. J. Holsteins favor heifers, not bulls: Biased milk production programmed during pregnancy as a function of fetal sex. PLoS ONE 9, e86169 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thakkar, S. K. et al. Dynamics of human milk nutrient composition of women from Singapore with a special focus on lipids. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 25, 770–779 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinn, E. A. No evidence for sex biases in milk macronutrients, energy, or breastfeeding frequency in a sample of Filipino mothers. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 152, 209–216 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ono, K. A. & Boness, D. J. Sexual dimorphism in sea lion pups: Differential maternal investment, or sex-specific differences in energy allocation?. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 31–41 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Skibiel, A. L., Downing, L. M., Orr, T. J. & Hood, W. R. The evolution of the nutrient composition of mammalian milks. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1254–1264 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitoulas, L. R. et al. Variation in fat, lactose and protein in human milk over 24h and throughout the first year of lactation. Br. J. Nutr. 88, 29–37 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, T. C. & McGuire, M. A. Major advances in nutrition: Impact on milk composition. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 1302–1310 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hobbs, N. T., Baker, D. L., Bear, G. D. & Bowden, D. C. Ungulate grazing in sagebrush grassland: Effects of resource competition on secondary production. Ecol. Appl. 6, 218–227 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robbins, A. M., Robbins, M. M., Gerald-Steklis, N. & Steklis, H. D. Age-related patterns of reproductive success among female mountain gorillas. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131, 511–521 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunderland, N., Heffernan, S., Thomson, S. & Hennessy, A. Maternal parity affects neonatal survival rate in a colony of captive bred baboons (Papio hamadryas). J. Med. Primatol. 37, 223–228 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T. et al. Age-related body weight constraints on prenatal and milk provisioning in Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) affect allocation of maternal resources. Theriogenology 71, 400–407 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bercovitch, F. B., Widdig, A. & Nürnberg, P. Maternal investment in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): Reproductive costs and consequences of raising sons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 1–11 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Quintanilla, M. Comportamiento Social y Maternofilial del Ciervo en Cautividad (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2022).
Google Scholar 
Adam, C. L., Kyle, C. E. & Young, P. Growth and reproductive development of red deer calves (Cervus elaphus) born out-of-season. Anim. Sci. 55, 265–270 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T., Garcia, A. & Gallego, L. Calf growth in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): Effects of birth date and hind milk production and composition. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 1085–1092 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D. & Guinness, F. E. Great expectations – dominance, breeding success and offspring sex-ratios in red deer. Anim. Behav. 34, 460–471 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moyes, K. et al. Advancing breeding phenology in response to environmental change in a wild red deer population. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2455–2469 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Youngner, V. B. & McKell, C. M. The Biology and Utilization of Grasses (Academic Press, 1972).
Google Scholar 
Pinares-Patiño, C. S. Methane emission from forage-fed sheep, a study of variation between animals. PhD thesis. Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand. (Massey University, 2000).van Tassell, C. P., Wiggans, G. R. & Norman, H. D. Method R estimates of heritability for milk, fat, and protein yields of United States dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 82, 2231–2237 (1999).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Landete-Castillejos, T. et al. Milk production and composition in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): Effect of birth date. J. Anim. Sci. 78, 2771–2777 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perrin, D. R. 709. The calorific value of milk of different species. J. Dairy Res. 25, 215–220 (1958).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73, 3–36 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, v. 3.4.1. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–131. Retrieved on 229 July 2017 from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. (2017).Wickham, H. Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2009).MATH 

Google Scholar  More

