Philippa Kaur

Bacterial community compositionIn order to study the microbial structure of the biofilm and activated sludge that were developing in the IFAS-MBSBBR reactor, a total of 15 samples were taken at intervals during an experiment lasting 573 days. The microbiome of both environments was described at the phylum and genus levels. A total of 26 bacterial phyla and 783 bacterial genera were identified. The most numerous phyla and genera in the biofim and activated sludge samples are presented in in Figs. 1 and 2. Both in the biofilm and the activated sludge, the most numerous phyla were Proteobacteria, with respective mean abundances of 39.3% ± 9.0 and 40.8% ± 8.2, and Bacteroidota, with respective mean abundances of 14.2% ± 4.9 and 26.1% ± 13.7. Additionally, the phylum Chloroflexi was rather abundant in the biofilm (with a mean abundance of 13.9 ± 8.1), while Actinobacteriota and Patescibacteria were relatively abundant in the activated sludge (with mean abundances of 9.0% ± 9.6 and 7.5% ± 8.1, respectively). STAMP analysis identified significant overrepresentations of Chloroflexi, Acidobacteriota, and Nitrospirota in biofilm and of Firmicutes in activated sludge.Figure 1Relative abundance (%) of the most prevalent phyla in the biofilm and activated sludge samples in general, as the mean values of relative abundance from all biofilm and activated sludge samples (A), and in each individual sample (B). The graph shows only phyla which contributed more than 0.5% to the total bacterial community in at least one sample. The abundance of the remaining phyla was summed and labelled as “other”.Full size imageFigure 2Relative abundance (%) of the most prevalent genera in the biofilm and activated sludge samples in general, as the mean values of relative abundance from all biofilm and activated sludge samples (A), and in each individual sample (B). The graph shows only genera which contributed more than 1.5% to the total bacterial community in at least one sample. The abundance of the remaining genera was summed and labelled as “other”.Full size imageIn both environments, the abundances of various groups of bacteria changed over time. In the biofilm, the abundance of Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria gradually decreased, while that of Chloroflexi increased. In the activated sludge, the changes in abundance were larger and more rapid, and the abundance of Bacteroidota changed to the largest extent, ranging from 12.7% after 42 days of reactor operation to 52.3% after 110 days, when it was the predominant phylum. The abundance of Patescibacteria also changed substantially: its abundance was highest on the 78th, 205th and 447th days of the process, reaching values of 20.1%, 11.0%, and 7.2%, respectively. Similar changes took place in the abundance of Armatimonadota, which reached 11.4% and 7.6% on the 547th and 573th day, but did not exceed 0.1% in the samples taken at other times.At the genus level, the less abundant genera (each  More

To the Editor — It is widely appreciated that the world’s wetlands provide important ecosystem services including critical biodiversity, stores of carbon and strong cultural links to people. Yet wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate due to diversion and abstraction of water, to conversion to agricultural land and to pollution. In response, there has been a major commitment to conserve and restore wetlands worldwide, including more than 2,400 sites on the territories of 172 Contracting Parties of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Sites), covering more than 2.5 million square kilometres. Some wetlands, such as Doñana in southern Spain, are also World Heritage sites to protect their natural and cultural values. The Ramsar Convention and UNESCO World Heritage Convention strongly support the rights of non-governmental organizations to appraise the status and management of designated sites and welcome reports of threats to site integrity. However, such claims should be substantiated by all the available scientific evidence. More

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D. & Goodman, S. N. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002264 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hampton, S. E. et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 6, art120 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).Sutton, A. J. in The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (eds Cooper, H. et al.) 435–452 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009).Nakagawa, S., Koricheva, J., Macleod, M. & Viechtbauer, W. Introducing our series: research synthesis and meta-research in biology. BMC Biol. 18, 20 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, S. et al. A new ecosystem for evidence synthesis. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 498–501 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coolidge, H. J. & Lord, R. H. in Archibald Cary Coolidge: Life and Letters 308 (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1932).Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 175–220 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Touchon, J. C. & McCoy, M. W. The mismatch between current statistical practice and doctoral training in ecology. Ecosphere 7, e01394 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aarts, A. A. et al. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, aac4716 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 637–644 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A. & Fidler, F. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE 13, e0200303 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., van den Berg, I., Evans, S. & Sánchez-Tójar, A. Low availability of code in ecology: a call for urgent action. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000763 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jennions, M. D. & Møller, A. P. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 77, 211–222 (2002).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jennions, M. D. & Møller, A. P. A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behav. Ecol. 14, 438–445 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cassey, P., Ewen, J. G., Blackburn, T. M. & Møller, A. P. A survey of publication bias within evolutionary ecology. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, S451–S454 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kardish, M. R. et al. Blind trust in unblinded observation in ecology, evolution, and behavior. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 51 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jennions, M. D. & Møller, A. P. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269, 43–48 (2002).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374, 86–89 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Altman, D. G. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308, 283–284 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Is 85% of health research really ‘wasted’? BMJ Opinion (14 January 2016).Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal. BMJ 363, k4645 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chalmers, I. et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383, 156–165 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunin, W. E. Robust evidence of declines in insect abundance and biodiversity. Nature 574, 641–642 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences. Nat. Commun. 11, 6377 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, H. A. et al. Finding our way: on the sharing and reuse of animal telemetry data in Australasia. Sci. Total Environ. 534, 79–84 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koricheva, J. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102, 397–401 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, L. T. & Adams, M. A. Assessment of ecological effects due to forest harvesting: approaches and statistical issues. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 585–598 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. A nonparametric ‘trim and fill’ method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 89–98 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Brlík, V. et al. Weak effects of geolocators on small birds: a meta-analysis controlled for phylogeny and publication bias. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 207–220 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, S. H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jennions, M. D. & Møller, A. P. A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behaviour. Behav. Ecol. 14, 438–445 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., Purgar, M. & Klanjscek, T. Datasets and codes for Purgar et al. 2022: quantifying research waste in ecology. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/6566100#.YrLWB-zMIqs (2022).Ferguson, C. et al. Europe PMC in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D1507–D1514 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, C.-K. et al. Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9, e57067 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ross-Hellauer, T. Open science, done wrong, will compound inequities. Nature 603, 363 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, A. C. et al. Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s ‘Mirror journal’ system. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2, 1123–1143 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christie, A. P. et al. Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science. PeerJ 9, e12245 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Desjardins-Proulx, P. et al. The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001563 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Munafò, M. R. et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0021 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Dea, R. E. et al. Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology. BMC Biol. 19, 68 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A. et al. Navigating the unfolding open data landscape in ecology and evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 420–426 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., Crowther, T. W., Ramakers, J. J. C., Gienapp, P. & Visser, M. E. How to do meta-analysis of open datasets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1053–1056 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R. & Binning, S. A. Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: how well are we doing? PLoS Biol. 13, e1002295 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grainger, M. J., Bolam, F. C., Stewart, G. B. & Nilsen, E. B. Evidence synthesis for tackling research waste. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 495–497 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nørgaard, B. et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 145, 1–13 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Webb, J. A. et al. Weaving common threads in environmental causal assessment methods: toward an ideal method for rapid evidence synthesis. Freshw. Sci. 36, 250–256 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collins, A., Coughlin, D., Miller, J. & Kirk, S. The Production of Quick Scoping Reviews and Rapid Evidence Assessments: A How to Guide (Joint Water Evidence Group, 2015).Carrick, J. et al. Is planting trees the solution to reducing flood risks? J. Flood Risk Manag. 12, e12484 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nuñez, M. A. & Amano, T. Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 264 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morrison, A. et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28, 138–144 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, T., Li, Y., Bian, Z., Liu, G. & Moher, D. Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized? Trials 10, 46 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vorobeichik, E. L. & Kozlov, M. V. Impact of point polluters on terrestrial ecosystems: methodology of research, experimental design, and typical errors. Russ. J. Ecol. 43, 89–96 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).MacCoun, R. & Perlmutter, S. Blind analysis: hide results to seek the truth. Nature 526, 187–189 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, T. H. et al. Transparency in ecology and evolution: real problems, real solutions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 711–719 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496, 398 (2013).Moher, D. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet 387, 1573–1586 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. The natural selection of bad science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vrieze, J. Landmark research integrity survey finds questionable practices are surprisingly common. ScienceInsider https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/landmark-research-integrity-survey-finds-questionable-practices-are-surprisingly-common (2021).Woolston, C. Impact factor abandoned by Dutch university in hiring and promotion decisions. Nature 595, 462 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission). Towards a Reform of the Research Assessment System. Scoping Report (Publications Office, 2021).Athena Research & Innovation Center, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), PPMI, UNU-MERIT. Monitoring the Open Access Policy of Horizon 2020. Final report (European Commission, 2021).Kwon, D. University of California and Elsevier forge open-access deal. TheScientist https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/university-of-california-and-elsevier-forge-open-access-deal–68557 (2021).Vines, T. H. et al. Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 27, 1304–1308 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
