Philippa Kaur

Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malezieux, E., Seufert, V. & Makowski, D. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4697–4710 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ditzler, L. et al. Current research on the ecosystem service potential of legume inclusive cropping systems in Europe. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 26 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snapp, S. S., Blackie, M. J., Gilbert, R. A., Bezner-Kerr, R. & Kanyama-Phiri, G. Y. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20840–20845 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez, C., Mårtensson, L.-M. D., Jensen, E. S. & Carlsson, G. Combining crop diversification practices can benefit cereal production in temperate climates. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 48 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Z. H. et al. in Crop Rotations: Farming Practices, Monitoring and Environmental Benefits (ed. Ma, B. L.) Ch. 1, 51–70 (Nova Science Publishers, 2016).Cusworth, G., Garnett, T. & Lorimer, J. Legume dreams: the contested futures of sustainable plant-based food systems in Europe. Glob. Environ. Change 69, 102321 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reckling, M. et al. Grain legume yields are as stable as other spring crops in long-term experiments across northern Europe. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 63 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Snapp, S. S., Cox, C. M. & Peter, B. G. Multipurpose legumes for smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa: identification of promising ‘scale out’ options. Glob. Food Secur-Agr. 23, 22–32 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hegewald, H., Wensch-Dorendorf, M., Sieling, K. & Christen, O. Impacts of break crops and crop rotations on oilseed rape productivity: a review. Eur. J. Agron. 101, 63–77 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angus, J. F. et al. Break crops and rotations for wheat. Crop . Sci. 66, 523–552 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Franke, A. C., van den Brand, G. J., Vanlauwe, B. & Giller, K. E. Sustainable intensification through rotations with grain legumes in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 261, 172–185 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Preissel, S., Reckling, M., Schlaefke, N. & Zander, P. Magnitude and farm-economic value of grain legume pre-crop benefits in Europe: a review. Field Crops Res. 175, 64–79 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Does crop rotation yield more in China? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 245, 107659 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamburini, G. et al. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cernay, C., Makowski, D. & Pelzer, E. Preceding cultivation of grain legumes increases cereal yields under low nitrogen input conditions. Environ. Chem. Lett. 16, 631–636 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peoples, M. B. et al. The contributions of nitrogen-fixing crop legumes to the productivity of agricultural systems. Symbiosis 48, 1–17 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Watson, C. A. et al. Grain legume production and use in European agricultural systems. Adv. Agron. 144, 235–303 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, A. J., Bending, G. D., Chandler, D., Hilton, S. & Mills, P. Meeting the demand for crop production:The challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biol. Rev. 87, 52–71 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262–265 (1998).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, C. J. & Chalk, P. M. Grain legumes in crop rotations under low and variable rainfall: are observed short-term N benefits sustainable? Plant Soil 453, 271–279 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pullens, J. W. M., Sorensen, P., Melander, B. & Olesen, J. E. Legacy effects of soil fertility management on cereal dry matter and nitrogen grain yield of organic arable cropping systems. Eur. J. Agron. 122, 126169 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tognetti, P. M. et al. Negative effects of nitrogen override positive effects of phosphorus on grassland legumes worldwide. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, 28 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirkegaard, J., Christen, O., Krupinsky, J. & Layzell, D. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crops Res. 107, 185–195 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brisson, N. et al. Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. Field Crops Res. 119, 201–212 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. L. Synergism: a rotation effect of improved growth efficiency. Adv. Agron. 112, 205–226 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonilla-Cedrez, C., Chamberlin, J. & Hijmans, R. Fertilizer and grain prices constrain food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Food 2, 766–772 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485, 229–232 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbieri, P., Pellerin, S., Seufert, V. & Nesme, T. Changes in crop rotations would impact food production in an organically farmed world. Nat. Sustain. 2, 378–385 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbieri, P. et al. Global option space for organic agriculture is delimited by nitrogen availability. Nat. Food 2, 363–372 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, A. et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8, 1290 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nowak, B., Nesme, T., David, C. & Pellerin, S. Disentangling the drivers of fertilising material inflows in organic farming. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 96, 79–91 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bender, S. F., Wagg, C. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 440–452 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mariotte, P. et al. Plant-soil feedback: Bridging natural and agricultural sciences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 129–142 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Everwand, G., Cass, S., Dauber, J., Williams, M. & Stout, J. Legume crops and biodiversity. Legumes in Cropping Systems, 4, 55–69 (2017).Peoples, M. B., Giller, K. E., Jensen, E. S. & Herridge, D. F. Quantifying country-to-global scale nitrogen fixation for grain legumes: I. Reliance on nitrogen fixation of soybean, groundnut and pulses. Plant Soil 469, 1–14 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Abalos, D., van Groenigen, J. W., Philippot, L., Lubbers, I. M. & De Deyn, G. B. Plant trait-based approaches to improve nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2454–2466 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garland, G. et al. Crop cover is more important than rotational diversity for soil multifunctionality and cereal yields in European cropping systems. Nat. Food 2, 28–37 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pandey, A., Li, F., Askegaard, M., Rasmussen, I. A. & Olesen, J. E. Nitrogen balances in organic and conventional arable crop rotations and their relations to nitrogen yield and nitrate leaching losses. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 265, 350–362 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, R. J. Toward cropping systems that enhance productivity and sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 18389–18394 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gan, Y. T. et al. Improving farming practices reduces the carbon footprint of spring wheat production. Nat. Commun. 5, 13 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hufnagel, J., Reckling, M. & Ewert, F. Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 14 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, B. L. & Wu, W. in Crop Rotations: Farming Practices, Monitoring and Environmental Benefits (ed Ma B. L.) Ch. 1, 1–35 (Nova Science Publishers, 2016).Seymour, M., Kirkegaard, J. A., Peoples, M. B., White, P. F. & French, R. J. Break-crop benefits to wheat in Western Australia – insights from over three decades of research. Crop. Sci. 63, 1–16 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C. & Place, F. Meta-analysis of maize yield response to woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Soil 307, 1–19 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bullock, D. G. Crop rotation. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 11, 309–326 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Danga, B. O., Ouma, J. P., Wakindiki, I. I. C. & Bar-Tal, A. Legume-wheat ration effects on residual soil moisture, nitrogen and wheat yield in tropical regions. Adv. Agron. 101, 315–349 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghosh, P. K. et al. Legume effect for enhancing productivity and nutrient use-efficiency in major cropping systems – An Indian perspective: a review. J. Sustain. Agric. 30, 59–86 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karlen, D. L., Varvel, G. E., Bullock, D. G. & Cruse, R. M. Crop rotation for the 21st century. Adv. Agron. 53, 1–45 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, G. et al. Role of ley pastures in tomorrow’s cropping systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruisi, P. et al. Agro-ecological benefits of faba bean for rainfed Mediterranean cropping systems. Ital. J. Agron. 12, 233–245 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ryan, J., Singh, M. & Pala, M. Long-term cereal-based rotation trials in the Mediterranean region: Implications for cropping sustainability. Adv. Agron. 97, 273–319 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Grp, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 1006–1012 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pittelkow, C. M. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
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 
Wieder, W. R., Boehnert, J., Bonan, G. B. & Langseth, M. Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database v1.2. ORNL DAAC. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247 (2014).Soil Survey Staff. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. (1999).FAO. World Programme of the Census of Agriculture 2020. Vol. 1 (2015).Tiemann, L. K., Grandy, A. S., Atkinson, E. E., Marin-Spiotta, E. & McDaniel, M. D. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18, 761–771 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. et al. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300–1302 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yates, F. The analysis of experiments containing different crop rotations. Biometrics 10, 324–346 (1954).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Dataset for evaluating global yield advantage and its drivers of legume-based rotations. Figshare, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20290923 (2022).Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, D. C., Gurevitch, J. & Rosenberg, M. S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78, 1277–1283 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Lissa, C. MetaForest: Exploring Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis Using Random Forests. (2017).Terrer, C. et al. A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature 591, 599–CO603 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1–26 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg, M. S. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59, 464–468 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing v.4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2021). More

Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, S. C., Wigley, T. M. L., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Rahbek, C. & Fordham, D. A. Persistent Quaternary climate refugia are hospices for biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 244–248 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Hara, C. C., Frazier, M. & Halpern, B. S. At-risk marine biodiversity faces extensive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts. Science 372, 84–87 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Free, C. M. et al. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363, 979–983 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Costello, C. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588, 95–100 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K., Bryndum-Buchholz, A. & Boyce, D. G. in The Impacts of Climate Change: Comprehensive Study of the Physical, Societal and Political Issues (ed. Letcher, T.) 205–231 (Elsevier, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822373-4.00017-3Boyce, D. G., Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Carozza, D. A. & Worm, B. Future ocean biomass losses may widen socioeconomic equity gaps. Nat. Commun. 11, 2235 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, 2235 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, K. L., Tittensor, D. P., Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. Incorporating climate change adaptation into marine protected area planning. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3251–3267 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barange, M. et al. (eds) Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627 (FAO, 2018).Hare, J. A. et al. A vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to climate change on the northeast U.S. continental shelf. PLoS ONE 11, 1–654 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyce, D. G., Fuller, S., Karbowski, C., Schleit, K. & Worm, B. Leading or lagging: how well are climate change considerations being incorporated into Canadian fisheries management? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 78, 1120–1129 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).Pacifici, M. et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 215–225 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
de los Ríos, C., Watson, J. E. M. & Butt, N. Persistence of methodological, taxonomical, and geographical bias in assessments of species’ vulnerability to climate change: a review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 15, e00412 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foden, W. B. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e551 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Comte, L. & Olden, J. D. Climatic vulnerability of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 718–722 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Albouy, C. et al. Global vulnerability of marine mammals to global warming. 1–12 (2020).Foden, W. B. et al. Identifying the world’s most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE 8, e65427 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kesner-Reyes, K. et al. AquaMaps: algorithm and data sources for aquatic organisms. In FishBase v.04/2012 (eds. Froese, R. & Pauly, D.) www.fishbase.org (2016).Stuart-Smith, R. D., Edgar, G. J., Barrett, N. S., Kininmonth, S. J. & Bates, A. E. Thermal biases and vulnerability to warming in the world’s marine fauna. Nature 528, 88–92 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trisos, C. H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A. L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580, 496–501 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheung, W. W. L., Watson, R., Morato, T., Pitcher, T. J. & Pauly, D. Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 333, 1–12 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).IPCC Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds McCarthy, J. J. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v.2021-1 (IUCN, 2021); https://www.iucnredlist.orgTittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. et al. Critical Habitats and Biodiversity: Inventory, Thresholds and Governance. Sci. Rep. 10, 548 (World Resources Institute, 2020).Sala, E. et al. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592, 397–402 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6, 7615 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pontavice, H., Gascuel, D., Reygondeau, G., Stock, C. & Cheung, W. W. L. Climate‐induced decrease in biomass flow in marine food webs may severely affect predators and ecosystem production. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2608–2622 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A., Heithaus, M., McCauley, D. J., Rasher, D. B. & Worm, B. Megafaunal impacts on structure and function of ocean ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 41, 83–116 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moilanen, A., Kujala, H. & Mikkonen, N. A practical method for evaluating spatial biodiversity offset scenarios based on spatial conservation prioritization outputs. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 794–803 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P. R. Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 19374–19379 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, P. H., Gaston, K. J. & Humphries, C. J. Mapping biodiversity value worldwide: combining higher-taxon richness from different groups. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 141–148 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanchard, J. L. et al. Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1240–1249 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robiou Du Pont, Y. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Payne, N. L. et al. Fish heating tolerance scales similarly across individual physiology and populations. Commun. Biol. 4, 264 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Keppel, G. et al. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 393–404 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bryndum‐Buchholz, A., Tittensor, D. P. & Lotze, H. K. The status of climate change adaptation in fisheries management: policy, legislation and implementation. Fish Fish. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12586 (2021).Maureaud, A. et al. Are we ready to track climate‐driven shifts in marine species across international boundaries? A global survey of scientific bottom trawl data. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 220–236 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boyce, D. G. et al. Operationalizing climate risk for fisheries in a global warming hotspot. Preprint at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.19.500650 (2022).Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Olden, J. D., Hogan, Z. S. & Vander Zanden, M. J. Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased extinction risk of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 694–701 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M. Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1132-4 (2019).Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laidre, K. L. et al. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecol. Appl. 18, S97–S125 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosset, V. & Oertli, B. Freshwater biodiversity under climate warming pressure: identifying the winners and losers in temperate standing waterbodies. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2311–2319 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, R. L. The greenhouse effect and nature reserves. Biosciences 35, 707–717 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, R. A. et al. Matching species traits to projected threats and opportunities from climate change. J. Biogeogr. 41, 724–735 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (IUCN, 2012).Worm, B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B., Lotze, H. K., Hillebrand, H. & Sommer, U. Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417, 848–851 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. & Duffy, J. E. Biodiversity, productivity, and stability in real food webs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 628–632 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ottersen, G., Hjermann, D. O. & Stenseth, N. C. Changes in spawning stock structure strengthen the link between climate and recruitment in a heavily fished cod (Gadus morhua) stock. Fish. Oceanogr. 15, 230–243 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Le Bris, A. et al. Climate vulnerability and resilience in the most valuable North American fishery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1831–1836 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Henson, S. A. et al. Rapid emergence of climate change in environmental drivers of marine ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 8, 14682 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, A. E. et al. Climate resilience in marine protected areas and the ‘Protection Paradox’. Biol. Conserv. 236, 305–314 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, C., Kohler, T. A., Lenton, T. M., Svenning, J.-C. & Scheffer, M. Future of the human climate niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11350–11355 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, T. E., Maxwell, S. M., Kaschner, K., Garilao, C. & Ban, N. C. Large marine protected areas represent biodiversity now and under climate change. Sci. Rep. 7, 9569 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