IPCC (ed.). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2021).Lionello, P. & Scarascia, L. The relation between climate change in the Mediterranean region and global warming. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 1481–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1290-1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuel, A. & Eltahir, E. A. B. Why is the Mediterranean a climate change hot spot?. J. Clim. 33, 5829–5843. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0910.1 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T., Oppenheimer, P., Etard, A. & Williams, J. J. Tropical and Mediterranean biodiversity is disproportionately sensitive to land-use and climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1630–1638. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01303-0 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ruffault, J. et al. Increased likelihood of heat-induced large wildfires in the Mediterranean Basin. Sci. Rep. 10, 13790. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70069-z (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tramblay, Y. et al. Challenges for drought assessment in the Mediterranean region under future climate scenarios. Earth Sci. Rev. 210, 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103348 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nistor, M.-M. & Mîndrescu, M. Climate change effect on groundwater resources in Emilia-Romagna region: an improved assessment through NISTOR-CEGW method. Quatern. Int. 504, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.018 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paoletti, E. Impact of ozone on Mediterranean forests: a review. Environ. Pollut. (Barking Essex: 1987) 144, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.12.051 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L., Fox, R., Salcido, D. M. & Dyer, L. A. A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002549117 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Outhwaite, C. L., McCann, P. & Newbold, T. Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature 605, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x (2022).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Uhler, J. et al. Relationship of insect biomass and richness with land use along a climate gradient. Nat. Commun. 12, 5946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26181-3 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Welti, E. A. R. et al. Temperature drives variation in flying insect biomass across a German malaise trap network. Insect Conserv. Divers. 15, 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12555 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoshika, Y. et al. Species-specific variation of photosynthesis and mesophyll conductance to ozone and drought in three Mediterranean oaks. Physiol. Plant. 174, e13639. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13639 (2022).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Haberstroh, S. et al. Terpenoid emissions of two Mediterranean woody species in response to drought stress. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1071. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01071 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toscano, S., Ferrante, A. & Romano, D. Response of Mediterranean ornamental plants to drought stress. Horticulturae 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae5010006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gely, C., Laurance, S. G. W. & Stork, N. E. How do herbivorous insects respond to drought stress in trees?. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 95, 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12571 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira, N. C., Valim, J. O. S., Oliveira, M. G. A. & Campos, W. G. Combined effects of soil silicon and drought stress on host plant chemical and ultrastructural quality for leaf-chewing and sap-sucking insects. J. Agro. Crop Sci. 206, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12386 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrando, S. et al. Contrasting impacts of precipitation on Mediterranean birds and butterflies. Sci. Rep. 9, 5680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42171-4 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Haeler, E., Fiedler, K. & Grill, A. What prolongs a butterfly’s life?: Trade-offs between dormancy, fecundity and body size. PLoS ONE 9, e111955. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111955 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yela, J. L. & Herrera, C. M. Seasonality and life cycles of woody plant-feeding noctuid moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Mediterranean habitats. Ecol. Entomol. 18, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1993.tb01099.x (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uhl, B., Wölfling, M. & Fiedler, K. Local, forest stand and landscape-scale correlates of plant communities in isolated coastal forest reserves. Plant Biosyst. 155, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2020.1762776 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andreatta, G. Proposal for the establishment of a “silvio-museum” in the Ravenna historical pinewoods. Forest@-J. Silvicult. For. Ecol. 7, 237–246 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wölfling, M., Uhl, B. & Fiedler, K. Multi-decadal surveys in a Mediterranean forest reserve: Do succession and isolation drive moth species richness?. Nat. Conserv. 35, 25–40. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.35.32934 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uhl, B., Wölfling, M. & Fiedler, K. Understanding small-scale insect diversity patterns inside two nature reserves: the role of local and landscape factors. Biodivers Conserv 29, 2399–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01981-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uhl, B., Wölfling, M., Fiala, B. & Fiedler, K. Micro-moth communities mirror environmental stress gradients within a Mediterranean nature reserve. Basic Appl. Ecol. 17, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.10.002 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Axmacher, J. C. & Fiedler, K. Manual versus automatic moth sampling at equal light sources: a comparison of catches from Mt. Kilimanjaro. J. Lepidopterists’ Soc. 58, 196–202 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Brehm, G. & Axmacher, J. C. A comparison of manual and automatic moth sampling methods (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae, Geometridae) in a rain forest in Costa Rica. Environ. Entomol. 