NPQIP Collaborative Group. Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting? BMJ Open Sci. 3, e000035 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glasziou, P. et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383, 267–276 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fecher, B. & Friesike, S. in Opening Science: the Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing (eds Bartling, S. & Friesike, S.) 17–47 (Springer International Publishing, 2014).Hardwicke, T. E. et al. Calibrating the scientific ecosystem through meta-research. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 7, 11–37 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKiernan, E. C. et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5, e16800 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fidler, F. et al. Metaresearch for evaluating reproducibility in ecology and evolution. Bioscience 67, 282–289 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cornwall, C. E. & Hurd, C. L. Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 572–581 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fidler, F., Burgman, M. A., Cumming, G., Buttrose, R. & Thomason, N. Impact of criticism of null-hypothesis significance testing on statistical reporting practices in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1539–1544 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forstmeier, W. & Schielzeth, H. Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 47–55 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillespie, B. R., Desmet, S., Kay, P., Tillotson, M. R. & Brown, L. E. A critical analysis of regulated river ecosystem responses to managed environmental flows from reservoirs. Freshw. Biol. 60, 410–425 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haddaway, N. R., Styles, D. & Pullin, A. S. Evidence on the environmental impacts of farm land abandonment in high altitude/mountain regions: a systematic map. Environ. Evid. 3, 17 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heffner, R. A., Butler, M. J. & Reilly, C. K. Pseudoreplication revisited. Ecology 77, 2558–2562 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holman, L., Head, M. L., Lanfear, R. & Jennions, M. D. Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hurlbert, S. H. & White, M. D. Experiments with freshwater invertebrate zooplanktivores: quality of statistical analyses. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53, 128–153 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, W. T.3rd & Freeberg, T. M. Pseudoreplication in use of predator stimuli in experiments on antipredator responses. Anim. Behav. 119, 161–164 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kozlov, M. V. Pseudoreplication in ecological research: the problem overlooked by Russian scientists. Zh. Obshch. Biol. 64, 292–307 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kozlov, M. V. Plant studies on fluctuating asymmetry in Russia: mythology and methodology. Russ. J. Ecol. 48, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, S., Cresswell, T., Hassell, K. & Keough, M. Experimental design and statistical analysis in aquatic live animal radiotracing studies: a systematic review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 2772–2801 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Møller, A. P., Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. Direct and indirect tests for publication bias: asymmetry and sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 70, 497–506 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mrosovsky, N. & Godfrey, M. H. The path from grey literature to Red Lists. Endang. Species Res. 6, 185–191 (2008).
Google Scholar 
O’Brien, C., van Riper, C.3rd & Myers, D. E. Making reliable decisions in the study of wildlife diseases: using hypothesis tests, statistical power, and observed effects. J. Wildl. Dis. 45, 700–712 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, T. H. What do we really know about the signalling role of plumage colour in blue tits? A case study of impediments to progress in evolutionary biology. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 88, 511–536 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramage, B. S. et al. Pseudoreplication in tropical forests and the resulting effects on biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27, 364–372 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sallabanks, R., Arnett, E. B. & Marzluff, J. M. An evaluation of research on the effects of timber harvest on bird populations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 1144–1155 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Tójar, A. et al. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. eLife 7, e37385 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Waller, B., Warmelink, L., Liebal, K., Micheletta, J. & Slocombe, K. Pseudoreplication: a widespread problem in primate communication research. Anim. Behav. 86, 483–488 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Wilgenburg, E. & Elgar, M. A. Confirmation bias in studies of nestmate recognition: a cautionary note for research into the behaviour of animals. PLoS ONE 8, e53548 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoccoz, N. G. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 72, 106–111 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Zaitsev, A. S., Gongalsky, K. B., Malmström, A., Persson, T. & Bengtsson, J. Why are forest fires generally neglected in soil fauna research? A mini-review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 98, 261–271 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zvereva, E. L. & Kozlov, M. V. Biases in studies of spatial patterns in insect herbivory. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01361 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R (RStudio, 2020).Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar  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

