Philippa Kaur

Field-data collectionFieldwork was conducted in DRC between January 2018 and March 2020. Ten transects (4–11 km long) were installed, identical to the approach in ref. 9, in locations that were highly likely to be peatland. These were selected to help test hypotheses about the role of vegetation, surface wetness, nutrient status and topography in peat accumulation (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1). A further eight transects (0.5–3 km long) were installed to assess our peat mapping capabilities (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1).Every 250 m along each transect, land cover was classified as one of six classes: water, savannah, terra firme forest, non-peat-forming seasonally inundated forest, hardwood-dominated peat swamp forest or palm-dominated peat swamp forest. Peat swamp forest was classified as palm dominated when >50% of the canopy, estimated by eye, was palms (commonly Raphia laurentii or Raphia sese). In addition, several ground-truth points were collected at locations in the vicinity of each transect from the clearly identifiable land-cover classes water, savannah and terra firme forest.Peat presence/absence was recorded every 250 m along all transects, and peat thickness (if present) was measured by inserting metal poles into the ground until the poles were prevented from going any further by the underlying mineral layer, identical to the pole method of ref. 9. In addition, a core of the full peat profile was extracted every kilometre along the ten hypothesis-testing transects, if peat was present, with a Russian-type corer (52 mm stainless steel Eijkelkamp model); these 63 cores were sealed in plastic for laboratory analysis.Peat-thickness laboratory measurementsPeat was defined as having an organic matter (OM) content of ≥65% and a thickness of ≥0.3 m (sensu ref. 9). Therefore, down-core OM content of all 63 cores was analysed to measure peat thickness. The organic matter content of each 0.1-m-thick peat sample was estimated via loss on ignition (LOI), whereby samples were heated at 550 °C for 4 h. The mass fraction lost after heating was used as an estimate of total OM content (% of mass). Peat thickness was defined as the deepest 0.1 m with OM ≥ 65%, after which there is a transition to mineral soil. Samples below this depth were excluded from further analysis. Rare mineral intrusions into the peat layer above this depth, where OM 4× the mean Cook’s distance were excluded as influential outliers. Mean pole-method offset was significantly higher along the DRC transects (0.94 m) than along those in ROC (0.48 m; P  More

Wanger, T. C. et al. Integrating agroecological production in a robust post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1150–1152 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Amundson, R. et al. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 1261071 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robertson, G. P. & Vitousek, P. M. Nitrogen in agriculture: balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 97–125 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krebs, A. V. The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness (Essential Books, 1992).Mortensen, D. A. & Smith, R. G. Confronting barriers to cropping system diversification. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 564197 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
2017 Census of Agriculture – 2019 Organic Survey (USDA NASS, 2020); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.phpFarms and Land in Farms 2019 Summary (USDA NASS, 2020); https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/5712m6524Reganold, J. P. & Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 15221 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Lori, M., Symnaczik, S., Mäder, P., De Deyn, G. & Gattinger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity—a meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 12, e0180442 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seufert, V. & Ramankutty, N. Many shades of gray—the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602638 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
USDA AMS. National Organic Program; Final Rule, 7 CFR Part 205. Fed. Regist. 65, 80547–80684 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515 (2009).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Kleijn, D. et al. Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 154–166 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S. G. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 230–238 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. & Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17, 40 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Bowles, T. M. et al. Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood, S. A. et al. Functional traits in agriculture: agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 531–539 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Faucon, M.-P., Houben, D. & Lambers, H. Plant functional traits: soil and ecosystem services. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 385–394 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Hose, T. et al. The positive relationship between soil quality and crop production: a case study on the effect of farm compost application. Appl. Soil Ecol. 75, 189–198 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., Gunst, L. & Mäder, P. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 273–284 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Francioli, D. et al. Mineral vs. organic amendments: microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1446 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B. & Cambardella, C. A. Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: a US meta-analysis. Geoderma 369, 114335 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Canqui, H. & Ruis, S. J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 326, 164–200 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Willekens, K., Vandecasteele, B., Buchan, D. & De Neve, S. Soil quality is positively affected by reduced tillage and compost in an intensive vegetable cropping system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 82, 61–71 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Albrecht, M. et al. The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1488–1498 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaplin-Kramer, R., de Valpine, P., Mills, N. J. & Kremen, C. Detecting pest control services across spatial and temporal scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 181, 206–212 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, E. A. et al. The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1083–1094 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karp, D. S. et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E7863–E7870 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Dahlgren, R. A. & Eitzel, M. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 76–84 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eyhorn, F. et al. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2, 253–255 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buck, D., Getz, C. & Guthman, J. From farm to table: the organic vegetable commodity chain of northern California. Sociol. Rural. 37, 3–20 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guthman, J. Raising organic: an agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California. Agric. Hum. Values 17, 257–266 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guthman, J. The trouble with ‘organic lite’ in California: a rejoinder to the ‘conventionalisation’ debate. Sociol. Rural. 44, 301–316 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R. & Zollitsch, W. Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 67–81 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Constance, D. H., Choi, J. Y. & Lyke-Ho-Gland, H. Conventionalization, bifurcation, and quality of life: certified and non-certified organic farmers in Texas. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 23, 208–234 (2008).
Google Scholar 
2017 Census of Agriculture – United States Summary and State Data (USDA NASS, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php2017 Census of Agriculture: Characteristics of All Farms and Farms with Organic Sales (USDA NASS, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.phpPonisio, L. C. et al. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20141396 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 1–20 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D. & Paoletti, M. G. Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 95–124 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tittonell, P. et al. Agroecology in large scale farming—a research agenda. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 584605 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haan, N. L., Zhang, Y. & Landis, D. A. Predicting landscape configuration effects on agricultural pest suppression. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 175–186 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, E. A., Seo, B., Park, C.-R., Reineking, B. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Scale-dependent effects of landscape composition and configuration on natural enemy diversity, crop herbivory, and yields. Ecol. Appl. 26, 448–462 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 87, 661–685 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Olimpi, E. M. et al. Evolving food safety pressures in California’s central coast region. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 102 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karp, D. S. et al. The unintended ecological and social impacts of food safety regulations in California’s central coast region. BioScience 65, 1173–1183 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bovay, J., Ferrier, P. & Zhen, C. Estimated Costs for Fruit and Vegetable Producers To Comply With the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Rule, EIB-195 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2018).Coombes, B. & Campbell, H. Dependent reproduction of alternative modes of agriculture: organic farming in New Zealand. Sociol. Rural. 38, 127–145 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J. & Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 94–110 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, E. & Marsden, T. Exploring the ‘limits to growth’ in UK organics: beyond the statistical image. J. Rural Stud. 20, 345–357 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Howard, P. H. Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat? (Bloomsbury, 2016).Arcuri, A. The transformation of organic regulation: the ambiguous effects of publicization. Regul. Gov. 9, 144–159 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Mayerhofer, T. What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy 68, 10–20 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guthman, J. in Alternative Food Politics: From the Margins to the Mainstream (eds. Phillipov, M. & Kirkwood, K.) 23–36 (Routledge, 2019).Jaffee, D. & Howard, P. H. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agric. Hum. Values 27, 387–399 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, H. & Rosin, C. After the ‘organic industrial complex’: an ontological expedition through commercial organic agriculture in New Zealand. J. Rural Stud. 27, 350–361 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lockie, S. & Halpin, D. The ‘conventionalisation’ thesis reconsidered: structural and ideological transformation of Australian organic agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 45, 284–307 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prokopy, L. S. et al. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 520–534 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pretty, J. et al. Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 441–446 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gliessman, S. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 187–189 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, S. B. Redesigning the food system for sustainability. Alternatives 12, 32–36 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Padel, S., Levidow, L. & Pearce, B. UK farmers’ transition pathways towards agroecological farm redesign: evaluating explanatory models. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44, 139–163 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Esquivel, K. E. et al. The ‘sweet spot’ in the middle: why do mid-scale farms adopt diversification practices at higher rates? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 734088 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brislen, L. Meeting in the middle: scaling-up and scaling-over in alternative food networks. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40, 105–113 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Master, K. New inquiries into the agri-cultures of the middle. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 40, 130–135 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).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 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.7.4-1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2021).Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 70, 129–133 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krueger, J. I. & Heck, P. R. Putting the P-value in its place. Am. Stat. 73, 122–128 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L. & Lazar, N. A. Moving to a world beyond ‘p < 0.05’. Am. Stat. 73(Suppl. 1), 1–19 (2019).Article  Google Scholar  Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, 2013). More

Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 461, 472–475 (2009).Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wake, D. B. & Vredenburg, V. T. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11466–11473 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sweet, M., Burian, A. & Bulling, M. Corals as canaries in the coalmine: towards the incorporation of marine ecosystems into the ‘One Health’ concept. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 186, 107538 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Flandroy, L. et al. The impact of human activities and lifestyles on the interlinked microbiota and health of humans and of ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 1018–1038 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. et al. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat. Commun. 6, 10122 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. & de Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Doering, T. et al. Towards enhancing coral heat tolerance: a ‘microbiome transplantation’ treatment using inoculations of homogenized coral tissues. Microbiome 9, 102 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosado, P. M. et al. Marine probiotics: increasing coral resistance to bleaching through microbiome manipulation. ISME J. 13, 921–936 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Santos, H. F. et al. Impact of oil spills on coral reefs can be reduced by bioremediation using probiotic microbiota. Sci. Rep. 5, 18268 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Santoro, E. P. et al. Coral microbiome manipulation elicits metabolic and genetic restructuring to mitigate heat stress and evade mortality. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg3088 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, D. P. et al. Multi-domain probiotic consortium as an alternative to chemical remediation of oil spills at coral reefs and adjacent sites. Microbiome 9, 118 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoyt, J. R. et al. Field trial of a probiotic bacteria to protect bats from white-nose syndrome. Sci. Rep. 9, 9158 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bletz, M. C. et al. Mitigating amphibian chytridiomycosis with bioaugmentation: characteristics of effective probiotics and strategies for their selection and use. Ecol. Lett. 16, 807–820 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Daisley, B. A. et al. Lactobacillus spp. attenuate antibiotic-induced immune and microbiota dysregulation in honey bees. Commun. Biol. 3, 534 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, J. E., Carver, Z., Leonard, S. P. & Moran, N. A. Field-realistic tylosin exposure impacts honey bee microbiota and pathogen susceptibility, which is ameliorated by native gut probiotics. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e0010321 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Borges, D., Guzman-Novoa, E. & Goodwin, P. H. Effects of prebiotics and probiotics on honey bees (Apis mellifera) infected with the microsporidian parasite Nosema ceranae. Microorganisms 9, 481 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Daisley, B. A. et al. Novel probiotic approach to counter Paenibacillus larvae infection in honey bees. ISME J. 14, 476–491 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trinder, M. et al. Probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus reduces organophosphate pesticide absorption and toxicity to Drosophila melanogaster. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 6204–6213 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Enquist, B. J., Abraham, A. J., Harfoot, M. B. J., Malhi, Y. & Doughty, C. E. The megabiota are disproportionately important for biosphere functioning. Nat. Commun. 11, 699 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Knowlton, N. et al. Rebuilding Coral Reefs: A Decadal Grand Challenge. (International Coral Reef Society, Future Earth Coasts, 2021).Cavicchioli, R. et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 569–586 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaspers, C. et al. Resolving structure and function of metaorganisms through a holistic framework combining reductionist and integrative approaches. Zoology 133, 81–87 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bosch, T. C. G. & McFall-Ngai, M. J. Metaorganisms as the new frontier. Zoology 114, 185–190 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins, L. G. E. et al. Host-associated microbiomes and their roles in marine ecosystem functions. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000533 (2019).Humphreys, C. P. et al. Mutualistic mycorrhiza-like symbiosis in the most ancient group of land plants. Nat. Commun. 1, 103 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koskella, B. & Bergelson, J. The study of host-microbiome (co)evolution across levels of selection. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 375, 20190604 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller-Costa, T. et al. Metagenomic insights into the taxonomy, function, and dysbiosis of prokaryotic communities in octocorals. Microbiome 9, 72 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerra, C. A. et al. Global projections of the soil microbiome in the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 987–999 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weinbauer, M. G. & Rassoulzadegan, F. Extinction of microbes: evidence and potential consequences. Endanger. Species Res. 3, 205–215 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petersen, C. & Round, J. L. Defining dysbiosis and its influence on host immunity and disease. Cell. Microbiol. 16, 1024–1033 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanski, I. et al. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8334–8339 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blaser, M. J. The theory of disappearing microbiota and the epidemics of chronic diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 17, 461–463 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balbín-Suárez, A. et al. Root exposure to apple replant disease soil triggers local defense response and rhizoplane microbiome dysbiosis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, fiab031 (2021).Erlacher, A., Cardinale, M., Grosch, R., Grube, M. & Berg, G. The impact of the pathogen Rhizoctonia solani and its beneficial counterpart Bacillus amyloliquefaciens on the indigenous lettuce microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 5, 175 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shahi, F., Redeker, K. & Chong, J. Rethinking antimicrobial stewardship paradigms in the context of the gut microbiome. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 1, dlz015 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voolstra, C. R. & Ziegler, M. Adapting with microbial help: microbiome flexibility facilitates rapid responses to environmental change. Bioessays 42, e2000004 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McBurney, M. I. et al. Establishing what constitutes a healthy human gut microbiome: state of the science, regulatory considerations, and future directions. J. Nutr. 149, 1882–1895 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voolstra, C. R. et al. Extending the natural adaptive capacity of coral holobionts. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 747–762 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodhams, D. C. et al. Prodigiosin, violacein, and volatile organic compounds produced by widespread cutaneous bacteria of amphibians can inhibit two Batrachochytrium fungal pathogens. Microb. Ecol. 75, 1049–1062 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voyles, J. et al. Shifts in disease dynamics in a tropical amphibian assemblage are not due to pathogen attenuation. Science 359, 1517–1519 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, R. N. et al. Skin microbes on frogs prevent morbidity and mortality caused by a lethal skin fungus. ISME J. 3, 818–824 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peixoto, R. S., Harkins, D. M. & Nelson, K. E. Advances in microbiome research for animal health. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 9, 289–311 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanck, H. & Wängberg, S.-Å. Induced community tolerance in marine periphyton established under arsenate stress. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45, 1816–1819 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
French, E., Kaplan, I., Iyer-Pascuzzi, A., Nakatsu, C. H. & Enders, L. Emerging strategies for precision microbiome management in diverse agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 7, 256–267 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Borges, N. et al. Bacteriome structure, function, and probiotics in fish larviculture: the good, the bad, and the gaps. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 9, 423–452 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