MacKenzie, B. R. et al. A cascade of warming impacts brings bluefin tuna to Greenland waters. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2484–2491 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shackell, N. L., Ricard, D. & Stortini, C. Thermal habitat index of many Northwest Atlantic temperate species stays neutral under warming projected for 2030 but changes radically by 2060. PLoS ONE 9 (2014).Boyce, D. G., Frank, K. T., Worm, B. & Leggett, W. C. Spatial patterns and predictors of trophic control across marine ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1001–1011 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyce, D. G., Frank, K. T. & Leggett, W. C. From mice to elephants: overturning the ‘one size fits all’ paradigm in marine plankton food chains. Ecol. Lett. 18, 504–515 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, K. T., Petrie, B., Shackell, N. L. & Choi, J. S. Reconciling differences in trophic control in mid-latitude marine ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1096–1105 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, K. T., Petrie, B. & Shackell, N. L. The ups and downs of trophic control in continental shelf ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 236–242 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1056 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334, 652–655 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mora, C. et al. The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature 502, 183–187 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 62 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyce, D. G., Lewis, M. L. & Worm, B. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 466, 591–596 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burek, K. A., Gulland, F. M. D. & O’Hara, T. M. Effects of climate change on Arctic marine mammal health. Ecol. Appl. 18, S126–S134 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staude, I. R., Navarro, L. M. & Pereira, H. M. Range size predicts the risk of local extinction from habitat loss. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 16–25 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, S. E. & Huntington, H. P. Arctic marine mammals and climate change: impacts and resilience. Ecol. Appl. 18, S157–S165 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaschner, K., Watson, R., Trites, A. & Pauly, D. Mapping world-wide distributions of marine mammal species using a relative environmental suitability (RES) model. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316, 285–310 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez-Suarez, M., Gomez, A. & Revilla, E. Which intrinsic traits predict vulnerability to extinction depends on the actual threatening processes. Ecosphere 4, 6 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogan, J. E. & Lacher, T. E. in Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences (Elsevier, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10913-3Warren, M. S. et al. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65–69 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chessman, B. C. Identifying species at risk from climate change: traits predict the drought vulnerability of freshwater fishes. Biol. Conserv. 160, 40–49 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, A. D. D. et al. Drivers and hotspots of extinction risk in marine mammals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3395–3400 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheung, W. W. L., Pauly, D. & Sarmiento, J. L. How to make progress in projecting climate change impacts. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 1069–1074 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fenchel, T. Intrinsic rate of natural increase: the relationship with body size. Oecologia 14, 317–326 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Healy, K. et al. Ecology and mode-of-life explain lifespan variation in birds and mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140298 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carilli, J., Donner, S. D. & Hartmann, A. C. Historical temperature variability affects coral response to heat stress. PLoS ONE 7, e34418 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guest, J. R. et al. Contrasting patterns of coral bleaching susceptibility in 2010 suggest an adaptive response to thermal stress. PLoS ONE 7, e33353 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Donner, S. D. & Carilli, J. Resilience of Central Pacific reefs subject to frequent heat stress and human disturbance. Sci. Rep. 9, 3484 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rehm, E. M., Olivas, P., Stroud, J. & Feeley, K. J. Losing your edge: climate change and the conservation value of range‐edge populations. Ecol. Evol. 5, 4315–4326 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ready, J. et al. Predicting the distributions of marine organisms at the global scale. Ecol. Modell. 221, 467–478 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, M. C., Dye, S. R., Pinnegar, J. K., Warren, R. & Cheung, W. W. L. Modelling commercial fish distributions: prediction and assessment using different approaches. Ecol. Modell. 225, 133–145 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Froese, R. & Pauly, D. FishBase v.02/2022 www.fishbase.org (2022).Palomares, M. L. D. & Pauly, D. SeaLifeBase v.11/2014 www.sealifebase.org (2022).van Buuren, S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2012).Dahlke, F. T., Wohlrab, S., Butzin, M. & Portner, H.-O. Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish. Science 369, 65–70 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stortini, C. H., Shackell, N. L., Tyedmers, P. & Beazley, K. Assessing marine species vulnerability to projected warming on the Scotian Shelf, Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 1713–1743 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reynolds, R. W. et al. Daily high-resolution-blended analyses for sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 20, 5473–5496 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meinshausen, M. et al. The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 3571–3605 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Samhouri, J. F. et al. Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services. Ecosphere 3, art41 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rao, T. R. A curve for all reasons. Resonance 5, 85–90 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mora, C. et al. Biotic and human vulnerability to projected changes in ocean biogeochemistry over the 21st century. PLoS Biol. 11, 10 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K. et al. Ensemble projections of global ocean animal biomass with climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900194116 (2019).Eyring, V. et al. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 102–110 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oppenheimer, M., Little, C. M. & Cooke, R. M. Expert judgement and uncertainty quantification for climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 445–451 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Budescu, D. V., Por, H. H. & Broomell, S. B. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change 113, 181–200 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swart, R., Bernstein, L., Ha-Duong, M. & Petersen, A. Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Climatic Change 92, 1–29 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
NAFO Annual Fisheries Statistics Database (NAFO, 2021).Horton, T. et al. World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) https://www.marinespecies.org (2020).Total Wealth per Capita, 1995 to 2014 (World Bank, 2022); https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-wealth-per-capitaDepth of the Food Deficit in Kilocalories per Person per Day, 1992 to 2016 (World Bank, 2022); https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/depth-of-the-food-deficitBoyce, D. G. et al. A climate risk index for marine life. Dryad https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7wm37pvwr (2022).R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Version 4.0.4 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). More

Rabbits have had a disastrous impact on Australian agriculture and native plants.Credit: Bettman/Getty

A genomic analysis has helped to show that Australia’s invasive rabbit population probably originated from a shipment of two dozen wild English rabbits that arrived near Melbourne on Christmas Day, 1859. The study also finds that the herd’s wild ancestry probably gave it an advantage over previous arrivals.Rabbits have invaded most of the Australian continent and have had a disastrous impact on ecosystems, threatening some 300 species of plants and animals, and causing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of damage to the agriculture industry a year. “That single event triggered this enormous catastrophe, ecologically and economically, in Australia,” says Francis Jiggins, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Cambridge, UK, and study co-author.Breeding like rabbitsHistorical records suggest that the first European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Australia arrived in Sydney in 1788, with the first colonizers. Ships bringing rabbits continued to dock along the coast for decades, but it wasn’t until the second half of the nineteenth century that the population expanded significantly, spreading across the country at a rate of 100 kilometres a year.Historical records also suggest that the rabbit expansion followed a shipment of animals that arrived for a certain Thomas Austin at Barwon Park, southwest of what is now Melbourne. His brother had trapped them around their family property in Baltonsborough in southwest England.Joel Alves, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Oxford, UK, and his colleagues wanted to find out whether genomic data corroborated the records. They analysed genetic data from 179 wild rabbits caught across Australia and in New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom, as well as 8 domestic rabbits of different breeds.They found that most rabbits in mainland Australia were genetically similar, with mixed wild and domestic ancestry. Australian rabbits also shared more rare alleles with rabbits from southwest England than with those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, suggesting they originated in Baltonsborough. Looking specifically at mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother, the researchers concluded that most mainland Australian rabbits descended from about five females, introduced from Europe.The researchers also found that the rabbits’ genetic diversity declined the further from Barwon Park the animals were caught, and that alleles that are rare or absent in wild rabbits increased. The researchers say these patterns are consistent with the idea that most rabbits across Australia originated from Barwon Park. The team report their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 22 August1.“This is a very exciting paper on a very important and well-studied topic,” says Martin Nuñez, who researches ecological invasions at the University of Houston in Texas. Using genetics to understand how unwanted animal invasions start can help to predict future invasions, he says.Perfect stormOverall, the team says that the rabbits’ wild ancestry was an important factor in triggering their invasion of the continent. “Wild rabbits are different,” says Alves. They exhibit traits such as fleeing stressful environments and burrow-digging, meaning that they were probably better at evading predators and surviving in difficult terrain than are domestic rabbits, he says. Historical records suggest that Austin requested wild rabbits, and that previous arrivals were largely domestic breeds.The expansion of Australian pastoral lands and widespread suppression of predators around that time would have also helped their expansion. “It was like a perfect storm,” says Alves. “You have the right rabbits in the right place at the right time, with the right changes in the environment.”“The genetic analyses appear very sound,” says rabbit geneticist Amy Iannella, a consultant based in Adelaide, Australia. She adds that although the country’s rabbit populations probably originated in Barwon Park, their rapid expansion might have been aided by people transporting the animals to other parts of the country, where they also began spreading. Rabbits are typically communal animals that rely on shelter for survival and juveniles rarely travel further than 1 kilometre, she says. “The idea of rabbits moving fast enough at the invasion front to colonize Australia so quickly from a single release, well that feels extreme to me, given what we know about rabbit ecology.” More