Possingham, H. P. et al. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 503–507 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duarte, C. M. et al. Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580, 39–51 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Knowlton, N. Ocean optimism: Moving beyond the obituaries in marine conservation. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13, 13 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cinner, J. E. et al. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammerschlag, N. et al. Ecosystem function and services of aquatic predators in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34(4), 369–383 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ritchie, E. G. et al. Ecosystem restoration with teeth: What role for predators?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 265–271 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, H. S., McCauley, D. J., Galetti, M. & Dirzo, R. Patterns, causes, and consequences of anthropocene defaunation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 333–358 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, K. N., Stier, A. C., Samhouri, J. F., Kelly, R. P. & Ward, E. J. Conservation challenges of predator recovery. Conserv. Lett. 9, 70–78 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gregr, E. J. et al. Cascading social-ecological costs and benefits triggered by a recovering keystone predator. Science 368, 1243–1247 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, K. R. et al. The location and protection status of earth’s diminishing marine wilderness. Curr. Biol. 28, 2506-2512.e3 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, M. R., Meilby, H., Smith-Hall, C., Pouliot, M. & Treue, T. The importance of wild meat in the global south. Ecol. Econ. 146, 696–705 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ripple, W. J. et al. Are we eating the world’s megafauna to extinction?. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12627 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carrizo, S. F. et al. Freshwater megafauna: Flagships for freshwater biodiversity under threat. Bioscience 67, 919–927 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Luskin, M. S., Albert, W. R. & Tobler, M. W. Sumatran tiger survival threatened by deforestation despite increasing densities in parks. Nat. Commun. 8, 1783 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Desforges, J.-P. et al. Predicting global killer whale population collapse from PCB pollution. Science 361, 1373–1376 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alava, J. J., Cheung, W. W. L., Ross, P. S. & Sumaila, U. R. Climate change–contaminant interactions in marine food webs: Toward a conceptual framework. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3984–4001 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
House, P. H., Clark, B. L. & Allen, L. G. The return of the king of the kelp forest: Distribution, abundance, and biomass of Giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) off Santa Catalina Island, California, 2014–2015. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 115, 1–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Waterhouse, L. et al. Recovery of critically endangered Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in the Cayman Islands following targeted conservation actions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 1587–1595 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmford, A. & Knowlton, N. Why Earth Optimism? (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2017).Book 

Google Scholar 
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, W. M. & Sandbrook, C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, 329–335 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faith, J. T. & Surovell, T. A. Synchronous extinction of North America’s Pleistocene mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 20641–20645 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P. & Caldeira, K. The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107409108 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Visconti, P. et al. Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conserv. Lett. 9, 5–13 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotze, H. K., Coll, M., Magera, A. M., Ward-Paige, C. & Airoldi, L. Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 595–605 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1444-4 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pimiento, C. et al. Functional diversity of marine megafauna in the anthropocene. Sci. Adv. 6, 7650 (2020).ADS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330, 1503–1509 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tom Gelatt (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, A. F. S. C. & Sweeney, K. IUCN red list of threatened species: Eumetopias jubatus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en (2016).Taylor, M. F. J., Suckling, K. F. & Rachlinski, J. J. The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55, 360–367 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hejny, J. The Trump administration and environmental policy: Reagan redux?. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 8, 197–211 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderson, F. J. et al. Assessing the performance of EU nature legislation in protecting target bird species in an era of climate change. Conserv. Lett. 9, 172–180 (2016).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Cuthbert, R. J. et al. Continuing mortality of vultures in India associated with illegal veterinary use of diclofenac and a potential threat from nimesulide. Oryx 50, 104–112 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Margalida, A. & Oliva-Vidal, P. The shadow of diclofenac hangs over European vultures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1050 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, D. R., Balmford, A. & Wilcove, D. S. The past and future role of conservation science in saving biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12720 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. D. et al. Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sala, E. & Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1166–1168 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Juffe-Bignoli, D. et al. Protected Planet Report 2014: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas (Springer, 2014).