De Schryver, P. & Vadstein, O. Ecological theory as a foundation to control pathogenic invasion in aquaculture. ISME J. 8, 2360–2368 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sonnenschein, E. C., Jimenez, G., Castex, M. & Gram, L. The Roseobacter-group bacterium Phaeobacter as a safe probiotic solution for aquaculture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e0258120 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 8, 103 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peixoto, R. S., Sweet, M. & Bourne, D. G. Customized medicine for corals. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 686 (2019).Quraishi, M. N. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent and refractory Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 46, 479–493 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Henrick, B. M. et al. Bifidobacteria-mediated immune system imprinting early in life. Cell 184, 3884–3898.e11 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freedman, S. B. et al. Multicenter trial of a combination probiotic for children with gastroenteritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2015–2026 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabana, M. D. et al. Early probiotic supplementation for eczema and asthma prevention: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 140, e20163000 (2017).Matsumoto, H. et al. Bacterial seed endophyte shapes disease resistance in rice. Nat. Plants 7, 60–72 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Alvise, P. W. et al. Phaeobacter gallaeciensis reduces Vibrio anguillarum in cultures of microalgae and rotifers, and prevents vibriosis in cod larvae. PLoS ONE 7, e43996 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dittmann, K. K. et al. Changes in the microbiome of mariculture feed organisms after treatment with a potentially probiotic strain of Phaeobacter inhibens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 86, e00499-20 (2020).Metchnikoff, E. The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies (Heinemann, 1907).Khanna, S., Jones, C., Jones, L., Bushman, F. & Bailey, A. Increased microbial diversity found in successful versus unsuccessful recipients of a next-generation FMT for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Open Forum Infect. Dis 5, 304–309(2015).Kachrimanidou, M. & Tsintarakis, E. Insights into the role of human gut microbiota in Clostridioides difficile infection. Microorganisms 8, 200 (2020).Aggarwala, V. et al. Precise quantification of bacterial strains after fecal microbiota transplantation delineates long-term engraftment and explains outcomes. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 1309–1318 (2021).Zachow, C., Müller, H., Tilcher, R., Donat, C. & Berg, G. Catch the best: novel screening strategy to select stress protecting agents for crop plants. Agronomy 3, 794–815 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G., Kusstatscher, P., Abdelfattah, A., Cernava, T. & Smalla, K. Microbiome modulation-toward a better understanding of plant microbiome response to microbial inoculants. Front. Microbiol. 12, 650610 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ehlers, R.-U. in Regulation of Biological Control Agents (ed. Ehlers, R.-U.) 3–23 (Springer Netherlands, 2011).CDC. V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafe.html (2022).Bok, K., Sitar, S., Graham, B. S. & Mascola, J. R. Accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development: milestones, lessons, and prospects. Immunity 54, 1636–1651 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vestal, R. Fecal microbiota transplant. Hosp. Med. Clin. 5, 58–70 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jansen, J. W. Fecal microbiota transplant vs oral vancomycin taper: important undiscussed limitations. Clin. Infect. Dis. 64, 1292–1293 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Basson, A. R., Zhou, Y., Seo, B., Rodriguez-Palacios, A. & Cominelli, F. Autologous fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Transl. Res. 226, 1–11 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DeFilipp, Z. et al. Drug-resistant E. coli bacteremia transmitted by fecal microbiota transplant. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 2043–2050 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Slatko, B. E., Luck, A. N., Dobson, S. L. & Foster, J. M. Wolbachia endosymbionts and human disease control. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 195, 88–95 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahantarig, A. & Kittayapong, P. Endosymbiotic Wolbachia bacteria as biological control tools of disease vectors and pests. J. Appl. Entomol. 135, 479–486 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, J. et al. Extreme temperatures in the Antarctic. J. Clim. 34, 2653–2668 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoennagel, T. et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4582–4590 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Virgilio, G. et al. Climate change increases the potential for extreme wildfires. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 8517–8526 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Stanturf, J. & Goodrick, S. Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate. Ecol. Manage. 259, 685–697 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, J. et al. Stochasticity, succession, and environmental perturbations in a fluidic ecosystem. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E836–E845 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wittebole, X., De Roock, S. & Opal, S. M. A historical overview of bacteriophage therapy as an alternative to antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial pathogens. Virulence 5, 226–235 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sieiro, C. et al. A hundred years of bacteriophages: can phages replace antibiotics in agriculture and aquaculture? Antibiotics 9, 493 (2020).Rulkens, W. Increasing the environmental sustainability of sewage treatment by mitigating pollutant pathways. Environ. Eng. Sci. 23, 650–665 (2006).Obotey Ezugbe, E. & Rathilal, S. Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: a review. Membranes 10, 89 (2020).Lee, C. S., Robinson, J. & Chong, M. F. A review on application of flocculants in wastewater treatment. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 92, 489–508 (2014).Guo, W.-Q., Yang, S.-S., Xiang, W.-S., Wang, X.-J. & Ren, N.-Q. Minimization of excess sludge production by in-situ activated sludge treatment processes–a comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Adv. 31, 1386–1396 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alvarez-Filip, L., Estrada-Saldívar, N., Pérez-Cervantes, E., Molina-Hernández, A. & González-Barrios, F. J. A rapid spread of the stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak in the Mexican Caribbean. PeerJ 7, e8069 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meiling, S. S. et al. Variable species responses to experimental stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) exposure. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 670829 (2021).Hunt, P. R. The C. elegans model in toxicity testing. J. Appl. Toxicol. 37, 50–59 (2017).Tkaczyk, A., Bownik, A., Dudka, J., Kowal, K. & Ślaska, B. Daphnia magna model in the toxicity assessment of pharmaceuticals: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 763, 143038 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Microbiota Vault. A Vault for Humanity https://www.microbiotavault.org/ (2021).Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria (FAO, WHO, 2001).Sanders, M. E., Merenstein, D. J., Reid, G., Gibson, G. R. & Rastall, R. A. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 605–616 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibson, G. R. et al. Expert consensus document: the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 14, 491–502 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salminen, S. et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 18, 649–667 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, A. et al. Adjunctive probiotics alleviates asthmatic symptoms via modulating the gut microbiome and serum metabolome. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e0085921 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bagga, D. et al. Probiotics drive gut microbiome triggering emotional brain signatures. Gut Microbes 9, 486–496 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Patel, R. M. & Underwood, M. A. Probiotics and necrotizing enterocolitis. Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 27, 39–46 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tobias, J. et al. Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis EVC001 administration is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. J. Pediatr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.12.070 (2022).Koziol, L. et al. The plant microbiome and native plant restoration: the example of native mycorrhizal fungi. Bioscience 68, 996–1006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabello, F. C. et al. Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 1917–1942 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evensen, Ø. & Leong, J.-A. C. DNA vaccines against viral diseases of farmed fish. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 35, 1751–1758 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burridge, L., Weis, J. S., Cabello, F., Pizarro, J. & Bostick, K. Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: a review of current practices and possible environmental effects. Aquaculture 306, 7–23 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kesarcodi-Watson, A., Kaspar, H., Lategan, M. J. & Gibson, L. Probiotics in aquaculture: the need, principles and mechanisms of action and screening processes. Aquaculture 274, 1–14 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Irianto, A. & Austin, B. Probiotics in aquaculture. J. Fish. Dis. 25, 633–642 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Assefa, A. & Abunna, F. Maintenance of fish health in aquaculture: review of epidemiological approaches for prevention and control of infectious disease of fish. Vet. Med. Int. 2018, 5432497 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoseinifar, S. H., Sun, Y.-Z., Wang, A. & Zhou, Z. Probiotics as means of diseases control in aquaculture, a review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2429 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Castex, M., Leclercq, E., Lemaire, P. & Chim, L. Dietary probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici MA18/5M improves the growth, feed performance and antioxidant status of penaeid shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris: a growth-ration-size approach. Animals 11, 3451 (2021).Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957 (2015).Daisley, B. A., Chmiel, J. A., Pitek, A. P., Thompson, G. J. & Reid, G. Missing microbes in bees: how systematic depletion of key symbionts erodes immunity. Trends Microbiol. 28, 1010–1021 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chmiel, J. A., Daisley, B. A., Burton, J. P. & Reid, G. Deleterious effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on Drosophila melanogaster immune pathways. Mbio 10, e01395-19 (2019).Daisley, B. A. et al. Microbiota-mediated modulation of organophosphate insecticide toxicity by species-dependent interactions with lactobacilli in a Drosophila melanogaster insect model. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e02820-17 (2018).Duarte, G. A. S. et al. Heat waves are a major threat to turbid coral reefs in Brazil. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 179 (2020).Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming impairs stock-recruitment dynamics of corals. Nature 568, 387–390 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barno, A. R., Villela, H. D. M., Aranda, M., Thomas, T. & Peixoto, R. S. Host under epigenetic control: a novel perspective on the interaction between microorganisms and corals. Bioessays 43, e2100068 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Welsh, R. M. et al. Alien vs. predator: bacterial challenge alters coral microbiomes unless controlled by Halobacteriovorax predators. PeerJ 5, e3315 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peixoto, R. S. et al. Coral probiotics: premise, promise, prospects. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 9, 265–288 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peixoto, R. S. et al. Beneficial Microorganisms for Corals (BMC): proposed mechanisms for coral health and resilience. Front. Microbiol. 8, 341 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morgans, C. A., Hung, J. Y. & Bourne, D. G. Symbiodiniaceae probiotics for use in bleaching recovery. Restoration 28, 282–288 (2020).Zhang, Y. et al. Shifting the microbiome of a coral holobiont and improving host physiology by inoculation with a potentially beneficial bacterial consortium. BMC Microbiol. 21, 130 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Assis, J. M. et al. Delivering beneficial microorganisms for corals: rotifers as carriers of probiotic bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 11, 608506 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, G. et al. Changes in microbial communities, photosynthesis and calcification of the coral Acropora gemmifera in response to ocean acidification. Sci. Rep. 6, 35971 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