35, 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.3.757 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Langevelde, F., Ettema, J. A., Donners, M., WallisDeVries, M. F. & Groenendijk, D. Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2274–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.004 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Niermann, J. & Brehm, G. The number of moths caught by light traps is affected more by microhabitat than the type of UV lamp used in grassland habitat. Eur. J. Entomol. 119, 36–42 ; https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2022.004 (2022).Potocky, P. et al. Life-history traits of Central European moths: gradients of variation and their association with rarity and threats. Insect Conserv. Divers. 11, 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12291 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R package version 2.5–7 https://www.r-project.org/ (2021).McLeod, A. I. Kendall: Kendall rank correlation and Mann-Kendall trend test https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Kendall (2011).Chao, A. et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0133.1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pike, N. Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00061.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–7. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html (2020).De Luca, P., Messori, G., Faranda, D., Ward, P. J. & Coumou, D. Compound warm–dry and cold–wet events over the Mediterranean. Earth System Dynamics 11(3), 793–805 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Manning, C. et al. Increased probability of compound long-duration dry and hot events in Europe during summer (1950–2013). Environ. Res. Lett. 14(9), 094006 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Macgregor, C. J. & Scott-Brown, A. S. Nocturnal pollination: an overlooked ecosystem service vulnerable to environmental change. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 4, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190134 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Seress, G. et al. Impact of urbanization on abundance and phenology of caterpillars and consequences for breeding in an insectivorous bird. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1143–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1730 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Radchuk, V., Turlure, C. & Schtickzelle, N. Each life stage matters: the importance of assessing the response to climate change over the complete life cycle in butterflies. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02029.x (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, K. F., Woiwod, I. P. & Perry, J. N. Long-term decline in abundance and distribution of the garden tiger moth (Arctia caja) in Great Britain. Biol. Conserv. 106, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00258-0 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mathbout, S., Lopez-Bustins, J. A., Royé, D., Martin-Vide, J. & Benhamrouche, A. Spatiotemporal variability of daily precipitation concentration and its relationship to teleconnection patterns over the Mediterranean during 1975–2015. Int. J. Climatol. 40, 1435–1455. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6278 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. et al. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: Consequences for conservation and monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12959 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. et al. Resource specialists lead local insect community turnover associated with temperature – analysis of an 18-year full-seasonal record of moths and beetles. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12452 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Forrest, J. R. Complex responses of insect phenology to climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 17, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2016.07.002 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Du Plessis, H., Schlemmer, M.-L. & van den Berg, J. The effect of temperature on the development of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040228 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jallow, M. F. A. & Matsumura, M. Influence of temperature on the rate of development of Helicoverpa armigera (Huebner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 36, 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.2001.427 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mironidis, G. K. & Savopoulou-Soultani, M. Development, survivorship, and reproduction of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under constant and alternating temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 37, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/37.1.16 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sokame, B. M. et al. Influence of temperature on the interaction for resource utilization between Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and a community of Lepidopteran maize stemborers larvae. Insects https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020073 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, F., Orizaola, G. & Nilsson-Örtman, V. Temperate insects with narrow seasonal activity periods can be as vulnerable to climate change as tropical insect species. Sci. Rep. 10, 8822. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65608-7 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
White, T. C. R. The abundance of invertebrate herbivores in relation to the availability of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia 63, 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379790 (1984).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Price, P. W. The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62, 244. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545270 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarfraz, R. M., Dosdall, L. M. & Keddie, A. B. Bottom-up effects of host plant nutritional quality on Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and top-down effects of herbivore attack on plant compensatory ability. Eur. J. Entomol. 106, 583–594. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2009.073 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

To derive the relationship among macro-level ecological variables, which would constitute an ecological analog of the thermodynamic equation of state, we introduce a fourth state variable, B, the total biomass in the community. The ecological analog of the thermodynamic equation of state, an expression for biomass, B, in terms of S, N, and E, arises if we combine METE with a scaling result from the metabolic theory of ecology (MTE)18,21. In particular, we assume the MTE scaling relationship between the metabolic rate, (varepsilon ,) of an individual organism and its mass, m: (varepsilon sim {m}^{3/4}). Without loss of generality22, units are normalized such that the smallest mass and the smallest metabolic rate within a censused plot are each assigned a value of 1. With this units convention, the proportionality constant in this scaling relationship can be assigned a value of 1. From the definition of the structure-function, it follows23 that averaging the biomass of individuals times the abundance of species, nε4/3, over the distribution R and multiplying by the number of species gives the total ecosystem biomass as a function of S, N, and E. Explicitly:$$B=Smathop{sum}limits_{n}nint dvarepsilon ,{varepsilon }^{4/3}R(n,varepsilon {{{{{rm{|}}}}}}S,N,E)$$
(1)
Both the sum and integral in the above equation can be calculated numerically, and Python code to do so for a given set of state variables S, N, and E, is available at github.com/micbru/equation of_ state/.We can also approximate the solution to Eq. 1 analytically (Supplementary Note 2) to reveal the predicted functional relationship among the four state variables. If E > > N > > S > > 1:$$B=cfrac{{E}^{4/3}}{{S}^{1/3}{{{{{rm{ln}}}}}}(1/beta )}$$
(2)
where (capprox (7/2)Gamma (7/3)) ≈ 4.17 and (beta) = ({lambda }_{1}+{lambda }_{2}) is estimated13,22 from the relationship (beta {{{{{rm{ln}}}}}}(1/beta )approx S/N). Equation 2 approximates the numerical result to within 10% for 5 of the 42 datasets analyzed here, corresponding to N/S greater than ~100 and E/N greater than ~25. Multiplying the right-hand side of Eq. 2 by (1-1.16{beta }^{1/3}) approximates the numerical result to within 10% for 33 of the 42 datasets analyzed here, corresponding to N/S greater than ~3 and E/N greater than ~5. The inequality requirements are not necessary for the numerical solution of Eq. 1, which is what is used below to test the prediction.Empirical values of E and B can be estimated from the same data. In particular, if measured metabolic rates of the individuals are denoted by ({varepsilon }_{i},) where i runs from 1 to N, then E is given by the sum over the ({varepsilon }_{i}) and B is given by the sum over the ({{varepsilon }_{i}}^{4/3}.) Similarly, if the mass, mi, of each individual is measured, then B is the sum over the mi and E is the sum over the mi3/4. In practice, for animal data, metabolic rate is often estimated by measuring mass and then using metabolic scaling, while for tree data, metabolic rate is estimated from measurements of individual tree basal areas, which are estimators5 of the ({varepsilon }_{i}).With E and B estimated from the same measurements, the question naturally arises as to whether a simple mathematical relationship holds between them, such as E = B3/4. If all the measured m’s, are identical, then all the calculated individual (varepsilon {{hbox{‘}}}s) are identical, and with our units convention we would have E = B. More generally, with variation in masses and metabolic rates, the only purely mathematical relationship we can write is inequality between E and B3/4: (E=sum {varepsilon }_{i}ge (sum {{{varepsilon }_{i}}^{4/3}})^{3/4}={B}^{3/4}). Our derived equation of state (Eq. 2) can be interpreted as expressing the theoretical prediction for the quantitative degree of inequality between E and B3/4 as a function of S and N.A test of Eq. 1 that compares observed and predicted values of biomass with data from 42 censused plots across a variety of habitats, spatial scales, and taxa is shown in Fig. 1. The 42 plots are listed and described in Table S2 and Supplementary Note 3. The communities censused include arthropods and plants, the habitats include both temperate and tropical, and the census plots range in area from 0.0064 to 50 ha. As seen in the figure, 99.4% of the variance in the observed values of B is explained by the predicted values of B.Fig. 1: A test of the ecological equation of state.Observed biomass is determined by either summing empirical masses of individuals or summing empirical metabolic rates raised to the ¾ power of each individual. Predicted biomass is determined from Eq. 1 using observed values of S, N, and E. The quantity ln(predicted biomass) explains 99.4% of the variance in observed biomass. Units of mass and metabolism are chosen such that the masses of the smallest individuals in each dataset are set to 1 and those individuals are also assigned a metabolic rate of 1. The shape of the marker indicates the type of data, and the lighter color corresponds to higher species richness. Data for all analyses come from tropical trees39,40,41,42,43,44,45, temperate trees30,31,32,33,46,47,48, temperate forest communities27,49, subalpine meadow flora28, and tropical island arthropods50.Full size imageFigure 2 addresses the possible concern that the success of Eq. 1 shown in Fig. 1 might simply reflect an approximate constancy, across all the datasets, of the ratio of E to B3/4. If that ratio were constant, then S and N would play no effective role in the equation of state. Equation 1 predicts that variation in the ratio depends on S and N in the approximate combination S1/4ln3/4(1/(beta (N/S))). In Fig. 2, the observed and predicted values of E/B3/4 calculated from Eq. 1, are compared, showing a nearly fourfold variation in that ratio across the datasets. The equation of state predicts 60% of the variance in the ratio.Fig. 2: The explanatory power of diversity and abundance.The observed ratio E/B3/4 is plotted against the ratio predicted by Eq. 1. Of the fourfold variability across ecosystems in that ratio, 60% is explained by the variability in the predicted combination of diversity and abundance. The shape of the marker indicates the type of data, and the lighter color corresponds to higher species richness. Data for all analyses come from tropical trees39,40,41,42,43,44,45, temperate trees30,31,32,33,46,47,48, temperate forest communities27,49, subalpine meadow flora28, and tropical island arthropods50.Full size imageFigure 3 shows the dependence on S and N of the predicted ratio E/B3/4 over empirically observed values of S, N, and E. We examined the case in which S is varied for two different fixed values of each of N and E (Fig. 3a) and N is varied for two different fixed values of S and E (Fig. 3b). The value of E does not have a large impact on the predicted ratio, particularly when E > > N. On the other hand, the predicted ratio depends more strongly on N and S.Fig. 3: The theoretical prediction for the ratio E/B3/4 as a function of S and N.The biomass B is predicted by holding E fixed along with one other state variable. In a N is fixed and S is varied, and in b S is fixed and N is varied. The fixed values are chosen to be roughly consistent within a range of the data considered. The color of the lines represents the corresponding fixed value of N or S, while the solid and dashed lines represent different fixed values of E.Full size imageThe total productivity of an ecological community is a focus of interest in ecology1, as a possible predictor of species diversity24 and more generally as a measure of ecosystem functioning25. By combining the METE and MTE frameworks, we can now generate explicit predictions for certain debated ecological relationships, including one between productivity and diversity. Interpreting total metabolic rate E in our theory as gross productivity, then in the limit 1 More

Beer, C. et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Luyssaert, S. et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2509–2537 (2007).ADS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Quesada, C. A. et al. Variations in chemical and physical properties of Amazon forest soils in relation to their genesis. Biogeosciences 7, 1515–1541 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, W. L. et al. Variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rates coupled with tropical temperature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13061–13066 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, D. A. et al. Reviews and syntheses: Field data to benchmark the carbon cycle models for tropical forests. Biogeosciences 14, 4663–4690 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huntingford, C. et al. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO2-induced climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268–273 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleischer, K. et al. Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition. Nat. Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reed, S. C. et al. Incorporating phosphorus cycling into global modeling efforts: a worthwhile, tractable endeavor. N. Phytologist 208, 324–329 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. & Howarth, R. W. Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea – how can it occur? Biogeochemistry 13, 87–115 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kattge, J. et al. Quantifying photosynthetic capacity and its relationship to leaf nitrogen content for global-scale terrestrial biosphere models. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 976–991 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. The use and misuse of Vc,max in Earth System Models. Photosynthesis Res. 119, 15–29 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Field, C. B. & Mooney, H. A. in On the economy of plant form and function. (ed T. J. Givnish) 25-55. (Cambridge University Press, 1986).Cramer, W. et al. Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Change Biol. 7, 357–373 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goll, D. S. et al. Nutrient limitation reduces land carbon uptake in simulations with a model of combined carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. Biogeosciences 9, 3547–3569 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raven, J. A. Rubisco: still the most abundant protein of Earth? N. Phytologist 198, 1–3 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, J. R. Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia 78, 9–19 (1989).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thornton, P. E. et al. Influence of carbon-nitrogen cycle coupling on land model response to CO2 fertilization and climate variability. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB4018 (2007).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Leaf phosphorus influences the photosynthesis-nitrogen relation: a cross-biome analysis of 314 species. Oecologia 160, 207–212 (2009).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Achat, D. L. et al. Future challenges in coupled C-N-P cycle models for terrestrial ecosystems under global change: a review. Biogeochemistry 131, 173–202 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 17, 4173–4222 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. et al. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen-phosphorus interactions. Ecol. Appl. 20, 5–15 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Du, E. et al. Global patterns of terrestrial nitrogen and phosphorus limitation. Nat. Geosci. 13, 221–226 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carstensen, A. et al. The impacts of phosphorus deficiency on the photosynthetic electron transport chain. Plant Physiol. 177, 271–284 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellsworth, D. S. et al. Phosphorus recycling in photorespiration maintains high photosynthetic capacity in woody species. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 1142–1156 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
von Caemmerer, S. Biochemical Models of Leaf Photosynthesis. (CSIRO Publishing, 2000).Brooks, A. et al. Effects of phosphorus nutrition on the response of photosynthesis to CO2 and O2, activation of ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase and amounts of ribulose bisphosphate and 3-phosphoglycerate in spinach leaves. Photosynthesis Res. 15, 133–141 (1988).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, J. L. et al. Coordination theory of leaf nitrogen distribution in a canopy. Oecologia 93, 63–69 (1993).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, T. F. et al. Co-limitation of photosynthetic capacity by nitrogen and phosphorus in West Africa woodlands. Plant Cell Environ. 33, 959–980 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Farquhar, G. D. et al. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soong, J. L. et al. Soil properties explain tree growth and mortality, but not biomass, across phosphorus-depleted tropical forests. Sci. Rep. 10, 2302 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Norby, R. J. et al. Informing models through empirical relationships between foliar phosphorus, nitrogen and photosynthesis across diverse woody species in tropical forests of Panama. N. Phytologist 215, 1425–1437 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crous, K. Y. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus availabilities interact to modulate leaf trait scaling relationships across six plant functional types in a controlled-environment study. N. Phytologist 215, 992–1008 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, T. F. et al. Parameterization of canopy structure and leaf-level gas exchange for an eastern Amazonian tropical rain forest (Tapajos National Forest, Para, Brazil). Earth Interactions 9, 17 (2005).Augusto, L. et al. Soil parent material-A major driver of plant nutrient limitations in terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3808–3824 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lambers, H. et al. Plant mineral nutrition in ancient landscapes: high plant species diversity on infertile soils is linked to functional diversity for nutritional strategies. Plant Soil 347, 7–27 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yan, L. et al. Responses of foliar phosphorus fractions to soil age are diverse along a 2 Myr dune chronosequence. N. Phytologist 223, 1621–1633 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X. & Post, W. M. Phosphorus transformations as a function of pedogenesis: A synthesis of soil phosphorus data using Hedley fractionation method. Biogeosciences 8, 2907–2916 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duursma, R. A. Plantecophys – An R package for analysing and modelling leaf gas exchange data. Plos One 10, e0143346 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goll, D. S. et al. A representation of the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE. Geoscientific Model Dev. 10, 3745–3770 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. The impact of alternative trait-scaling hypotheses for the maximum photosynthetic carboxylation rate (V-cmax) on global gross primary production. N. Phytologist 215, 1370–1386 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hou, E. et al. Global meta-analysis shows pervasive phosphorus limitation of aboveground plant production in natural terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 11, 637–645 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Neter, J. et al. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th ed., (McGraw-Hill, 1996).Tagesson, T. et al. Recent divergence in the contributions of tropical and boreal forests to the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat. Ecol. Evolution 4, 202–209 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, B. L. et al. Pervasive phosphorus limitation of tree species but not communities in tropical forests. Nature 490, 123–456 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Thornton, P. E. et al. Biospheric feedback effects in a synchronously coupled model of human and Earth systems. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 496-+ (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wieder, W. R. et al. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat. Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, A. P. et al. The relationship of leaf photosynthetic traits – Vcmax and Jmax – to leaf nitrogen, leaf phosphorus, and specific leaf area: a meta-analysis and modeling study. Ecol. Evolution 4, 3218–3235 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lambers, H. et al. Proteaceae from severely phosphorus-impoverished soils extensively replace phospholipids with galactolipids and sulfolipids during leaf development to achieve a high photosynthetic phosphorus-use-efficiency. N. Phytologist 196, 1098–1108 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, M. K. et al. Towards a more physiological representation of vegetation phosphorus processes in land surface models. N. Phytologist 222, 1223–1229 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leuning, R. Scaling to a common temperature improves the correlation between the photosynthesis parameters Jmax and Vcmax. J. Exp. Bot. 48, 345–347 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonardi, V. et al. Photosystem II core phosphorylation and photosynthetic acclimation require two different protein kinases. Nature 437, 1179–1182 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seiler, C. et al. Are terrestrial biosphere models fit for simulating the global land carbon sink? J. Adv. Model Earth Syst. 14, e2021MS002946 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goll, D. S. et al. Low phosphorus availability decreases susceptibility of tropical primary productivity to droughts. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 8231–8240 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sitch, S. et al. Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Biogeosciences 12, 653–679 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. P. et al. A global model of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles for the terrestrial biosphere. Biogeosciences 7, 2261–2282 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, X. J. et al. Phosphorus feedbacks constraining tropical ecosystem responses to changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7205–7214 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Butler, E. E. et al. Mapping local and global variability in plant trait distributions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E10937–E10946 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellsworth, D. S. et al. Photosynthesis, carboxylation and leaf nitrogen responses of 16 species to elevated pCO2 across four free-air CO2 enrichment experiments in forest, grassland and desert. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 2121–2138 (2004).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bloomfield, K. J. et al. Contrasting photosynthetic characteristics of forest vs. savanna species (Far North Queensland, Australia). Biogeosciences 11, 7331–7347 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cernusak, L. A. et al. Photosynthetic physiology of eucalypts along a sub-continental rainfall gradient in northern Australia. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151, 1462–1470 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bahar, N. H. A. et al. Leaf-level photosynthetic capacity in lowland Amazonian and high-elevation Andean tropical moist forests of Peru. N. Phytologist 214, 1002–1018 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rowland, L. et al. After more than a decade of soil moisture deficit, tropical rainforest trees maintain photosynthetic capacity, despite increased leaf respiration. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4662–4672 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, T. F. et al. Seasonal patterns of leaf-level photosynthetic gas exchange in an eastern Amazonian rain forest. Plant Ecol. Diversity 7, 189–203 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kenzo, T. et al. Changes in photosynthesis and leaf characteristics with tree height in five dipterocarp species in a tropical rain forest. Tree Physiol. 26, 865–873 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van de Weg, M. J. et al. Photosynthetic parameters, dark respiration and leaf traits in the canopy of a Peruvian tropical montane cloud forest. Oecologia 168, 23–34 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kenzo, T. et al. Variations in leaf photosynthetic and morphological traits with tree height in various tree species in a Cambodian tropical dry evergreen forest. Jpn. Agriculture Res. Q. 46, 167–180 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingues, T. F. et al. Biome-specific effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on the photosynthetic characteristics of trees at a forest-savanna boundary in Cameroon. Oecologia 178, 659–672 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Verryckt, L. T. et al. Vertical profiles of leaf photosynthesis and leaf traits and soil nutrients in two tropical rainforests in French Guiana before and after a 3-year nitrogen and phosphorus addition experiment. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 5–18 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Santiago, L. S. & Mulkey, S. S. A test of gas exchange measurements on excised canopy branches of ten tropical tree species. Photosynthetica 41, 343–347 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Medlyn, B. E. et al. Linking leaf and tree water use with an individual-tree model. Tree Physiol. 27, 1687–1699 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 

Google Scholar 
Townsend, A. R. et al. Controls over foliar N:P ratios in tropical rain forests. Ecology 88, 107–118 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Leaf structure (specific leaf area) modulates photosynthesis- nitrogen relations: evidence from within and across species and functional groups. Funct. Ecol. 12, 948–958 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. et al. Improving representation of photosynthesis in Earth System Models. N. Phytologist 204, 12–14 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumarathunge, D. P. et al. Acclimation and adaptation components of the temperature dependence of plant photosynthesis at the global scale. N. Phytologist 222, 768–784 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warton, D. I. et al. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81, 259–291 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB1015 (2005).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koerselman, W. & Meuleman, A. F. M. The vegetation N: P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 1441–1450 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, H. Q. et al. Global soil nitrous oxide emissions since the preindustrial era estimated by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models: Magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 640–659 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More