Whitaker, J. O., McCracken, G. F. & Siemers, B. M. Food habits analysis of insectivorous bats. in Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. 567–592. (2011).Clare, E. L., Barber, B. R., Sweeney, B. W., Hebert, P. D. N. & Fenton, M. B. Eating local: Influences of habitat on the diet of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Mol. Ecol. 20(8), 1772–1780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05040.x (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Clare, E. L. et al. The diet of Myotis lucifugus across Canada: Assessing foraging quality and diet variability. Mol. Ecol. 23(15), 3618–3632. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12542 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wray, A. K. et al. Predator preferences shape the diets of arthropodivorous bats more than quantitative local prey abundance. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15769 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Agosta, S. J., Morton, D. & Kuhn, K. M. Feeding ecology of the bat Eptesicus fuscus: ‘Preferred’ prey abundance as one factor influencing prey selection and diet breadth. J. Zool. 260(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903003601 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clare, E. L., Symondson, W. O. C. & Fenton, M. B. An inordinate fondness for beetles? Variation in seasonal dietary preferences of night-roosting big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Mol. Ecol. 23(15), 3633–3647. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12519 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
O’Rourke, D. R. et al. Lord of the Diptera (and moths and a spider): Molecular diet analyses and foraging ecology of Indiana bats in Illinois. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 12 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hope, P. R. et al. Second generation sequencing and morphological faecal analysis reveal unexpected foraging behaviour by Myotis nattereri (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in winter. Front. Zool. 11(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-11-39 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vesterinen, E. J., Puisto, A. I. E., Blomberg, A. S. & Lilley, T. M. Table for five, please: Dietary partitioning in boreal bats. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10914–10937 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vesterinen, E. J. et al. What you need is what you eat? Prey selection by the bat Myotis daubentonii. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1581–1594 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barclay, R. M. R. Population structure of temperate zone insectivorous bats in relation to foraging behaviour and energy demand. J. Anim. Ecol. 60(1), 165. https://doi.org/10.2307/5452 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraser, E. E. & Fenton, M. B. Age and food hardness affect food handling by insectivorous bats. Can. J. Zool. 85, 985–993 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
von Frenckell, B. & Barclay, R. M. R. Bat activity over calm and turbulent water. Can. J. Zool. 65, 219–222 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaupas, L. A. & Barclay, R. M. R. Temperature-dependent consumption of spiders by little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus), but not northern long-eared bats (M. septentrionalis), in northern Canada. Can. J. Zool. 96(3), 261 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P. & Bohmann, K. Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 134–147 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, J. M., Clare, E. L., Hayden, B., Brett, M. T. & Kratina, P. Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 278–291 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunz, T. H. & Whitaker, J. O. An evaluation of fecal analysis for determining food habits of insectivorous bats. Can. J. Zool. 61, 1317–1321 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamilton, I. M. & Barclay, R. M. R. Diets of juvenile, yearling, and adult big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in Southeastern Alberta. J. Mammal. 79(3), 764. https://doi.org/10.2307/1383087 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moosman, P. R., Thomas, H. H. & Veilleux, J. P. Food habits of eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii) in New Hampshire. Am. Midl. Nat. 158(2), 354–360 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ober, H. K. & Hayes, J. P. Prey selection by bats in forests of Western Oregon. J. Mammal. 89(5), 1191–1200. https://doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-025.1 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Long, B. L., Kurta, A. & Clemans, D. L. Analysis of DNA from feces to identify prey of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) caught in apple orchards. Am. Midl. Nat. 170(2), 287–297 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, R. et al. Molecular diet analysis finds an insectivorous desert bat community dominated by resource sharing despite diverse echolocation and foraging strategies. Ecol. Evol. 9, 3117–3129 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alberdi, A. et al. Promises and pitfalls of using high-throughput sequencing for diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 327–348 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clare, E. L. Molecular detection of trophic interactions: Emerging trends, distinct advantages, significant considerations and conservation applications. Evol. Appl. 7, 1144–1157 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blehert, D. S. et al. Bat white-nose syndrome: An emerging fungal pathogen?. Science 323(5911), 227–227. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163874 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frick, W. F. et al. Disease alters macroecological patterns of North American bats: Disease alters macroecology of bats. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24(7), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12290 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anthony, E. L. P. & Kunz, T. H. Feeding strategies of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, Southern New Hampshire. Ecology 58(4), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936213 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jusino, M. A. et al. An improved method for utilizing high-throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 176–190 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Rourke, D. R., Bokulich, N. A., Jusino, M. A., MacManes, M. D., & Foster, J. T. A total crapshoot? Evaluating bioinformatic decisions in animal diet metabarcoding analyses. Ecol. Evolut. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6594 (2020).Langwig, K. E. et al. Resistance in persisting bat populations after white-nose syndrome invasion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 2160044 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maslo, B., Valent, M., Gumbs, J. F. & Frick, W. F. Conservation implications of ameliorating survival of little brown bats with white-nose syndrome. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1832–1840 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frick, W. F. et al. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329(5992), 679–682. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188594 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Turner, G. G., Reeder, D. M. & Coleman, J. T. H. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Res. News 52, 13–27 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Coleman, J. et al. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod-is-cms-assets/wns/prod/b0634260-77d3-11e8-b37b-4f3513704a5e-white-nose_syndrome_national_plan_may_2011.pdf (2011).Szymanski, J. A., Runge, M. C., Parkin, M. J. & Armstrong, M. White-Nose Syndrome Management: Report on Structured Decision Making Initiative. Vol. 51. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70003465 (2009).Kunz, T. H., Braun de Torrez, E., Bauer, D., Lobova, T. & Fleming, T. H. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1223, 1–38 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyles, J. G., Cryan, P. M., McCracken, G. F. & Kunz, T. H. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332(6025), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201366 (2011).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Agosta, S. J. & Morton, D. Diet of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, from Pennsylvania and Western Maryland. Northeast. Nat. 10(1), 89–104 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, V. A., Braun de Torrez, E. & McCracken, G. F. Crop pests eaten by bats in organic pecan orchards. Crop Prot. 67, 66–71 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams-Guillén, K., Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. Bats limit insects in a Neotropical agroforestry system. Science 320(5872), 70–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152944 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Held, D. W. & Ray, C. H. Asiatic garden beetle Maladera castanea (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) grubs found in damaged turf in Alabama. Fla. Entomol. 92(4), 670–672 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forschler, B. T. & Gardner, W. A. A review of the scientific literature on the biology and distribution of the genus Phyllophaga (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in the Southeastern United States. J. Entomol. Sci. 25(4), 628–651. https://doi.org/10.18474/0749-8004-25.4.628 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
United States Forest Service. White Grubs in Forest Tree Nurseries and Plantations. Vol. 4. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_043588.pdf (1961).Chandler, D. University of New Hampshire—Entomology Collection. UNH Insect and Arachnid Collections. https://duncan.unh.edu/ento/home.php (2020).United States Forest Service. The Early Warning System for Forest Health Threads in the United States. https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/EWS_final_draft.pdf (2004).Kozich, J. J., Westcott, S. L., Baxter, N. T., Highlander, S. K., & Schloss, P. D. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79(17), 5112–5120. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01043-13 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17, 10–12 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. bold: The barcode of life data system. http://www.barcodinglife.org. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364 (2007).Robeson, M. S. et al. RESCRIPt: Reproducible sequence taxonomy reference database management for the masses. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.05.326504 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S. BOLD: Interface to BOLD Systems API. (2017).Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30(4), 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 421 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beule, L. & Karlovsky, P. Improved normalization of species count data in ecology by scaling with ranked subsampling (SRS): application to microbial communities. PeerJ 8, e9593 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2018).McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8(4), e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cáceres, M. D. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinney, W. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. Proc. Python Sci. Conf. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, D. et al. The Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) format or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the ome-ome. GigaScience 1, 7 (2012).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Battaglia, T. btools: A Suite of R Function for All Types of Microbial Diversity Analyses. (2020).Wilke, C. O. cowplot: Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for ‘ggplot2’. (2017).Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 226 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ogle, D. H. & Wheeler, P. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis. (2018).Bisanz, J. E. qiime2R: Importing QIIME2 Artifacts and Associated Data into R Sessions. (2018).Kahle, D. & Wickham, H. ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. R J. 5, 144–161 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. (2018).Slowikowski, K. ggrepel: Automatically Position Non-Overlapping Text Labels with ‘ggplot2’. (2018).Hesselbarth, M. H. K., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K. & Nowosad, J. landscapemetrics: an open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography 42, 1648–1657 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. Dates and times made easy with lubridate. J. Stat. Softw. 40(3). https://www.jstatsoft.org/index.php/jss/article/view/v040i03/v40i03.pdf (2011).Makiyama, K. magicfor: Magic Functions to Obtain Results from for Loops. (2016).Bates, D. & Maechler, M. Matrix: Sparse and Dense Matrix Classes and Methods. (2018).Graves, S., Piepho, H.-P. & Selzer, L. multcompView: Visualizations of Paired Comparisons. (2019).Martinez Arbizu, P. pairwiseAdonis: Pairwise Multilevel Comparison using Adonis. (2017).Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. (2020).Wickham, H. Reshaping data with the reshape Package. J. Stat. Softw. 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12 (2007).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. scales: Scale Functions for Visualization. (2018).Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R J. 10, 439 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. et al. svglite: An ‘SVG’ Graphics Device. (2020).Wickham, H. tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. (2017).Strochak, S., Ueyama, K. & Williams, A. urbnmapr: State and County Shapefiles in sf and Tibble Format. (2020).Bittinger, K. usedist: Distance Matrix Utilities. (2020). More

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

Google Scholar 
Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, C. M. et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 16, 584–599 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cameron, S. A. et al. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 662–667 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, S. et al. Species richness promotes ecosystem carbon storage: evidence from biodiversity-ecosystem functioning experiments. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20202063 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jochum, M. et al. The results of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments are realistic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1485–1494 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, A. D. et al. Species richness and biomass explain spatial turnover in ecosystem functioning across tropical and temperate ecosystems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150279 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manning, P. & Cutler, G. C. Ecosystem functioning is more strongly impaired by reducing dung beetle abundance than by reducing species richness. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 264, 9–14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Plas, F. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in naturally assembled communities. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 94, 1220–1245 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blüthgen, N. & Klein, A.-M. Functional complementarity and specialisation: the role of biodiversity in plant–pollinator interactions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 12, 282–291 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 5632–5636 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Duffy, J. E., Godwin, C. M. & Cardinale, B. J. Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature 549, 261–264 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling-up biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 23, 757–776 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 340, 1608–1611 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Greenop, A., Woodcock, B. A., Wilby, A., Cook, S. M. & Pywell, R. F. Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta-analysis. Ecology 99, 1771–1782 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J. et al. Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecol. Lett. 10, 995–1015 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Genung, M. A. et al. The relative importance of pollinator abundance and species richness for the temporal variance of pollination services. Ecology 98, 1807–1816 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Winfree, R., Fox, J. W., Williams, N. M., Reilly, J. R. & Cariveau, D. P. Abundance of common species, not species richness, drives delivery of a real-world ecosystem service. Ecol. Lett. 18, 626–635 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleijn, D. et al. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nat. Commun. 6, 7414 (2015).Smith, M. D. & Knapp, A. K. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss. Ecol. Lett. 6, 509–517 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lohbeck, M., Bongers, F., Martinez-Ramos, M. & Poorter, L. The importance of biodiversity and dominance for multiple ecosystem functions in a human-modified tropical landscape. Ecology 97, 2772–2779 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balvanera, P., Kremen, C. & Martínez-Ramos, M. Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: examples from pollination and carbon storage. Ecol. Appl. 15, 360–375 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maureaud, A. et al. Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships in fish communities: biomass is related to evenness and the environment, not to species richness. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20191189 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Genung, M. A., Fox, J. & Winfree, R. Species loss drives ecosystem function in experiments, but in nature the importance of species loss depends on dominance. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1531–1541 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potts, S. G., Vulliamy, B., Dafni, A., Ne’eman, G. & Willmer, P. Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84, 2628–2642 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craven, D. et al. A cross-scale assessment of productivity–diversity relationships. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1940–1955 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, P. L., Isbell, F., Loreau, M., O’Connor, M. I. & Gonzalez, A. The strength of the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship depends on spatial scale. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20180038 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, J. & Cardinale, B. J. Scaling up biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships across space and over time. Ecology 101, e03166 (2020).Winfree, R. et al. Species turnover promotes the importance of bee diversity for crop pollination at regional scales. Science 359, 791–793 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Albrecht, J. et al. Species richness is more important for ecosystem functioning than species turnover along an elevational gradient. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1582–1593 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shanafelt, D. W. et al. Biodiversity, productivity, and the spatial insurance hypothesis revisited. J. Theor. Biol. 380, 426–435 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naeem, S. & Li, S. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390, 507–509 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77, 350–363 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, C. M. Variation in mutualisms: the spatiotemporal mosaic of a pollinator assemblage. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 35, 95–125 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCormack, M. L., Adams, T. S., Smithwick, E. A. H. & Eissenstat, D. M. Variability in root production, phenology, and turnover rate among 12 temperate tree species. Ecology 95, 2224–2235 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, K. W., Vanderbilt, K. L., Inouye, D. W., Bertelsen, C. D. & Crimmins, T. M. Turnover and reliability of flower communities in extreme environments: insights from long-term phenology data sets. J. Arid Environ. 115, 27–34 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tylianakis, J. M. et al. Resource heterogeneity moderates the biodiversity-function relationship in real world ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 6, e122 (2008).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8, 468–479 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iserbyt, S. & Rasmont, P. The effect of climatic variation on abundance and diversity of bumblebees: a ten years survey in a mountain hotspot. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 48, 261–273 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Houlahan, J. E. et al. Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3273–3277 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ernest, S. K. M. & Brown, J. H. Homeostasis and compensation: the role of species and resources in ecosystem stability. Ecology 82, 2118–2132 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C., Williams, N. M. & Thorp, R. W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 16812–16816 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Allan, E. et al. More diverse plant communities have higher functioning over time due to turnover in complementary dominant species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17034–17039 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Awasthi, A., Singh, M., Soni, S. K., Singh, R. & Kalra, A. Biodiversity acts as insurance of productivity of bacterial communities under abiotic perturbations. ISME J. 8, 2445–2452 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuck, S. L. et al. The value of biodiversity for the functioning of tropical forests: Insurance effects during the first decade of the Sabah biodiversity experiment. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20161451 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. Quantifying effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning across times and places. Ecol. Lett. 21, 763–778 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reich, P. B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science 336, 589–592 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Perry, C. J., Søvik, E., Myerscough, M. R. & Barron, A. B. Rapid behavioral maturation accelerates failure of stressed honey bee colonies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3427–3432 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Benjamin, F. E. & Winfree, R. Lack of pollinators limits fruit production in commercial blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Environ. Entomol. 43, 1574–1583 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaacs, R. & Kirk, A. K. Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 841–849 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Chen, H. Y. H. & Reich, P. B. Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. J. Ecol. 100, 742–749 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baumgärtner, S. The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Resour. Model. 20, 87–127 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manning, P. et al. in Advances in Ecological Research (eds Eisenhauer, N., Bohan, D. A. & Dumbrell, A. J.) 323–356 (Academic Press, 2019).Naeem, S. Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conserv. Biol. 12, 39–45 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
CaraDonna, P. J. et al. Interaction rewiring and the rapid turnover of plant–pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 20, 385–394 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. & Loreau, M. The causes and consequences of compensatory dynamics in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 393–414 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, D., Chang, P.-H. S., Power, S. A., Bell, J. N. B. & Manning, P. Changes in plant species abundance alter the multifunctionality and functional space of heathland ecosystems. New Phytol. 232, 1238–1249 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buschke, F. T., Hagan, J. G., Santini, L. & Coetzee, B. W. T. Random population fluctuations bias the Living Planet Index. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1145–1152 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M. & Peterson, T. Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss (World Wildlife Fund, 2020).Collen, B. et al. Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conserv. Biol. 23, 317–327 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanghellini, M. S., Ambrose, J. T. & Schultheis, J. R. The effects of honey bee and bumble bee pollination on fruit set and abortion of cucumber and watermelon. Am. Bee. J. 137, 386–391 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Winfree, R., Williams, N. M., Dushoff, J. & Kremen, C. Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1105–1113 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., van der Putten, W. H. & Marini, L. Pollination contribution to crop yield is often context-dependent: a review of experimental evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 280, 16–23 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stanghellini, M. S., Ambrose, J. T. & Schultheis, J. R. Seed production in watermelon: a comparison between two commercially available pollinators. HortScience 33, 28–30 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reilly, J. R. et al. Crop production in the USA is frequently limited by a lack of pollinators. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20200922 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Greenleaf, S. S. & Kremen, C. Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13890–13895 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sáez, A. Managed honeybees decrease pollination limitation in self-compatible but not in self-incompatible crops. Proc. Biol. Sci. 289, 20220086 (2022).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brittain, C., Williams, N., Kremen, C. & Klein, A. M. Synergistic effects of non-Apis bees and honey bees for pollination services. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20122767 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Aizen, M. A. & Harder, L. D. The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Curr. Biol. 19, 915–918 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Houlahan, J. E. et al. Negative relationships between species richness and temporal variability are common but weak in natural systems. Ecology 99, 2592–2604 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Winfree, R. Global change, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: what can we learn from studies of pollination? Basic Appl. Ecol. 14, 453–460 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Greenleaf, S. S., Williams, N. M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cariveau, D. P., Williams, N. M., Benjamin, F. E. & Winfree, R. Response diversity to land use occurs but does not consistently stabilise ecosystem services provided by native pollinators. Ecol. Lett. 16, 903–911 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H. & Jonsson, P. R. Multiple functions increase the importance of biodiversity for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology 89, 1223–1231 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zavaleta, E. S., Pasari, J. R., Hulvey, K. B. & Tilman, G. D. Sustaining multiple ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1443–1446 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haupt, R. L. & Haupt, S. E. Practical Genetic Algorithms (Wiley, 2004).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lüdecke, D., Makowski, D., Waggoner, P. & Patil, I. performance: Assessment of regression models performance. R package version 0.7.0 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3952174 (2020).Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).Brooks, M. et al. glmmTMB: Generalized linear mixed models using template model builder. R package version 1.1.3 https://glmmtmb.github.io/glmmTMB/ (2022).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Lu, N. et al. Biophysical and economic constraints on China’s natural climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01432-3 (2022). More

Appel, M., Lahn, F., Buytaert, W. & Pebesma, E. Open and scalable analytics of large earth observation datasets: From scenes to multidimensional arrays using SCIDB and GDAL. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 138, 47–56 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Audebert, N., Saux, B. L. & Lefvre, S. Beyond RGB: Very high resolution urban remote sensing with multimodal deep networks. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 140, 20–32 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ball J. E., Anderson D. T., & Chan C. S. Comprehensive survey of deep learning in remote sensing: Theories, tools, and challenges for the community. J. Appl. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.11.042609 (2017).Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 282. 20141657 (2015).Velázquez, E., Paine, C. T., May, F. & Wiegand, T. Linking trait similarity to interspecific spatial associations in a moist tropical forest. J. Veg. Sci. 26, 1068–1079 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ben-Said, M. Spatial point-pattern analysis as a powerful tool in identifying pattern-process relationships in plant ecology: an updated review. Ecol. Process. 10, 1–23 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watt, A. S. Pattern and process in the plant community. J. Ecol. 35, 1–22 (1947).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pielou, E.C. Mathematical Ecology; Number 574.50151 P613 1977. (Wiley, 1977).Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, C., Law, R., Illian, J. B. & Burslem, D. F. Linking ecological processes with spatial and non-spatial patterns in plant communities. J. Ecol. 99, 1402–1414 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Detto, M. & Muller-Landau, H. C. Fitting ecological process models to spatial patterns using scalewise variances and moment equations. Am. Nat. 181, E68–E82 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
May, F., Huth, A., & Wiegand, T. Moving beyond abundance distributions: neutral theory and spatial patterns in a tropical forest. Proceedings. Biological sciences 282(1802), 20141657. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1657 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kerr, J. T. & Ostrovsky, M. From space to species: Ecological applications for remote sensing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 299–305 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie, T. W., Foody, G. M., Rocchini, D., Giorgi, A. P. & Saatchi, S. Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 32, 203–221 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, J., Zhang, L., Wang, Q. & Li, Z. Using diffusion geometric coordinates for hyperspectral imagery representation. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 6(4), 767–771 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lechner, A.M., Foody, G.M., & Boyd, D.S. Applications in remote sensing to forest ecology and management. One Earth 2.5, 405–412 (2020).Arévalo, P., Olofsson, P. & Woodcock, C. E. Continuous monitoring of land change activities and post-disturbance dynamics from Landsat time series: A test methodology for REDD+ reporting. Remote Sens. Environ. 238, 111051 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie, T.W. et al. Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 32.2, 203–221 (2008).Lausch, A., Erasmi, S., King, D. J., Magdon, P. & Heurich, M. Understanding forest health with remote sensing-part II—A review of approaches and data models. Remote Sens. 9(2), 129 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rouse, J.W., Haas, R.H., Schell, J.A., Deering, D.W., et al. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. in NASA Special Publication. Vol. 351. 309 (1974).Chen, J. M. & Black, T. Defining leaf area index for non-flat leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 15, 421–429 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zha, Y., Gao, J. & Ni, S. Use of normalized difference built-up index in automatically mapping urban areas from TM imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 24, 583–594 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, S. et al. Remote detection of bare soil moisture using a surface-temperature-based soil evaporation transfer coefficient. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12, 351–358 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gao, B. C. NDWI—A normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sens. Environ. 58, 257–266 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wan, Z. & Dozier, J. A generalized split-window algorithm for retrieving land-surface temperature from space. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 34, 892–905 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, H., Wang, Y., Guan, H., Shi, T. & Hu, X. Detecting ecological changes with a remote sensing based ecological index (RSEI) produced time series and change vector analysis. Remote Sensing 11, 2345 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
List of Top 10 Sources of Free Remote Sensing Data (2017).USGS Earth Explorer: Download Free Landsat Imagery (2021).Blaschke, T. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 65, 2–16 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, M., Zang, S., Zhang, B., Li, S. & Wu, C. A review of remote sensing image classification techniques: The role of spatio-contextual information. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 47, 389–411 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Chova, L., Tuia, D., Moser, G. & Camps-Valls, G. Multimodal classification of remote sensing images: A review and future directions. Proc. IEEE 103, 1560–1584 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alajlan, N., Bazi, Y., Melgani, F. & Yager, R. R. Fusion of supervised and unsupervised learning for improved classification of hyperspectral images. Inf. Sci. 217, 39–55 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Csillik, O. Fast segmentation and classification of very high resolution remote sensing data using SLIC superpixels. Remote Sens. 9, 243 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thanh Noi, P. & Kappas, M. Comparison of random forest, k-nearest neighbor, and support vector machine classifiers for land cover classification using Sentinel-2 imagery. Sensors 18, 18 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, S., Zhao, H., Wu, W., & Tan, Q. A novel framework for remote sensing image scene classification. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 2018, 42 (2018).Baddeley, A. Spatial Point Process Modelling and Its Applications. Vol. 20. (Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 2004).Vasudevan, K., Eckel, S., Fleischer, F., Schmidt, V. & Cook, F. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns on deep seismic reflection data: A preliminary test. Geophys. J. Int. 171, 823–840 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, Y. & Luo, J. Statistical analysis of metastable pitting events on carbon steel. Br. Corros. J. 35, 125–130 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Velázquez, E., Martínez, I., Getzin, S., Moloney, K. A. & Wiegand, T. An evaluation of the state of spatial point pattern analysis in ecology. Ecography 39, 1042–1055 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, P. J. & Evans, F. C. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453 (1954).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stoyan, D., & Penttinen, A. Recent applications of point process methods in forestry statistics. Stat. Sci. 2000, 61–78 (2000).Illian, J., Penttinen, A., Stoyan, H., & Stoyan, D. Statistical Analysis and Modelling of Spatial Point Patterns. Vol. 70. (Wiley, 2008).Brodrick, P. G., Davies, A. B. & Asner, G. P. Uncovering ecological patterns with convolutional neural networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 734–745 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, S., Luo, H., Tu, Y., He, Z., & Li, J. Wide contextual residual network with active learning for remote sensing image classification. in IGARSS 2018–2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. 7145–7148 (IEEE, 2018).Lee, H. & Kwon, H. Going deeper with contextual CNN for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26, 4843–4855 (2017).ADS 
MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, G., Xie, X., Han, J., Guo, L. & Xia, G. S. Remote sensing image scene classification meets deep learning: Challenges, methods, benchmarks, and opportunities. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 13, 3735–3756 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewy, D., & Mandziuk, J. An overview of mixing augmentation methods and augmentation strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09887 (2021).Cubuk, E.D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., & Le, Q.V. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09501 (2018).Naveed, H. Survey: Image mixing and deleting for data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07085 (2021).Freeman, I., Roese-Koerner, L. & Kummert, A. Effnet: An efficient structure for convolutional neural networks. 25th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). IEEE 2018, 6–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
LeCun, Y. et al. Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Comput. 1, 541–551 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raeisi, M., Bonneu, F. & Gabriel, E. A spatio-temporal multi-scale model for Geyer saturation point process: Application to forest fire occurrences. Spatial Stat. 41, 100492 (2021).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baddeley, A. Analysing spatial point patterns in R. in Workshop Notes Version. Vol. 3 (2008). More

The Insect Pollinators Initiative & Vanbergen, A. J. Threats to an ecosystem service: Pressures on pollinators. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 251–259 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powney, G. D. et al. Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nat. Commun. 10, 1018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Woodcock, B. A. et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7, 12459. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12459 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. TREE 25, 345–353 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Becher, M. A., Osborne, J. L., Thorbek, P., Kennedy, P. J. & Grimm, V. REVIEW: Towards a systems approach for understanding honeybee decline: A stocktaking and synthesis of existing models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 868–880 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Becher, M. A. et al. BEEHAVE: A systems model of honeybee colony dynamics and foraging to explore multifactorial causes of colony failure. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 470–482 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carvell, C. et al. Bumblebee family lineage survival is enhanced in high-quality landscapes. Nature 543, 547–549. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21709 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Alaux, C., Ducloz, F., Crauser, D. & Le Conte, Y. Diet effects on honeybee immunocompetence. Biol. Lett. 6, 562–565 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dolezal, A. G. et al. Interacting stressors matter: Diet quality and virus infection in honeybee health. R. Soc. Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181803 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Conti, I. et al. Sugar and protein content in different monofloral pollens – Building a database. Bull. Insectol. 69, 318–320 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Rodney, S. & Kramer, V. J. Probabilistic assessment of nectar requirements for nectar-foraging honey bees. Apidologie 51, 180–200 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cartar, R. V. Colony energy-reuirements affect response to predation risk in foraging bumble bees. Ethology 87, 90–96 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, S. M., Awmack, C. S., Murray, D. A. & Williams, I. H. Are honey bees’ foraging preferences affected by pollen amino acid composition?. Ecol. Entomol. 28, 622–627 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baude, M. et al. Historical nectar assessment reveals the fall and rise of floral resources in Britain. Nature 530, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16532 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Di Pasquale, G. et al. Influence of pollen nutrition on honey bee health: Do Pollen quality and diversity matter?. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072016 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sanchez-Bayo, F. et al. Are bee diseases linked to pesticides?—A brief review. Environ. Int. 89–90, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.009 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Park, M. G., Blitzer, E. J., Gibbs, J., Losey, J. E. & Danforth, B. N. Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20150299. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0299 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodcock, B. A. et al. Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honeybees and wild bees. Science 356, 1393–1395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1190 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
PPDB. The pesticide properties DataBase (PPDB) (Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire, 2013).Belden, J. B. The acute toxicity of pesticide mixtures to honeybees. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4595 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Battisti, L. et al. Is glyphosate toxic to bees? A meta-analytical review. Sci. Tot. Environ. 767, 145397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145397 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Siviter, H. et al. Agrochemicals interact synergistically to increase bee mortality. Nature 596, 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03787-7 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. A. & Sutherland, W. J. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 157–176 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carvell, C. et al. Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. Biol. Conserv. 132, 481–489 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carmona, C. P. et al. Agriculture intensification reduces plant taxonomic and functional diversity across European arable systems. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1448–1460 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Storkey, J. & Westbury, D. B. Managing arable weeds for biodiversity. Pest Manag. Sci. 63, 517–523 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutchinson, L. A. et al. Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 315, 107447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107447 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Requier, F., Odoux, J. F., Henry, M. & Bretagnolle, V. The carry-over effects of pollen shortage decrease the survival of honeybee colonies in farmlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1161–1170 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alburaki, M., Gregorc, A., Adamczyk, J. & Stewart, S. D. Insights on pollen diversity of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies Located in various agricultural landscapes. Southwest. Nat. 63, 49–58 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Donkersley, P., Rhodes, G., Pickup, R. W., Jones, K. C. & Wilson, K. Honeybee nutrition is linked to landscape composition. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4195–4206 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, L. J., Brocklehurst, S., Robertson, D., Harrison, W. & McCracken, D. I. Exploring the interactions between resource availability and the utilisation of semi-natural habitats by insect pollinators in an intensive agricultural landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 246, 157–167 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Kuhn, A. Honeybee foraging in differentially structured landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270, 569–575 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodcock, B. A. et al. Enhancing floral resources for pollinators in productive agricultural grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 171, 44–51 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Requier, F. et al. Honey bee diet in intensive farmland habitats reveals an unexpectedly high flower richness and a major role of weeds. Ecol. App. 25, 881–890 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ausseil, A. G. E., Dymond, J. R. & Newstrom, L. Mapping floral resources for honey bees in New Zealand at the catchment scale. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1182–1196. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1717 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kamo, T. et al. A DNA barcoding method for identifying and quantifying the composition of pollen species collected by European honeybees, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 53, 353–361 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nurnberger, F., Keller, A., Hartel, S. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Honey bee waggle dance communication increases diversity of pollen diets in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. Mol. Ecol. 28, 3602–3611 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, R. T. et al. Applications of ITS2 metabarcoding to determine the provenance of pollen collected by honey bees in an agroecosystem. Appl. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3732/apps.1400066 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, A. E. et al. Integration of DNA extraction, metabarcoding and an informatics pipeline to underpin a national citizen science honey monitoring scheme. MethodsX 8, 101303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101303 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jones, L. et al. Shifts in honeybee foraging reveal historical changes in floral resources. Commun. Biol. 4, 37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01562-4 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barroso-Arevalo, S., Vicente-Rubiano, M., Ruiz, J. A., Bentabol, A. & Sanchez-Vizcaino, J. M. Does pollen diversity influence honey bee colony health?. Sp. J. Agric. Res. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019173-13991 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bansch, S., Tscharntke, T., Ratnieks, F. L. W., Hartel, S. & Westphal, C. Foraging of honey bees in agricultural landscapes with changing patterns of flower resources. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106792 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Danner, N., Molitor, A. M., Schiele, S., Hartel, S. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Season and landscape composition affect pollen foraging distances and habitat use of honey bees. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1920–1929 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
EFSA. EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J. 11, 3295 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Hatjina, F. et al. Citizen scientist initiative for measuring varroa damage thresholds: Common efforts for data collection—CSI varroa. Bee World 98, 132–135 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gratzer, K. & Brodschneider, R. How and why beekeepers participate in the INSIGNIA citizen science honey bee environmental monitoring project. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 37995–38006 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brodschneider, R. et al. CSI pollen: Diversity of honey bee collected pollen studied by citizen scientists. Insects 12, 987. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12110987 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brodschneider, R. et al. A citizen science supported study on seasonal diversity and monoflorality of pollen collected by honey bees in Austria. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53016-5 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Hajibabaei, M. & Rieseberg, L. H. Environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1789–1793 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5872–5895. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nagaharu, U. Genome analysis in brassica with special reference to the experimental formation of B. Napus and peculiar mode of fertilization. Jpn. J. Bot. 7, 389–452 (1935).
Google Scholar 
Herbertsson, L., Lindstrom, S. A. M., Rundlof, M., Bornmarco, R. & Smith, H. G. Competition between managed honeybees and wild bumblebees depends on landscape context. Basic Appl. Ecol. 17, 609–616 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magrach, A., Gonzalez-Varo, J. P., Boiffier, M., Vila, M. & Bartomeus, I. Honeybee spillover reshuffles pollinator diets and affects plant reproductive success. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1299–1307 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams-Groom, B., Martin, P. & Banon, A. Pollen characterization of English honey from Worcestershire, West Midlands (UK). Bee World https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.2019.1698105 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smart, M. D. et al. A comparison of honey bee-collected pollen from working agricultural lands using light microscopy and ITS metabarcoding. Environ. Entomol. 46, 38–49 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Danner, N., Keller, A., Hartel, S. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Honey bee foraging ecology: Season but not landscape diversity shapes the amount and diversity of collected pollen. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183716 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Piroux, M. et al. Correlating the pollens gathered by Apis mellifera with the landscape features in Western France. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 12, 423–439 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Pasquale, G. et al. Variations in the availability of pollen resources affect honey bee health. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162818 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Donkersley, P. et al. Nutritional composition of honey bee food stores vary with floral composition. Oecologia 185, 749–761 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, R. F. et al. Mass-flowering crops have a greater impact than semi-natural habitat on crop pollinators and pollen deposition. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 513–527 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
LoCascio, G. M., Aguirre, L., Irwin, R. E. & Adler, L. S. Pollen from multiple sunflower cultivars and species reduces a common bumblebee gut pathogen. R. Soc. Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190279 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Egan, P. A. et al. Plant toxin levels in nectar vary spatially across native and introduced populations. J. Ecol. 104, 1106–1115 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P., Sala, O. E. & Rastetter, E. B. Interactions among resource partitioning, sampling effect, and facilitation on the biodiversity effect: A modeling approach. Oecologia 174, 559–566 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cullen, M. G., Thompson, L. J., Carolan, J. C., Stout, J. C. & Stanley, D. A. Fungicides, herbicides and bees: A systematic review of existing research and methods. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225743 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Siviter, H. et al. Agrochemicals interact synergistically to increase bee mortality. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03787-7 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haber, A. I., Steinhauer, N. A. & van Engelsdorp, D. Use of chemical and nonchemical methods for the control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and associated winter colony losses in U.S. beekeeping operations. J. Econ. Entomol. 112, 1509–1525 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, S. J. et al. Global honey bee viral landscape altered by a parasitic mite. Science 336, 1304. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1220941 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jarvis, S. G. et al. CEH land cover plus: Pesticides 2012-2017 (England, Scotland and Wales). NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. https://doi.org/10.5285/99a2d3a8-1c7d-421e-ac9f-87a2c37bda62 (2020).Simon-Delso, N. et al. Honeybee colony disorder in crop areas: The role of pesticides and viruses. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103073 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Greenleaf, S. G., Williams, N. M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596 (2007).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
FERA. PUS STAT: Pesticide usage surveys. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/myindex.cfm (2015).McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
UKCEH. Land cover plus: Crops © NERC (CEH) 2019. (Remote Sensing Applications Consultants Ltd., 2019).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J. & Tette, J. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides, Vol. 139 1–8 (New York Food and Life Sciences Bulletin, 1992).Juraske, R., Antón, A. & Castells, F. Estimating half-lives of pesticides in/on vegetation for use in multimedia fate and exposure models. Chemosphere 70, 1748–1755 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, H. M., Fryday, S. L., Harkin, S. & Milner, S. Potential impacts of synergism in honeybees (Apis mellifera) of exposure to neonicotinoids and sprayed fungicides in crops. Apidologie 45, 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-014-0273-6 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Biddinger, D. J. et al. Comparative toxicities and synergism of apple orchard pesticides to Apis mellifera (L.) and Osmia cornifrons (Radoszkowski). PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072587 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ridley, L. et al. Pesticide usage survey report 295. Arable crops in the United Kingdom 2020 (Food & Environment Research Agency, 2020).Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B. & Fründ, J. Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. R News 8, 8–11 (2008).
Google Scholar 
R Core Development Team. R: Version 3.6.3. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Bristol, UK. http://cran.r-project.org (2021).Pinheiro, J. C., Bates, D. & DebRoy, S. The R core team nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package nlme Version 3, 1–83 (2007).
Google Scholar  More