VanCompernolle, S. E. et al. Antimicrobial peptides from amphibian skin potently inhibit human immunodeficiency virus infection and transfer of virus from dendritic cells to T cells. J. Virol. 79, 11598–11606 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheele, B. C. et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363, 1459–1463 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, R. N., Lauer, A., Simon, M. A., Banning, J. L. & Alford, R. A. Addition of antifungal skin bacteria to salamanders ameliorates the effects of chytridiomycosis. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 83, 11–16 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Loudon, A. H. et al. Interactions between amphibians’ symbiotic bacteria cause the production of emergent anti-fungal metabolites. Front. Microbiol. 5, 441 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Muletz-Wolz, C. R. et al. Inhibition of fungal pathogens across genotypes and temperatures by amphibian skin bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1551 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jin Song, S. et al. Engineering the microbiome for animal health and conservation. Exp. Biol. Med. 244, 494–504 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Küng, D. et al. Stability of microbiota facilitated by host immune regulation: informing probiotic strategies to manage amphibian disease. PLoS ONE 9, e87101 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Micalizzi, E. W. & Smith, M. L. Volatile organic compounds kill the white-nose syndrome fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans, in hibernaculum sediment. Can. J. Microbiol. 66, 593–599 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gabriel, K. T., Joseph Sexton, D. & Cornelison, C. T. Biomimicry of volatile-based microbial control for managing emerging fungal pathogens. J. Appl. Microbiol. 124, 1024–1031 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodhams, D. C., Bletz, M., Kueneman, J. & McKenzie, V. Managing amphibian disease with skin microbiota. Trends Microbiol. 24, 161–164 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Bengtsson, J. Biological control as an ecosystem service: partitioning contributions of nature and human inputs to yield. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 45–44 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zalucki, M., Furlong, M. J., Schellhorn, N. A., Macfadyen, S. & Davies, A. P. Assessing the impact of natural enemies in agroecosystems: toward “real” IPM or in quest of Holy Grail? Insect. Sci. 22, 1–5 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Lenteren, J. C., Bolckmans, K., Kohl, J., Ravensberg, W. J. & Urabaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 63, 39–59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Symondson, W. O. C., Sunderland, K. D. & Greenstone, M. H. Can generalist predators be effective biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47, 561–594 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H. & Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B. 273, 1715–1727 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Nouhuys, S., Niemikapee, S. & Hanski, I. Variation in a host-parasitoid interaction across independent populations. Insects 3, 1236–1256 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedlund, K., Vet, L. E. M. & Dicke, M. Generalist and specialist parasitoid strategies of using odours of adult drosophilid flies when searching for larval hosts. Oikos 77, 390–398 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, E. W., Stevenson, A. T. & Richards, D. R. Essential versus alternative foods of insect predators: benefits of a mixed diet. Oelcologia 121, 107–112 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovei, G. L. & Sunderland, K. M. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 231–256 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kromp, B. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric. Ecosyt. Environ. 74, 187–228 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuf, H., Dedek, P. & Vesley, M. Does the diurnal activity pattern of carabid beetles depend on season, ground temperature, or habitat? Arch. Biol. Sci. 64, 721–732 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Firlej, A., Doyon, J., Harwood, J. D. & Brodeur, J. A multi-approach study to delineate interaction between carabid beetles and soybean aphids. Environ. Entomol. 42, 89–96 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. S., Luna, J. M., Stone, N. D. & Youngman, R. R. Generalist predator consumption of armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and effect of predator removal and damage in no-till corn. Environ. Entomol. 23, 617–622 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Floate, K. D., Doane, J. F. & Gillot, C. Carabid predators of the wheat midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Saskatchewan. Environ. Entomol. 19, 1503–1511 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barsics, F., Haubruge, E. & Verheggen, F. J. Wireworms’ management: an overview of the existing methods, with particular regards to Agriotis spp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Insects 4, 117–152 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oberholzer, F., Escher, N. & Frank, T. The potential of carabid beetles (Coleoptera) to reduce slug damage to oilseed rape in the laboratory. Eur. J. Entomol. 100, 81–85 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Honek, A., Martinkova, Z. & Jarosik, V. Ground beetles Carabidae as seed predators. Eur. J. Entomol. 100, 531–544 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundgren, J. G. Relationship of Natural Enemies and Non-prey Foods 1–460 (Springer, 2009).Carbonne, B. et al. The resilience of weed seedbank regulation by carabid beetles, at continental scales, to alternative prey. Sci. Rep. 10, 1935 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilder, S. M., Norris, M., Lee, R. W., Raubenheimer, D. & Simpson, S. J. Arthropod food webs become increasingly lipid-limited at higher trophic levels. Ecol. Lett. 16, 895–902 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Denno, R. F. & Fagan, W. F. Might nitrogen limitation promote omnivory among carnivorous arthropods? Ecology 84, 2522–2531 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saska, P. & Jarosik, V. Laboratory study of larval food requirements in nine species of Amara (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Plant Prot. 37, 103–110 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Saska, P., Van der Werf, W. & Westerman, P. Spatial and temporal patterns of carabid activity-density in cereals do not explain levels of weed seed predation. Bull. Entomological Res. 98, 169–181 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Talarico, F., Giglio, A., Pizzolotto, R. & Brandmayr, P. P. A synthesis of the feeding habits and reproductive rhythms in Italian seed feeding ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 113, 325–336 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fawki, S., Bak, S. S. & Toft, S. Food preference and food value for the carabid beetles Pterostichus melanarius, P. versicolor, and Carabus nemoralis. Eur. Carabidol. 114, 99–109 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Frei, B., Guenay, Y., Bohan, B. A., Traugett, M. & Wallinger, C. Molecular analysis indicates high levels of carabid weed seed consumption in cereal fields across central Europe. J. Plant Sci. 92, 935–942 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. Brassicaceous weed seed predation by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Weed. Sci. 64, 294–302 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saska, P., Honek, A., Foffova, H. & Martinkova, Z. Burial-induced changes in the seed preferences of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 116, 113–140 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saska, P., Honek, A. & Martinkova, Z. Preference of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) for herbaceous seeds. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 65, 57–76 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sih, A. & Christensen, B. Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim. Behav. 61, 379–390 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barron, A. B., Gurney, K. N., Meah, L. F. S., Vasilaki, E. & Marshall, J. A. R. Decision-making and action selection in insects: inspiration from vertebrate-based theories. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9, 216 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. C. J. The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: a review. Weed. Sci. 63, 355–376 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M., Spence, J. R. & Willenborg, C. J. Seed detection and discrimination by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) are associated with olfactory cues. PLoS One 12, e0170593 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Law, J. J. & Gallagher, R. S. The role of imbibition on seed selection by Harpalus pensylvanicus. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 87, 118–124 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, A. S., Schutte, B. J., Iannuzzi, J. & Renner, K. A. Chemical and physical defenses of weed seeds in relation to soil seedbank persistence. Weed Sci. 56, 676–684 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, K. A. & Willneborg., C. J. C. J. The biology of seed discrimination and its role in shaping the foraging ecology of carabids: a review. Ecol. Evol. 11, 13702–13722 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wheater, C. P. Prey detection by some predatory Coleoptera (Carabidae and Staphylinidae). J. Zool. 215, 171–185 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mundy, C. A., Aleen-Williams, L. J., Underwood, N. & Warrington, S. Prey selection and foraging behavior by Pterostichus cupreus L. (Col., Carabidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Appl. Entomol. 124, 349–358 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kielty, J. P., Allen-Williams, L. J., Underwood, N. & Eastwood, E. A. Behavioral responses of three species of ground beetles (Carabidae: Coloeptera) to olfactory cues associated with prey and habitat. J. Insect. Behav. 9, 237–249 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tréfás, H., Canning, H., McKinlay, R. G., Armstrong, G. & Bujaki, G. Preliminary experiments on the olfactory responses of Pterostichus melanarius Illiger (Coleoptera:Carabidae) to intact plants. Agric. Entomol. 3, 71–76 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKemey, A. R., Symondson, W. O. C. & Glen, D. M. Predation and prey size choice by the carabid Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the dangers of extrapolating from laboratory to field. Bull. Entomol. Res. 93, 227–234 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, R. S., Glen, D. M. & Symondson, W. O. C. Prey detection through olfaction by the soil-dwelling larvae of the carabid predator Pterostichus melanarius. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 207–216 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Talarico, F. et al. Electrophysiological and behavioral analyses on prey selecting in the myrmecophagous carabid beetle Siagona europaea Dejean 1826 (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Etho. Ecol. Evol. 22, 375–384 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R. & Barrales, G. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 721–730 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oster, M., Smith, L., Beck, J. J., Howard, A. & Field, C. B. Orientational behavior of predaceous ground beetle species in response to volatile emissions identified from yellow starthistle damaged by an invasive slug. Arthropod-Plant. Inte. 8, 429–437 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Srinivasan, M. V., Poteser, M. & Karl, K. Motion detection in insect orientation and navigation. Vis. Res. 39, 2749–2766 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sato, K. & Touhara, K. Insect olfaction: receptors, signal transduction, and behavior. Cell 47, 121–138 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leal, W. S. Odorant reception in insects: roles of receptors, binding proteins, and degrading enzymes. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 58, 373–391 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, H. R. & Benton, R. Molecular mechanisms of olfactory detection in insects: beyond receptors. Open Biol. 10, 200252 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Prokopy, R. J. & Owens, E. D. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 28, 337–364 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ploomi, A. et al. Antennal sensilla in ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Agron. Res. 1, 221–228 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Merivee, E. et al. Electrophysiological responses from neurons of antennal taste sensilla in the polyphagous predatory ground beetle Pterostichus oblongopunctatus (Fabricius 1787) to plant sugars and amin acids. J. Insect. Physiol. 54, 1213–1219 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merivee, E., Ploomi, A., Luik, A., Rahi, M. & Smmelselg, V. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Platynus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763) (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Micros. Res. Tech. 55, 339–349 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merivee, E. et al. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Bembidion properans Steph. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Micron 33, 429–440 (2002).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giglio, A., Perotta, E., Talarico, F., Brandmayr, T. E. & Ferrera, E. A. Sensilla on the maxillary and labial palps in a helicophagous ground beetle larva (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Acta Zool. 200, 1463–6393 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Van Naters, W. V. D. G. & Carlson, J. R. J. R. Receptors and neurons for fly odors in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 17, 606–612 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amrein, H. & Throne, N. Gustatory perception and behavior in Dropsophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 15, R673–R684 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, C. Y., Menuz, K. & Carlson, J. R. Olfactory perception: receptors, cells, and circuits. Cell 139, 45–59 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Krieger, J. & Breer, H. Olfactory receptors in invertebrates. Science 286, 720–723 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapman, R. F. The Insects: Structure and Function 4th edn, 1–584 (Cambridge University Press, 1998).Bhandari, S. R., Jo, J. S. & Lee, J. G. Comparisons of glucosinolate profiles in different tissues of nine Brassica crops. Molecules 20, 15827–15841 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reifenrath, K., Riederer, M. & Muller, M. Leaf surface wax layers of Brassicaceae lack feeding stimulants for Phaedon cochleariae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 115, 41–50 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stadler, E. & Reifenrath, K. Glucosinolates on the leaf surface perceived by insect herbivores: review of ambiguous results and new investigations. Phytoch. Rev. 8, 207–225 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, A., Sandhi, R. K. & Reddy, G. V. P. A review of interactions between insect biological control agents and semiochemicals. Insects 10, 439 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warwick, S. I., Francis, A. & Susko, D. J. The biology of Canadian weeds. 9. Thlaspi arvense L. (updated). Can. J. Plant. Sci. 82, 803–823 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moyna, P. & Garcia, M. Chemical composition of oat seed epicuticular lipids. J. Sci. Food Agric. 34, 209–211 (1983).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunst, L. & Samuels, A. L. Biosynthesis and secretion of plant cuticular wax. Prog. Lipid Res. 42, 51–80 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eigenbrode, S. D. & Espelie, K. E. Effects of plants epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40, 171–194 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finch, S. Volatile plant chemicals and their effect on host plant by the cabbage root fly (Delia brassicae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24, 350–359 (1978).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Udayagiri, S. & Mason, C. E. Epicuticular wax chemicals in Zea mays influence oviposition in Ostrinia nubilalis. J. Chem. Ecol. 23, 1675–1687 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adati, T. & Matsuda, K. The effect of leaf surface wax on feeding of the strawberry leaf beetle, Galerucella vittaticollis, with reference to host plant preference. Tohoku. J. Agric. Res. 50, 57–61 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Damon, S. J., Groves, R. L. & Harvey, M. J. Variation for epicuticular waxes on onion foliage and impacts on numbers of onion thrips. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 139, 495–501 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Braccini, C. L., Vega, A. S., Chludil, H. D., Leicach, S. R. & Fernandez, P. C. Host selection, oviposition behavior and leaf traits in a specialist willow sawfly on species of Salix (Salicaceae). Ecol. Entomol. 38, 617–626 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wojcicka, A. Effects of epicuticular waxes from triticale on the feeding behaviour and mortality of the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Plant. Prot. Res. 56, 39–44 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Medina, E. et al. Taxonomic significance of the epicuticular wax composition in species of genus Clusia from Panama. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 34, 319–326 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schulz-Bohm, K., Martin-Sanchez, L. & Garbeva, P. Microbial volatiles: small molecules with an inter-kingdom interactions. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2484 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, K. A. Mechanisms of Seed Discrimination and Selective Seed Foraging in Carabid Weed Seed Predators. https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/13815/ALI-DISSERTATION-2022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (2022).Webster, B., Qvarfordt, E., Olsson, U. & Glinwood, R. Different roles for innate and learnt behavioral responses to odors in insect host location. Behav. Ecol. 24, 366–372 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luff, M. L. Adult and larval feeding habits of Pterostichus madidus (F.) (Carabidae: Coleoptera). J. Nat. Hist. 8, 403–409 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blubaugh, C. K. & Kaplan, I. Invertebrate seed predators reduce weed emergence following seed rain. Weed Sci. 64, 80–86 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blubaugh, C. K., Hagler, J. R., Machtley, S. A. & Kaplan, I. Cover crops increase foraging activity of omnivorous predators in seed patches and facilitate weed biological control. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 231, 264–270 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foffova, H. et al. Which seed properties determine the preferences of carabid beetles seed predators? Insects 11, 757 (2020).Petit, S., Boursault, A. & Bohan, D. A. Weed seed choice by carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): linking field measurements and laboratory diet assessments. Eur. J. Entomol. 111, 615–620 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carbonne, B. et al. Direct and indirect effects of landscape and field management intensity on carabids through trophic resources and weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 176–187 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foffova, H., Bohan, D. A. & Saska, P. Do properties and species of weed seeds affect their consumption by carabid beetles? Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 66, 37–48 (2020b).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Heij, S. E. & Willenborg, C. J. Connected carabids: network interactions and their impact on biocontrol by carabid beetles. Bioscience 70, 90–500 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Honek, A., Martinkova, Z., Saska, P. & Pekar, S. Size and taxonomic constraints determine seed preference of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Basic Appl. Ecol. 8, 343–353 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spence, J. R. & Niemela, J. K. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can. Entomol. 126, 881–884 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindroth, C. H. The Ground Beetles (Carabidae, excluding Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Supplement 20, 24, 29, 33, 34, 35. Part I, pages I–XLVIII, 1969. Part II, pages 1–200, 1961. Part III, pages 201–408, 1963. Part IV, pages 409–648, 1966. Part V, pages 649–944, 1968. Part VI, pages 945–1192 (Opusca Entomology, 1961–1969).White, S. S., Renner, K. A., Menalled, F. D. & Landis, D. A. Feeding preferences of weed seed predators and effect on weed emergence. Weed. Sci. 55, 606–612 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Glinwood, R., Ahmed, E., Ovarfordt, E. & Ninkovic, V. Olfactory learning of plant genotypes by a polyphagous predator. Oecologia 166, 637–647 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sablon, L., Dickens, J. C., Haubruge, E. H. & Verhggen., F. J. Chemical ecology of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and potential for alternative control methods. Insects 4, 31–54 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, L., Li, H. & Zhang, L. Two olfactory pathways to detect aldehydes on locust mouthpart. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 13, 759–771 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pekar, S. & Hruskova, M. M. How granivorous Coreus marginatus (Hemiptera: Cereidae) recognizes its food. Acta Ethol. 9, 26–30 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ardenghi, N., Mulch, A., Pross, J. & Niedermeyer, E. M. Leaf wax n-alkane extraction: an optimized procedure. Org. Geochem. 113, 283–292 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi, S. & Gassa, A. Roles of cuticular hydrocarbons in intra- and interspecific recognition behavior of two Rhinotermitidae species. J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 1837–1845 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Nobre, J. S. & Singer, J. D. M. Residual analysis for linear mixed models. Biom. J. 49, 863–875 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schielzeth, H. et al. Robustness of linear mixed-effects models to violations of distributional assumptions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1141–1152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

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

Google Scholar 
Thomann, M., Imbert, E., Devaux, C. & Cheptou, P.-O. Flowering plants under global pollinator decline. Trends Plant Sci. 18, 353–359 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pauw, A. Can pollination niches facilitate plant coexistence? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 30–37 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, C. A. How mutualisms influence the coexistence of competing species. Ecology 102, e03346 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure (Princeton Univ. Press, 1982).Tilman, D. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58, 3–15 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–358 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, R. J., Flanagan, R. J., Brown, B. J., Waser, N. M. & Karron, J. D. New frontiers in competition for pollination. Ann. Bot. 103, 1403–1413 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morales, C. L. & Traveset, A. A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecol. Lett. 12, 716–728 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, E. I., Bronstein, J. L. & Ferrière, R. The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1256, 66–88 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bascompte, J. & Jordano, P. Mutualistic Networks (Princeton University Press, 2013).Bascompte, J. Mutualism and biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 29, R467–R470 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. J. Ecol. 106, 1773–1794 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levin, D. A. & Anderson, W. W. Competition for pollinators between simultaneously flowering species. Am. Nat. 104, 455–467 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunin, W. & Iwasa, Y. Pollinator foraging strategies in mixed floral arrays: density effects and floral constancy. Theor. Popul. Biol. 49, 232–263 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lanuza, J. B., Bartomeus, I. & Godoy, O. Opposing effects of floral visitors and soil conditions on the determinants of competitive outcomes maintain species diversity in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 21, 865–874 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomson, J. Spatial and temporal components of resource assessment by flower-feeding insects. J. Anim. Ecol. 50, 49–59 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knight, T. M. et al. Reflections on, and visions for, the changing field of pollination ecology. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1282–1295 (2018).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Biella, P. et al. Experimental loss of generalist plants reveals alterations in plant-pollinator interactions and a constrained flexibility of foraging. Sci. Rep. 9, 7376 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brosi, B. & Briggs, H. M. Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13044–13048 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Addicott, J. F. in The Biology of Mutualism (ed. Boucher, D. H.) 217–247 (Croom Helm, 1985).Knight, T. M. et al. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 467–497 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bartomeus, I., Saavedra, S., Rohr, R. P. & Godoy, O. Experimental evidence of the importance of multitrophic structure for species persistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023872118 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Levine, J. M., Bascompte, J., Adler, P. B. & Allesina, S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature 546, 56–64 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saavedra, S. et al. A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 470–486 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rinella, M. J., Strong, D. J. & Vermeire, L. T. Omitted variable bias in studies of plant interactions. Ecology 101, e03020 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Study sites and swarm characterizationThe survey was conducted in 10 villages in south-western Burkina Faso especially around the district of Bobo-Dioulasso, Santitougou (N11° 17′ 16″, W4° 13′ 04″), Kimidougou (N11° 17′ 53″; W4° 14′ 11″), Nastenga (N10.96871; W003.23477), Zeyama (N10.87638; W 003.26145), Mogobasso (N11° 25′ 31″, W4° 06′ 08″), Synbekuy (N11° 53′ 28″, W3° 44′ 02″), Ramatoulaye (N11° 33′ 39″, W3° 57′ 05″) Syndombokuy (N11° 53′ 06″, W3° 43′ 19″), Lampa (N11.16464; W 003.6374) et Syndounkuy (N11.14541; W 003.05141) (Fig. 1). All villages are located north of Bobo-Dioulasso, on the national road 10 (N10), ranged from 20 and 90 km. The region is characterised by wooded savannah located in south-western Burkina Faso, and the mean annual rainfall is about 1200 mm. The rainy season extends from May to October and the dry season from November to April. Malaria transmission in the area extends from June to November. However, residual transmission may occur beyond this period in specific locations. An. gambiae is the major malaria vector following by An. coluzzii and An. Arabiensis. Villages were chosen to represent similar ecological and entomological settings, they are middle sized and relatively isolated from one another.Figure 1Localization of the study sites in south-western Burkina Faso. This map was created under QGIS version 2.18 Las Palmas. link: https://changelog.qgis.org/en/qgis/version/2.18.0/Full size imageSpray Application Against Mosquito Swarms (SAMS) consisted of spraying diluted insecticide (Actellic 50: tap water with 1:20 concentration) at dusk by trained volunteer teams. They used the innovative technology of targeted swarm spraying with handheld sprayers and conventional broadcast space spray with backpack sprayers to achieve maximum effect. The spraying activities were conducted in eight of the ten villages. The target swarm spray was used in the four villages Kimidougou, Nastenga, Ramatoulaye and Syndombokuy. The broadcast space spray was applied in four other villages, Zeyama, Mogobasso, Lampa and Syndounkuy. The two remaining villages, Santidougou and Synbekuy were chosen as controls (Fig. 1). In each village, the potential swarm markers and the positive swarm sites were identified and geo-referenced using GPS. All concessions also were geo-referenced and labelled using paint.Procedure of the interventionTargeted swam spraying using handheld sprayersTargeted swarm spraying was carried out in four villages. Members of each team and volunteers from the selected villages were trained to target the swarms and apply an appropriate amount of spray each time. After the pre-intervention phase, all swarm sites scattered through the villages were repaired and swarm characteristics recorded. At 30 min before dusk (the estimated swarming time), a volunteer was placed in each compound with a sprayer. The objective of each volunteer was to destroy any swarm in the compound by applying insecticide with the handheld sprayer (Fig. 2A,B). Screening of the compound was continued for about 30 min until it was dark and no mosquitoes were visible. A single operator was able to effectively target 5 to 10 swarms per spray evening, depending on the distribution of swarms across the village. Spraying was carried out for 10 successive days throughout each village. The period of spraying approximately covered the period of pre-imaginal mosquito stages and was renewed after 45 days. The quantity of insecticide used was measured daily, in order to determine with precision the total quantity of insecticide used during targeted spraying.Figure 2Volunteer spraying swarms using handheld sprayers (A,B). Backpack spraying activities (C,D).Full size imageConventional broadcast spraying using Backpack sprayersThe broadcast spraying was also carried out in 4 villages but, unlike the targeted spraying, there was no direct targeting of swarms. At swarming time (estimated around 30 min at dusk) two volunteers with backpack sprayers ran through the entire village along paths between the compounds while spraying insecticide (Fig. 2C,D). As with the targeted spraying procedure, the broadcast spraying was carried out for 10 successive days in all 4 villages simultaneously, and spraying recommenced after 45 days. The quantity of insecticide used was measured daily, in order to determine with precision the total quantity of insecticide used during targeted spraying.Evaluation of the interventionA year prior to the intervention, baseline entomological data was collected in both villages to estimate mosquito density, human biting rate, female insemination rate, age structure of females and entomological inoculation rate29. The same parameters were evaluated immediately before and after intervention. The pre- and post-intervention evaluation of the abovementioned parameters were carried in both control and intervention villages at the same time. In both pre-intervention and post-intervention phases, two methods of mosquito collection were performed in each village, the human landing catch (HLC), indoor and outdoor in 4 houses for 4 successive nights, the pyrethroid spray catch (PSC) in the same10 houses and 10 randomly selected houses. To identify these, all houses in each village were coded and these codes were used to randomly select those to be sampled. All sampled sites were mapped using a global positioning system (GPS). Collected anopheline mosquitoes were sorted by taxonomic status, physiological status, and sex. Approximately, the ovaries of 200 females/month/village (100 females indoor and 100 females outdoor) were dissected to determine the physiological age, and parous females were subsequently subjected to ELISA assays to determine Plasmodium sporozoite rates. Data produced from indoor and outdoor mosquito collections were then used to estimate mosquito densities, their spatial distribution, produce a map identifying hotspots where the highest mosquito densities and biting occurred within the village, female age structure and quantify the intensity of malaria transmission. The impact of the spray was measured to see how it affected each of these parameters in the intervention villages compared to the controls.Statistical analysisThe resting mosquito abundance was assessed as the number of mosquitoes per house, the human biting rate assessed as the number of bites per person per night, the parity rate assessed as the percentage of parous females, and the insemination rate assessed as the percentage of the inseminated females. The list above defined the key entomological parameters to determine the dynamic of An. gambie s.l. populations and malaria transmission. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used to estimate population averaged effect of intervention on various outcome measurements. As the GEE models do not require distributional assumptions but only specification of the mean and variance structure, they are more robust against misspecification of higher-order features of the data, and are useful when the main interest is in population averaged effects of an intervention or treatment. However, because they do not use a full likelihood model, they cannot be used for individual-specific inference30,31. Despite this shortcoming, their robustness to different types of correlation structures in the data (due to temporal ordering of measurements, or other hierarchical structure in data) makes them attractive for analyses of this type. GEE models were run in R version 3.6.232, using the package “geepack”33 for three datasets on insemination and parity rate, number of bites per person per night (NBPN), and density of adult male and female mosquitoes. To clean and plot the data the “tidyverse” family of R packages34 were used.Ethical considerationsThis study did not involve human patients. The full protocol of the study was submitted to the Institutional Ethics Committee of the “Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Sante” for review and approval (A17-2016/CEIRES). In accordance with the approval, presentations of the project were given to the study site villagers and requests for their participation were made. During these visits the objectives, protocol and expected results were explained and discussed, as well as the implications for the households willing to take part in this study. A written consent form was signed or marked with fingerprint by the head of the households before any activity could take place in his compound. Insecticides used in this study are approved for use by the Burkina Faso insecticide regulation authority. More

Descamps, S. et al. Diverging phenological responses of Arctic seabirds to an earlier spring. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 4081–4091 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramp, C., Delarue, J., Palsbøll, P. J., Sears, R. & Hammond, P. S. Adapting to a warmer ocean—seasonal shift of baleen whale movements over three decades. PLoS ONE 10, e0121374 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Insley, S. J., Halliday, W. D., Mouy, X. & Diogou, N. Bowhead whales overwinter in the Amundsen Gulf and Eastern Beaufort Sea. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Laidre, K. L., Quakenbush, L. T. & Citta, J. J. The Northwest Passage opens for bowhead whales. Biol. Lett. 8, 270–273 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Durant, J., Hjermann, D., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. Climate and the match or mismatch between predator requirements and resource availability. Clim. Res. 33, 271–283 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staudinger, M. D. et al. It’s about time: A synthesis of changing phenology in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 532–566 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Miller-Rushing, A. J., Høye, T. T., Inouye, D. W. & Post, E. The effects of phenological mismatches on demography. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3177–3186 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Record, N. et al. Rapid climate-driven circulation changes threaten conservation of endangered North Atlantic right whales. Oceanography 32, 1 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacLeod, C. Global climate change, range changes and potential implications for the conservation of marine cetaceans: a review and synthesis. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 125–136 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Learmonth, J. A. et al. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 44, 431–464 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341, 1239–1242 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pershing, A. J. et al. Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 350, 809–812 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Gulf of Maine Warming Update: 2021 the Hottest Year on Record. (2022).Saba, V. S. et al. Enhanced warming of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean under climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 121, 118–132 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedland, K. D. et al. Trends and change points in surface and bottom thermal environments of the US Northeast Continental Shelf Ecosystem. Fish. Oceanogr. 29, 396–414 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nye, J., Link, J., Hare, J. & Overholtz, W. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 393, 111–129 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kress, S. W., Shannon, P. & O’Neal, C. Recent changes in the diet and survival of Atlantic puffin chicks in the face of climate change and commercial fishing in midcoast Maine, USA. FACETS 1, 27–43 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, G. E. et al. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4812–4840 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pace, R. M., Corkeron, P. J. & Kraus, S. D. State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8730–8741 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer-Gutbrod, E. L. & Greene, C. H. Uncertain recovery of the North Atlantic right whale in a changing ocean. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 455–464 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sorochan, K. A. et al. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and its food: (II) interannual variations in biomass of Calanus spp. on western North Atlantic shelves. J. Plankton Res. 41, 687–708 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedland, K. D. et al. Spring bloom dynamics and zooplankton biomass response on the US Northeast Continental Shelf. Cont. Shelf Res. 102, 47–61 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer-Gutbrod, E., Greene, C., Davies, K. & Johns, D. Ocean regime shift is driving collapse of the North Atlantic right whale population. Oceanography 34, 22–31 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knowlton, A., Hamilton, P., Marx, M., Pettis, H. & Kraus, S. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: A 30 yr retrospective. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 466, 293–302 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, K. T. A. & Brillant, S. W. Mass human-caused mortality spurs federal action to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales in Canada. Mar. Policy 104, 157–162 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraus, S. D. & Rolland, R. M. Right whales in the urban ocean. in The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads 1–38 (Harvard University Press, 2010). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1q9.Winn, H. E., Price, C. A. & Sorensen, P. W. The distributional biology of the right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. 10, 129–138 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Mayo, C. A. & Marx, M. K. Surface foraging behaviour of the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. Can. J. Zool. 68, 2214–2220 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayo, C. A. et al. Distribution, demography, and behavior of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 1998–2013. Mar. Mammal Sci. 34, 979–996 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pendleton, D. E. et al. Regional-scale mean copepod concentration indicates relative abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 378, 211–225 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kenney, R. D., Winn, H. E. & Macaulay, M. C. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979–1989: right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Cont. Shelf Res. 15, 385–414 (1995).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. W. et al. Recovery strategy for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian waters. in Species at risk act recovery strategy series (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009).Weinrich, M. T., Kenney, R. D. & Hamilton, P. K. Right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) on Jeffreys Ledge: a habitat of unrecognized importance?. Mar. Mammal Sci. 16, 326–337 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, T. et al. Evidence of a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endanger. Species Res. 21, 55–64 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ganley, L., Brault, S. & Mayo, C. What we see is not what there is: estimating North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. Endanger. Species Res. 38, 101–113 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simard, Y., Roy, N., Giard, S. & Aulanier, F. North Atlantic right whale shift to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 2015, revealed by long-term passive acoustics. Endanger. Species Res. 40, 271–284 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leiter, S. et al. North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence in offshore wind energy areas near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, USA. Endanger. Species Res. 34, 45–59 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, K. M. et al. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in a wind energy development area offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. J. Coast. Conserv. 21, 527–543 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanderlaan, A., Taggart, C., Serdynska, A., Kenney, R. & Brown, M. Reducing the risk of lethal encounters: Vessels and right whales in the Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. Endanger. Species Res. 4, 283–297 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered and threatened species; critical habitat for endangered North Atlantic right whale. Fed. Regist. 80, 9314–9345 (2015).
Google Scholar 
National Marine Fisheries Service. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations; Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations; Atlantic coastal fisheries cooperative management act provisions; American lobster fishery. Fed. Regist. 85, 86878–86900 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Reeves, R. R., Breiwick, J. M. & Mitchell, E. D. History of whaling and estimated kill of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36, 1 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Allen, G. M. The whalebone whales of New England. Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 8, 107–322 (1915).ADS 

Google Scholar 
CETAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and North- Atlantic areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, final report. (1982).Kenney, R. D. & Vigness-Raposa, K. J. Marine mammals and sea turtles of Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound, Rhode Island Sound, and nearby waters: An analysis of existing data for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan. in Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan; Volume 2 Appendix A: Technical Reports for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan. 701–1037 (Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, Wakefield, RI, 2010).Pendleton, D. et al. Weekly predictions of North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis habitat reveal influence of prey abundance and seasonality of habitat preferences. Endanger. Species Res. 18, 147–161 (2012).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kraus, S. D., Kenney, R. D. & Thomas, L. A framework for studying the effects of offshore wind development on marine mammals and turtles. (2019). Report prepared for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Boston, MA, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Sterling, VA. Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. 48 pp.Quintana-Rizzo, E. et al. Residency, demographics, and movement patterns of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis in an offshore wind energy development area in southern New England, USA. Endanger. Species Res. 45, 251–268 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, J. K. D., Kenney, R. D., LeRoi, D. J. & Kraus, S. D. Automated vertical photography for detecting pelagic species in multitaxon aerial surveys. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 48, 36–48 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamilton, P. K., Knowlton, A. R. & Marx, M. K. Right whales tell their own stories: the photo-identification catalog. in The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads 75–104 (Harvard University Press, 2010).Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Laake, J. L. Distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations Vol. 50 (Chapman and Hall, 1993).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.Miller, D. L., Rexstad, E., Thomas, L., Marshall, L. & Laake, J. L. Distance Sampling in R. J. Stat. Softw. 89, 1–28 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eberhardt, L. L., Chapman, D. G. & Gilbert, J. R. A review of marine mammal census methods. Wildl. Monogr. 1, 3–46 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Durant, S. M. et al. Long-term trends in carnivore abundance using distance sampling in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: Serengeti carnivore trends. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1490–1500 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reeves, R. R. & Mitchell, E. The Long Island, New York, right whale fishery: 1650–1924. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 10, 201–220 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Davis, G. E. et al. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Sci. Rep. 7, 13460 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. et al. Have whales returned to a historical hotspot of industrial whaling? The pattern of southern right whale Eubalaena australis recovery at South Georgia. Endanger. Species Res. 43, 323–339 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carroll, E. L. et al. Reestablishment of former wintering grounds by New Zealand southern right whales. Mar. Mammal Sci. 30, 206–220 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charlton, C. et al. Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) return to a former wintering calving ground: Fowlers Bay, South Australia. Mar. Mammal Sci. 35, 1438–1462 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garrigue, C. et al. Searching for humpback whales in a historical whaling hotspot of the Coral Sea, South Pacific. Endanger. Species Res. 42, 67–82 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clapham, P. J., Aguilar, A. & Hatch, L. T. Determining spatial and temporal scales for management: lessons from whaling. Mar. Mammal Sci. 24, 183–201 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watkins, W. A. & Schevill, W. E. Right whale feeding and baleen rattle. J. Mammal. 57, 58–66 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beardsley, R. C. et al. Spatial variability in zooplankton abundance near feeding right whales in the Great South Channel.. Deep Sea Res Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 43, 1601–1625 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wishner, K. F. et al. Copepod patches and right whales in the Great South Channel off New England. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43, 825–844 (1988).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Baumgartner, M., Cole, T., Clapham, P. & Mate, B. North Atlantic right whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy and on the SW Scotian Shelf during 1999–2001. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 264, 137–154 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, M. J. & van der Hoop, J. M. The painful side of trap and fixed net fisheries: Chronic entanglement of large whales. J. Mar. Biol. 2012, 1–4 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement (2015). Accessed on 16 Dec 2021.Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Change Biol. 21(7), 2655–2660 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, S. et al. Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 15 °C target. Nat. Clim. Change 9(1), 66–72 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hong, C. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589, 554–561 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: Building the evidence base. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 065007 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, P. et al. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Schlesinger, W. H. & Andrews, J. A. Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle. Biogeochemistry 78, 7–20 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, K. A. & Conen, F. Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use Manage. 20, 245–253 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, S. K. et al. Nitrous oxide emissions from managed grassland: A comparison of eddy covariance and static chamber measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 4, 2179–2194 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapuis‐Lardy, L., Wrage, N., Metay, A., Chotte, J. L. & Bernoux, M. Soils, a sink for N2O? A review. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1–17 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanz-Cobena, A. et al. Do cover crops enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 emissions from soil in Mediterranean arable systems? Sci. Total Environ. 466, 164–174 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kaye, J. P. & Quemada, M. Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37(1), 1–17 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guardia, G. et al. Effective climate change mitigation through cover cropping and integrated fertilization: A global warming potential assessment from a 10-year field experiment. J Clean. Prod. 241, 118307 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Osipitan, O. A., Dille, J. A., Assefa, Y. & Knezevic, S. Z. Cover crop for early season weed suppression in crops: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Agron. J. 110(6), 2211–2221 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thapa, R., Mirsky, S. B. & Tully, K. L. Cover crops reduce nitrate leaching in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 47(6), 1400–1411 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Snapp, S. S. et al. Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agron. J. 97, 322–332 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reicks, G. W. et al. Winter cereal rye cover crop decreased nitrous oxide emissions during early spring. Agron. J. 113, 3900–3909 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Behnke, G. D. & Villamil, M. B. Cover crop rotations affect greenhouse gas emissions and crop production in Illinois, USA. Field Crops Res. 241, 107580 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Canqui, H., Holman, J. D., Schlegel, A. J., Tatarko, J. & Shaver, T. M. Replacing fallow with cover crops in a semi-arid soil: Effects on soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77, 1026–1034 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Basche, A. D., Miguez, F. E., Kaspar, T. C. & Castellano, M. J. Do cover crops increase or decrease nitrous oxide emissions? A meta-analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 471–482 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789–813 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Finney, D. M., White, C. M. & Kaye, J. P. Biomass production and carbon nitrogen ratio influence ecosystem services from cover crop mixtures. Agron. J. 108, 39–52 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drost, S. M., Rutgers, M., Wouterse, M., De Boer, W. & Bodelier, P. L. Decomposition of mixtures of cover crop residues increases microbial functional diversity. Geoderma 361, 114060 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thapa, V. R., Ghimire, R., Acosta-Martínez, V., Marsalis, M. A. & Schipanski, M. E. Cover crop biomass and species composition affect soil microbial community structure and enzyme activities in semi-arid cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 157, 103735 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muhammad, I. et al. Regulation of soil CO2 and N2O emissions by cover crops: A meta-analysis. Soil Till. Res. 192, 103–112 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarkodie-Addo, J., Lee, H. C. & Baggs, E. M. Nitrous oxide emissions after application of inorganic fertilizer and incorporation of green manure residues. Soil Use Manage. 19, 331–339 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guardia, G. et al. Effect of cover crops on greenhouse gas emissions in an irrigated field under integrated soil fertility management. Biogeosciences 13, 5245–5257 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, D. C., Castellano, M. J., Sawyer, J. E. & Pantoja, J. Cover crop effects on nitrous oxide emissions: Role of mineralizable carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77, 1765 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bodner, G., Mentler, A., Klik, A., Kaul, H. P. & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Do cover crops enhance soil greenhouse gas losses during high emission moments under temperate Central Europe conditions? Die Bodenkult J. Land Manage. Food Environ. 68, 171–187 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Easter, M. & Paustian, K. Climate change effects on organic carbon storage in agricultural soils of northeastern Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 155, 87–94 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bronson, K. F. et al. Carbon and nitrogen pools of southern High Plains cropland and grassland soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 1695–1704 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X., Talley, M. & Luo, Y. Biomass, litter and soil respiration along a precipitation gradient in Southern Great Plains, USA. Ecosystems 12, 1369–1380 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Poulter, B. et al. Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature 509, 600–603 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahlström, A. et al. The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science 348, 895–899 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang, J., Yu, H., Guan, X., Wang, G. & Guo, R. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 166–171 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Antosh, E., Idowu, J., Schutte, B. & Lehnhoff, E. Winter cover crops effects on soil properties and sweet corn yield in semi-arid irrigated systems. Agron. J. 112, 92–106 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paye, W. S. et al. Cover crop water use and corn silage production in semi-arid irrigated conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 260, 107275 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paye, W. S., Acharya, P. & Ghimire, R. Water productivity of forage sorghum in response to winter cover crops in semi-arid irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 283, 108552 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garba, I. I., Bell, L. W. & Williams, A. Cover crop legacy impacts on soil water and nitrogen dynamics, and on subsequent crop yields in drylands: A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42(3), 1–21 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gabriel, J. L., Muñoz-Carpena, R. & Quemada, M. The role of cover crops in irrigated systems: Water balance, nitrate leaching and soil mineral nitrogen accumulation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 155, 50–61 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trost, B. et al. Irrigation, soil organic carbon and N2O emissions. A review. Agron. Sustain Dev. 33, 733–749 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nilahyane, A., Ghimire, R., Thapa, V. R. & Sainju, U. M. Cover crop effects on soil carbon dioxide emissions in a semiarid cropping system. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 3, e20012 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Thapa, V. R., Ghimire, R., Duval, B. D. & Marsalis, M. A. Conservation systems for positive net ecosystem carbon balance in semi-arid drylands. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2, 1–8 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abdalla, M. et al. A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Glob. Change Biol. 25(8), 2530–2543 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Larionova, A. A., Sapronov, D. V., de Gerenyu, V. L., Kuznetsova, L. G. & Kudeyarov, V. N. Contribution of plant root respiration to the CO2 emission from soil. Eurasian Soil Sci. 39, 1127–1135 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, P. J., Edwards, N. T., Garten, C. T. & Andrews, J. A. Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: A review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry 48, 115–146 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rochette, P., Flanagan, L. B. & Gregorich, E. G. Separating soil respiration into plant and soil components using analyses of the natural abundance of carbon-13. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1207–1213 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sainju, U. M., Jabro, J. D. & Stevens, W. B. Soil carbon dioxide emission and carbon content as affected by irrigation, tillage, cropping system, and nitrogen fertilization. J. Environ. Qual. 37, 98–106 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mosier, A. R., Halvorson, A. D., Reule, C. A. & Liu, X. J. Net global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity in irrigated cropping systems in northeastern Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1584–1598 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, J. et al. Stover retention rather than no-till decreases the global warming potential of rainfed continuous maize cropland. Field Crops Res. 219, 14–23 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
USDA Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (2022). Accessed on 23 Jan 2022.Zibilske, L. M. Carbon mineralization. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties (eds Weaver, R. W. et al.). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.2.c38 (Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1994).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Sainju, U. M. Net global warming potential, and greenhouse gas intensity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 84, 1393–1404 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lal, R. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 30, 981–990 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haile-Mariam, S., Collins, H. P. & Higgins, S. S. Greenhouse gas fluxes from an irrigated sweet corn (Zea mays L.)–potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) rotation. J. Environ. Qual. 37(3), 759–771 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More