Google Scholar 
Turnbull, J. W., Johnston, E. L. & Clark, G. F. Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas. Conserv. Biol. 35, 921–932 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science 355, 1–10 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
White, T. D. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a large marine protected area for reef shark conservation. Biol. Conserv. 207, 64–71 (2017).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Daskin, J. H. & Pringle, R. M. Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 553, 328–332 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, R. M. Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546, 91–99 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Redpath, S. M. et al. Don’t forget to look down: Collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biol. Rev. 92, 2157–2163 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hazzah, L. et al. Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conserv. Biol. 28, 851–860 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zarfl, C. et al. Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. 9, 18531 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arthington, A. H., Dulvy, N. K., Gladstone, W. & Winfield, I. J. Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: Status, threats and management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26, 838–857 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castello, L. & Macedo, M. N. Large-scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 990–1007 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Safford, R. et al. Vulture conservation: The case for urgent action. Bird Conserv. Int. 29, 1–9 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ogada, D. et al. Another continental vulture crisis: Africa’s vultures collapsing toward extinction. Conserv. Lett. 9, 89–97 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buechley, E. R. & Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. The avian scavenger crisis: Looming extinctions, trophic cascades, and loss of critical ecosystem functions. Biol. Conserv. 198, 220–228 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammerschlag, N. & Gallagher, A. J. Extinction risk and conservation of the earth’s national animal symbols. Bioscience 67, 744–749 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N. & Smith, R. K. What Works in Conservation 2015 (Open Book Publishers, 2015).Book 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr. Biol. 27, R565–R572 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Finucci, B., Duffy, C. A. J., Francis, M. P., Gibson, C. & Kyne, P. M. The extinction risk of New Zealand chondrichthyans. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 783–797 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Creel, S. et al. Questionable policy for large carnivore hunting. Science 350, 1473–1475 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
González, L. M. et al. Causes and spatio-temporal variations of non-natural mortality in the Vulnerable Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti during a recovery period. Oryx 41, 495–502 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morandini, V., de Benito, E., Newton, I. & Ferrer, M. Natural expansion versus translocation in a previously human-persecuted bird of prey. Ecol. Evol. 7, 3682–3688 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goodrich, J. M. et al. Panthera tigris, Tiger. IUCN Red List Threat. Species (2015).Wikramanayake, E. et al. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conserv. Lett. 4, 219–227 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhattarai, B. R., Wright, W., Morgan, D., Cook, S. & Baral, H. S. Managing human-tiger conflict: Lessons from Bardia and Chitwan National Parks, Nepal. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65, 34 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360, 1189–1191 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Courchamp, F. et al. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16, e2003997 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nyhus, P. J. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 143–171 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carter, N. H. & Linnell, J. D. C. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guerra, A. S. Wolves of the sea: Managing human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean. Mar. Policy 99, 369–373 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Das, C. S. Pattern and characterisation of human casualties in Sundarban by tiger attacks, India. Sustain. For. 1, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Packer, C. et al. Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and fence. Ecol. Lett. 16, 635–641 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudley, S. F. J. A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Ocean Coast. Manag. 34, 1–27 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connell, C. P., Andreotti, S., Rutzen, M., Meӱer, M. & Matthee, C. A. Testing the exclusion capabilities and durability of the Sharksafe Barrier to determine its viability as an eco-friendly alternative to current shark culling methodologies. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 28, 252–258 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gailey, G. et al. Effects of sea ice on growth rates of an endangered population of gray whales. Sci. Rep. 10, 1553 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hazen, E. L. et al. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci. Adv. 4, 3001 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ingeman, K. E., Samhouri, J. F. & Stier, A. C. Ocean recoveries for tomorrow’s Earth: Hitting a moving target. Science 363, 6425 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Hernández, J. & Amundsen, P.-A. Ecosystem type shapes trophic position and omnivory in fishes. Fish Fish. 19, 1003–1015 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gainsbury, A. M., Tallowin, O. J. S. & Meiri, S. An updated global data set for diet preferences in terrestrial mammals: testing the validity of extrapolation. Mammal Rev. 48, 160–167 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faurby, S. et al. PHYLACINE 1.2: The phylogenetic atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626–2626 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Costello, M. J. et al. Marine biogeographic realms and species endemicity. Nat. Commun. 8, 1057 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M. & Brooks, T. M. The value of the IUCN red list for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  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

Our long-term surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria demonstrated that WBE alone yields a time-resolved map of the genetic dynamics during a pandemic. Yet one task of pathogenomic surveillance is to link genetic pathogen information with clinical manifestation and the immunological status of patients. WBE is limited in that regard since the available data are anonymized to start with. Nonetheless, WBE provides invaluable population-level guidance on epidemiological developments, which complements case-based surveillance and provides information for optimal resource allocation. This notion can also be transferred to a global perspective. WBE provides a tool to shed light on blind spots of pathogen surveillance in places and communities with poor healthcare accessibility. If carefully set up and used in respectful and coequal terms, WBE of infectious diseases could make an important contribution to global safety.To this end, several challenges must be overcome. Current WBE methods need to be expanded to other pathogens beyond SARS-CoV-2 and validated with case-based epidemiological data. Furthermore, current methods must be adapted and optimized to be applicable in locations without a centralized sewer infrastructure5. Finally, international sharing of wastewater-based pathogen sequencing data will be needed to unleash the full potential of WBE for global pathogen surveillance.We are confident that our study will support initiatives already working in these directions, as well as encouraging intensified efforts to exploit such population-level surveillance approaches in the global fight against infectious diseases.
Fabian Amman
1
& Andreas Bergthaler
2

1
CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

2
Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria More