Philippa Kaur

Wink, M. Evolution of secondary metabolites from an ecological and molecular phylogenetic perspective. Phytochemistry 64, 3–19 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Khare, S. et al. Plant secondary metabolites synthesis and their regulations under biotic and abiotic constraints. J. Plant Biol. 63, 203–216 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gajger, I. T. & Dar, S. A. Plant allelochemicals as sources of insecticides. Insects 12, 189 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vig, A. P., Rampal, G., Thind, T. S. & Arora, S. Bio-protective effects of glucosinolates: A review. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 42, 1561–1572 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sikorska-Zimny, K. & Beneduce, L. The glucosinolates and their bioactive derivatives in Brassica: A review on classification, biosynthesis and content in plant tissues, fate during and after processing, effect on the human organism and interaction with the gut microbiota. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61, 2544–2571. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1780193 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Radojčić Redovniković, I., Glivetić, T., Delonga, K. & Vorkapić-Furač, J. Glucosinolates and their potential role in plant. Period. Biol. 110, 297–309 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wittstock, U., Kliebenstein, D. J., Lambrix, V., Reichelt, M. & Gershenzon, J. Chapter five glucosinolate hydrolysis and its impact on generalist and specialist insect herbivores. Recent Adv. Phytochem. 37, 101–125 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noret, N. et al. Palatability of Thlaspi caerulescens for snails: Influence of zinc and glucosinolates. New Phytol. 165, 763–772 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hopkins, R. J., Van Dam, N. M. & Van Loon, J. J. A. Role of glucosinolates in Insect-plant relationships and multitrophic interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 54, 57–83 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guleria, S. & Tiku, A. K. Botanicals in pest management: Current status and future perspectives. Integr. Pest Manag. 1, 317–329 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Clay, N. K., Adio, A. M., Denoux, C., Jander, G. & Ausubel, F. M. Glucosinolate metabolites required for an Arabidopsis innate immune response. Science 323, 95–101 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, B. et al. Inhibitory effect of allyl and benzyl isothiocyanates on ochratoxin a producing fungi in grape and maize. Food Microbiol. 100, 103865 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Agrawal, A. A. & Kurashige, N. S. A role for isothiocyanates in plant resistance against the specialist herbivore Pieris rapae. J. Chem. Ecol. 296(29), 1403–1415 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, C. et al. The role of the glucosinolate-myrosinase system in mediating greater resistance of Barbarea verna than B. vulgaris to Mamestra brassicae Larvae. J. Chem. Ecol. 44, 1190–1205 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kegley, S. E., Hill, B. R., Orme, S. & Choi, A. H. PAN Pesticide Database (Pesticide Action Network, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Worfel, R. C., Schneider, K. S. & Yang, T. C. S. Suppressive effect of allyl isothiocyanate on populations of stored grain insect pests. J. Food Process. Preserv. 21, 9–19 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, H., Zhang, G. A., Zeng, S. & Lin, K. C. Extraction of allyl isothiocyanate from horseradish (Armoracia rusticana) and its fumigant insecticidal activity on four stored-product pests of paddy. Pest Manag. Sci. 65, 1003–1008 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhushan, S., Gupta, S., Kaur Sohal, S., Arora, S. & Saroj Arora, C. Assessment of insecticidal action of 3-Isothiocyanato-1-propene on the growth and development of Spodoptera litura (Fab.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 4, 1068–1073 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Dhillon, M. K., Naresh, J. S., Singh, R. & Sharma, N. K. Reaction of different bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) genotypes to melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett). Int. J. Plant Prot. 33, 55–59 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Ekesi, S., Nderitu, P. W. & Chang, C. L. Adaptation to and small-scale rearing of invasive fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) on artificial diet. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 100, 562–567 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jakhar, S. et al. Estimation losses due to fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) on long melon in semi-arid region of Rajasthan. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 8, 632–635 (2020).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Ladania, M. S. Physiological Disorders and Their Management. Citrus Fruit: Biology, Technology and Evaluation 451–463 (Academic press, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Du, Y., Grodowitz, M. J. & Chen, J. Insecticidal and enzyme inhibitory activities of isothiocyanates against red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta. Biomolecules 10, 716 (2020).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsao, R., Reuber, M., Johnson, L. & Coats, J. R. Insecticidal toxicities of glucosinolate· containing extracts from crambe seeds. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 13, 109–120 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, Q., Eigenbrode, S. D., Stringam, G. R. & Thiagarajah, M. R. Feeding and growth of Plutella xylostella and Spodoptera eridania on Brassica juncea with varying glucosinolate concentrations and myrosinase activities. J. Chem. Ecol. 26, 2401–2419 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noble, R. R., Harvey, S. G. & Sams, C. E. Toxicity of Indian mustard and allyl isothiocyanate to masked chafer beetle larvae. Plant Health Prog. 3, 9 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sousa, A. H., Faroni, L. R. A., Pimentel, M. A. G. & Freitas, R. S. Relative toxicity of mustard essential oil to insect-pests of stored products. Rev. Caatinga 27, 222–226 (2014).
Google Scholar 
de Souza, L. P., Faroni, L. R. D. A., Lopes, L. M., de Sousa, A. H. & Prates, L. H. F. Toxicity and sublethal effects of allyl isothiocyanate to Sitophilus zeamais on population development and walking behavior. J. Pest Sci. 91, 761–770 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freitas, R. C. P., Faroni, L. R. D. A., Haddi, K., Jumbo, L. O. V. & Oliveira, E. E. Allyl isothiocyanate actions on populations of Sitophilus zeamais resistant to phosphine: Toxicity, emergence inhibition and repellency. J. Stored Prod. Res. 69, 257–264 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jabeen, A., Zaitoon, A., Lim, L. T. & Scott-Dupree, C. Toxicity of five plant volatiles to adult and egg stages of Drosophila suzukii matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae), the spotted-wing Drosophila. J. Agric. Food Chem. 69, 9511–9519 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, H., Liu, X. R., Yu, D. D., Zhang, X. & Feng, J. T. Effect of allyl isothiocyanate on ultra-structure and the activities of four enzymes in adult Sitophilus zeamais. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 109, 12–17 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C., Wu, H., Zhao, Y., Ma, Z. & Zhang, X. Comparative studies on mitochondrial electron transport chain complexes of Sitophilus zeamais treated with allyl isothiocyanate and calcium phosphide. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 126, 70–75 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeschke, V. et al. How glucosinolates affect generalist lepidopteran larvae: Growth, development and glucosinolate metabolism. Front Plant Sci. 8, 1995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01995 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Agnihotri, A. R., Hulagabali, C. V., Adhav, A. S. & Joshi, R. S. Mechanistic insight in potential dual role of sinigrin against Helicoverpa armigera. Phytochemistry 145, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2017.10.014 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jeschke, V. et al. So much for glucosinolates: A generalist does survive and develop on Brassicas, but at what cost?. Plants 10, 962. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050962 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Benrey, B. & Denno, R. F. The slow-growth-high-mortality hypothesis: A test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78, 987–999 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Shroff, R., Vergara, F., Muck, A., Svatoš, A. & Gershenzon, J. Nonuniform distribution of glucosinolates in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves has important consequences for plant defense. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 05, 6196–6201 (2008).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bai, P. P. et al. Inhibition of phenoloxidase activity delays development in Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla. Entomol. 97, 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.097.0218 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Datta, R., Kaur, A., Saraf, I., Singh, I. P. & Kaur, S. Effect of ethyl acetate extract and purified compounds of Alpinia galanga (L.) on Immune Response of a Polyphagous Lepidopteran pest, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). Asian J. Adv. Basic Sci. 6, 16–21 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hartzer, K. L., Zhu, K. Y. & Baker, J. E. Phenoloxidase in larvae of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): Molecular cloning of the proenzyme cDNA and enzyme activity in larvae paralyzed and parasitized by Habrobracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 59, 67–79 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, C. J. M. et al. Immune response triggered by the ingestion of polyethylene microplastics in the dipteran larvae Chironomus riparius. J. Hazard. Mater. 414, 125401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125401 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Aucoin, R. R., Philogène, B. J. R. & Arnason, J. T. Antioxidant enzymes as biochemical defenses against phototoxin induced oxidative stress in three species of herbivorous Lepidoptera. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 16, 139–152 (1991).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y., Branicky, R., Noë, A. & Hekimi, S. Superoxide dismutases: Dual roles in controlling ROS damage and regulating ROS signaling. Int. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1915–1928. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201708007 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C., Ma, Z., Zhang, X. & Wu, H. Transcriptomic alterations in Sitophilus zeamais in response to allyl isothiocyanate fumigation. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 137, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.10.001 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Felton, G. W. & Summers, C. B. Antioxidant systems in insects. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 29, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940290208 (1995).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cadenas, E. Mechanisms of oxygen activation and reactive oxygen species detoxification. In Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Defenses in Biology (ed. Ahmad, S.) 1–46 (Chapman & Hall, 1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9689-9_1.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Schramm, K., Vassão, D. G., Reichelt, M., Gershenzon, J. & Wittstock, U. Metabolism of glucosinolate- derived isothiocyanates to glutathione conjugates in generalist lepidopteran herbivores. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 42, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2011.12.002 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Falk, K. L. et al. The role of glucosinolates and the jasmonic acid pathway in resistance of Arabidopsis thaliana against molluscan herbivores. Mol. Ecol. 23, 1188–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12610 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gloss, A. D. et al. Evolution in an ancient detoxification pathway is coupled with a transition to herbivory in the Drosophilidae. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 2441–3245. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu201 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bhatt, P., Zhou, X., Huang, Y., Zhang, W. & Chen, S. Characterization of the role of esterases in the biodegradation of organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid pesticides. J. Hazard. Mater. 1, 125026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.125026 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Murfadunnisa, S. et al. Larvicidal and enzyme inhibition of essential oil from Spheranthus amaranthroids (Burm.) against lepidopteran pest Spodoptera litura (Fab.) and their impact on non-target earthworms. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 21, 101324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101324 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sengottayan, S. N. Physiological and biochemical effect of neem and other Meliaceae plants secondary metabolites against Lepidopteran insects. Front. Physiol. 4, 359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00359 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Augustyniak, M., Gladysz, M. & Dziewięcka, M. The Comet assay in insects: Status, prospects and benefits for science. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 767, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2015.09.001Get (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Foster, E. R. & Downs, J. A. Histone H2A phosphorylation in DNA double strand break repair. FEBS J. 272, 3231–3240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04741.x (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Porichha, S. K., Sarangi, P. K. & Prasad, R. Genotoxic effect of chlorpyrifosin Channa punctatus. Cytol. Genet. 9, 631–638 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Kalita, M. K., Haloi, K. & Devi, D. Larval exposure to chlorpyrifos affects nutritional physiology and induces genotoxicity in silkworm Philosamia ricini (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Front. physiol. 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00535 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Datta, R. et al. Assessment of genotoxic and biochemical effects of purified compounds of Alpinia galanga on a polyphagous lepidopteran pest Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). Phytoparasitica 48, 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-020-00813-8 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Afify, A. & Negm, A. A. K. H. Genotoxic effect of insect growth regulators on different stages of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)(Diptera: Tephritidae). Afr. Entomol. 26, 154–161 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, J. N., Verma, A. N. & Kashyap, R. K. An improved method for mass rearing for melon fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett. Indian J. Entomol. 40, 470–471 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Srivastava, B. G. A chemically defined diet for Dacus cucurbitae (Coq.) larvae under aseptic conditions. Entomol. News Lett. 5, 24 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Kumar, A., Sood, S., Mehta, V., Nadda, G. & Shanker, A. Biology of Thysanoplusia orichalcea (Fab.) in relation to host preference and suitability for insect culture and bioefficacy. Indian J. Appl. Entomol. 18, 16–21 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Martinez, S. S. & Emden, H. F. V. Growth disruption, abnormalities and mortality of Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) caused by azadirachtin. Neotrop. Entomol. 30, 113–125 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, Z. R. & Saxena, R. C. Behavioural and physiological responses of Sogatella furcifera (Homoptera: Delphacidae) to selected resistant and susceptible rice cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 78, 1280–1286 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zimmer, M. Phenol oxidation. In Methods to Study Litter Decomposition (eds Graça, M. A. et al.) (Springer, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Kono, Y. Generation of superoxide radical during auto-oxidation of hydroxylamine and an assay for superoxide dismutase. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 186, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(78)90479-4 (1978).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bergmeyer, H. U. Reagents for enzymatic analysis. In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis (eds Bergmeyer, H. U. & Gawehn, K.) 438 (Verlag Chemie, 1974).
Google Scholar 
Chien, C. & Dauterman, W. C. Studies on glutathione S-transferases in Helicoverpa (=Heliothis) zea. Insect Biochem. 21, 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-1790(91)90092-S (1991).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Katzenellenbogen, B. & Kafatos, F. C. General esterases of silk worm moth moulting fluid: Preliminary characterization. J. Insect Physiol. 17, 1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(71)90016-3 (1971).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mac Intyre, R. J. A method for measuring activities of acid phosphatases separated by acrylamide gel electrophoresis. Biochem. Genet. 5, 45–56 (1971).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, N. P., McCoy, M. T., Tice, R. R. & Schneider, E. L. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp. Cell Res. 175, 184–191 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Six biological replicates each were sampled from four fruit species (blueberries, cherries, raspberries, and strawberries) at four developmental stages. Developmental stages were based on fruit pigmentation ranging from unripe (green) to fully ripe (red/purple/navy; Fig. S1) throughout June to September in 2018. Ten fruits (except blueberries N = 20) were collected for each species per replicate, and this was replicated six times for each ripening stage for each fruit at different sites.Quantitative analysis of fungal communitiesMetabarcoding analysis is generally not quantitative, but the addition of 265 P. cucumerina cells to sub-samples prior to DNA extraction served as an internal standard to attempt an estimation of the size of fungal populations. One replicate spiked with the internal standard of the strawberry stage 3 samples was removed due to poor sequence quality leaving 96 non-spiked and 95 spiked samples which produced a total of 38,445,395 reads that clustered into 1712  > 97% identity Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASV), which from here-in we call phylotypes (Table S1). Blast searches across all phylotypes for matches to the P. cucumerina internal standard’s ITS sequence generated from Sanger sequencing revealed one phylotype that matched with 100% identity. Plectosphaerella cucumerina was naturally present in 21 of the 95 non-spiked samples and comprised of a total of 444 reads. Cherry was the only fruit where the internal standard was reliably recovered: 23 of 24 spiked samples and only one of 24 non-spiked samples contained the internal standard phylotype. After internal standard DNA read normalisation, the mean (± SE) number of fungal cells from each of the useable 23 pairs of cherry replicates was 307,323 (± 39,090) cells. The range of phylotype cell abundance across all cherry samples was 3.9 million for an Aureobasidium phylotype to 3 cells for a phylotype taxonomically assigned no higher level than kingdom. There was no significant change in total fungal cell numbers across cherry maturation stage (Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared = 2.63, P = 0.45; Fig. S2), but fruit surface areas also increased significantly (Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared = 19.70, P = 0.0002, Fig. S2). When cell numbers were normalised for surface area this revealed that absolute fungal population sizes remained static across cherry maturation stages (Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared = 2.49, P = 0.48; Fig. 1A). However, there was a significant change in absolute Saccharomycetales cell numbers when normalised for cherry surface area across maturation (Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared = 15.30, P = 0.002): stage 1 had significantly greater absolute Saccharomycetales cell numbers than stage 4 (P = 0.0007; Fig. 1B). Six individual Saccharomycetales yeast phylotypes from the genera Debaryomyces, Saccharomyces, Kodamaea, one from the family Pichiaceae, and phylotypes with  > 97% homology to M. pulcherrima and Metschnikowia gruessii, had significantly greater abundances on ripening stage 1 than 4 (P values span 0.045 to 0.006).Figure 1Absolute fungal cell abundances on cherry epicarp. Number of total fungal (A) and Saccharomycetales yeasts (B) cells per mm2 of cherry epicarp (N = 6 except, stage 3 and 4, N = 5) at four ripening stages (1, unripe/green fruit; 2, de-greening fruit; 3, ripening fruit; and 4, fully ripe/harvest fruit) estimated from DNA read abundances normalised to DNA abundances from the deliberate addition of 265 live Plectosphaerella cucumerina cells prior to DNA extraction. Different lower-case letters above bars show significant differences between ripening stages at P  > 0.05, Dunn’s comparisons post-hoc with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple comparison correction.Full size imageOverview of fungal diversity across all fruit samplesThe P. cucumerina internal standard phylotype was removed from all samples, and the sequence data normalised and analysed. A total of 1712 fungal phylotypes was revealed, comprising seven phyla, 25 classes, 96 orders, 197 families, and 280 genera. The most abundant and diverse phylum was Ascomycota, comprising 92.2% of reads and 57.3% of phylotypes, followed by Basidiomycota (7.7% reads and 33.6% phylotypes), Zygomycota (0.1% and 1.1%), Chytridiomycota ( > 0.1% and 0.7%), Mucoromycota ( > 0.1% and 0.3%), Glomeromycota and Rozellomycota (both  > 0.1% and 0.1%; Fig. S3A). A phylotype from the Cladosporium genus was the most common phylotype across all samples, comprising 60.8% of reads. A total of 87 phylotypes from the order Saccharomycetales (budding yeasts) was detected, comprising 1,792,782 DNA reads (4.7% of the total) spanning 10 families and 25 genera. Metschnikowia was the most abundant Saccharomycetales genus (40.0% of Saccharomycetales reads), followed by Hanseniaspora (38.2%), then Pichia (5.2%), with the remaining genera contributing fewer than 3% each. Candida was the most diverse genus within the order Saccharomycetales accounting for 21.8% of phylotypes, despite only comprising 2.4% of reads, followed by Metschnikowia (11.5%), Hanseniaspora (8.0%) and Pichia (6.9%), with each of the remaining genera contributing fewer than 3.5% of phylotypes each (Fig. S3B). The most common Saccharomycetales yeast across all samples was a phylotype from the genus Hanseniaspora with  > 97% homology to H. uvarum and comprised 38.2% of the total Saccharomycetales reads (Fig. S3B).The effect of fruit species and ripening stage on epicarp fungal communitiesWe analysed differences in three biodiversity metrics to evaluate the effect of fruit species and maturation stage on fungal communities: differences in the absolute numbers of phylotypes (richness); differences in the types of phylotypes (i.e. presences/absences); and differences in the relative abundances of phylotypes (community composition) following Morrison-Whittle et al.14 and Morrison‐Whittle and Goddard37.
Fungal phylotype richnessPhylotype richness was not normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilks, P = 0.008) but square root transformation allowed the data to conform to the assumptions of ANOVA. There was a significant effect of both fruit type and ripening stage on the number of fungal phylotypes, including an interaction between the two (F3,175 = 18.58, P = 1.65 × 10–10; F3,175 = 5.00, P = 0.002 and F9,175 = 6.69, P = 3.25 × 10–8 respectively). Comparisons of effect sizes revealed fruit type (ω2 = 0.30) had a 4.4 times greater effect than ripening stage (ω2 = 0.068) on fungal phylotype richness. Disregarding ripening stage, cherry (mean ± SE number of phylotypes = 98 ± 4.1) had significantly more fungal phylotypes than blueberry (68 ± 3.7), raspberry (72 ± 2.9) and strawberry (76 ± 3.2) (Tukey’s HSD, P  0.05) and there was a significant effect of ripening stage on the number of fungal phylotypes for cherry, raspberry, and strawberry (one-way ANOVA: F3,44 = 4.33, P = 0.0093; F3,44 = 13.56, P = 2.11 × 10–6 and F3,44 = 13.86, P = 1.84 × 10–6, respectively, Fig. 2), but not blueberry (F3,44 = 2.27, P = 0.055). On cherries phylotype numbers increased during ripening, but raspberry and strawberry had greater numbers at intermediate stages of fruit maturation (Fig. 2).Figure 2Number of observed phylotypes across fruit types and maturation stages. Number of fungal phylotypes across four ripening stages (1, unripe/green fruit; 2, de-greening fruit; 3, ripening fruit; and 4, fully ripe/harvest fruit) for blueberry, cherry, raspberry and strawberry (N = 12 except N = 11 for strawberry stage 3). Numbers of fungal phylotypes differ across ripening stages for cherry, raspberry and strawberry but not blueberry (ANOVA, P values shown). Where significant, different lowercase letters represent significant differences in phylotype numbers within each fruit (P  97% homology to Metschnikowia kunwiensis and H. uvarum on raspberry; and phylotypes with  > 97% homology to Kalmanozyma fusiformata (Ustilaginaceae smut fungi) and Podosphaera aphanis on strawberry.Twenty-four of the 195 indicator phylotypes belonged to the Saccharomycetales budding yeasts (Table S13). There were no Saccharomycetales indicator phylotypes for cherry, and just one for blueberry, a fungal phylotype with  > 97% homology to Metschnikowia koreensis. Raspberry had 15 Saccharomycetales indicator phylotypes: three with  > 97% homology to the Metschnikowia and, Candida genera, two Pichia and Schwanniomyces, and one each from Hanseniaspora, Barnettozyma, Debaryomyces, Candida, Geotrichum and Martiniozyma. There were eight indicator phylotypes for strawberry; two Candida and one from each of the Metschnikowia, Starmerella, Kodamaea and Hyphopichia genera and the Pichiaceae family, and a phylotype assigned to the no higher level than fungal kingdom (with  > 97% homology to deposit from Candida genus). The dynamics of Saccharomycetales yeast indicator phylotypes abundances across maturation for raspberry and strawberry is shown in Fig. 6.Figure 6Dynamics of changes in the proportion of budding yeast indicator phylotypes. Mean proportion of reads for the Saccharomycetales budding yeast indicator phylotypes that are significantly overrepresented on (A) raspberry and (B) strawberry (P  97% homology identified by manual Blast searches.Full size imageDifferences of yeast known to be attractive to D. suzukii
Yeast from the Hanseniaspora, Pichia, Saccharomyces, Candida and Metschnikowia genera and their combinations are attractive to D. suzukii27,28,30,31, and phylotypes belonging to these genera were recovered here. The combined relative read abundances of all phylotypes assigned to these genera were significantly different between fruit types and ripening stages (Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 60.54, P = 4.51 × 10–13; chi-squared = 10.11, P = 0.018, respectively). Raspberry had the highest relative abundance of yeast genera known to be attractive to D. suzukii (mean ± SE = 21,539 ± 4339) and this was significantly greater than on the other fruits (P  97% homology to H. uvarum as over-represented on raspberry generally, and especially at later stages (Fig. 6A).Differences of Botrytis cinerea, known to be repulsive to D. suzukii
The relative read abundances of B. cinerea were significantly different between fruit types and ripening stages (Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 73.45, P = 7.80 × 10–16; Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared = 23.81, P = 2.74 × 10–5, respectively). Raspberry had the lowest relative abundance of B. cinerea (mean ± SE = 800 ± 136) and this was significantly lower than strawberry (1994 ± 292) and blueberry (5990 ± 1305) (P  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

Shah, S. et al. Ethno botanical study of medicinal plants of district charsadda, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, Pakistan. Int. J. Herb. Med. 8, 67–75 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hu, R., Lin, C., Xu, W., Liu, Y. & Long, C. Ethnobotanical study on medicinal plants used by Mulam people in Guangxi, China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 16, 1–50 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kooti, W. et al. Effective medicinal plant in cancer treatment, part 2: Review study. J. Evid. Based Complem. Altern. Med. 22, 982–995 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mazalovska, M. & Kouokam, J. C. Transiently expressed mistletoe lectin ii in nicotiana benthamiana demonstrates anticancer activity in vitro. Molecules 25, 2562 (2020).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shukla, S. & Mehta, A. Anticancer potential of medicinal plants and their phytochemicals: A review. Rev. Bras. Bot. 38, 199–210 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaikh, A. M., Shrivastava, B., Apte, K. G. & Navale, S. D. Medicinal plants as potential source of anticancer agents: A review. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. APT Res. Found. 5, 291–295 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Iqbal, J. et al. Plant-derived anticancer agents: A green anticancer approach. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 7, 1129–1150 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuber, D. Biological flora of Central Europe: Viscum album L. Flora 199, 181–203 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bar-Sela, G. White-Berry Mistletoe (Viscum album L.) as complementary treatment in cancer: Does it help?. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 3, e55–e62 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vicaş, S. I., Ruginǎ, D. & Socaciu, C. Comparative study about antioxidant activities of viscum album from different host trees, harvested in different seasons. J. Med. Plants Res. 5, 2237–2244 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Gastauer, M. & Meira-Neto, J. A. A. Updated angiosperm family tree for analyzing phylogenetic diversity and community structure. Acta Bot. Brasilica 31, 191–198 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Varga, I. et al. Changes in the distribution of European mistletoe (Viscum album) in hungary during the last hundred years. Folia Geobot. 49, 559–577 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lech, P., Żółciak, A. & Hildebrand, R. Occurrence of european mistletoe (Viscum album l.) On forest trees in poland and its dynamics of spread in the period 2008–2018. Forests 11, 83 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Büssing, A., Suzart, K. & Schweizer, K. Differences in the apoptosis-inducing properties of Viscum album L. extracts. Anticancer. Drugs 8, S9–S14 (1997).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Maier, G. & Fiebig, H. H. Absence of tumor growth stimulation in a panel of 16 human tumor cell lines by mistletoe extracts in vitro. Anticancer. Drugs 13, 373–379 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Orhan, D. D., Aslan, M., Sendogdu, N., Ergun, F. & Yesilada, E. Evaluation of the hypoglycemic effect and antioxidant activity of three Viscum album subspecies (European mistletoe) in streptozotocin-diabetic rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 98, 95–102 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ofem, O. E. et al. Effect of crude aqueous leaf extract of Viscum album (mistletoe) in hypertensive rats. Indian J. Pharmacol. 39, 15–19 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, G. et al. Sedative, antiepileptic and antipsychotic effects of Viscum album L. (Loranthaceae) in mice and rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 141, 810–816 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Orhue, P. O., Edomwande, E. C., Igbinosa, E. & Al, E. Antibacterial activity of extracts of mistletoe (Tapinanthus dodoneifollus (dc) dancer) from Cocoa tree (Theobrama cacao). Int. J. Herbs Pharmacol. Res. 3, 24–29 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Karagöz, A., Önay, E., Arda, N. & Kuru, A. Antiviral potency of mistletoe (Viscum album ssp. album) extracts against human parainfluenza virus type 2 in Vero cells. Phyther. Res. 17, 560–562 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thronicke, A., Schad, F., Debus, M., Grabowski, J. & Soldner, G. Viscum album L. therapy in oncology—An update on current evidence. Complement. Med. Res. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524184 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lavastre, V., Cavalli, H., Ratthe, C. & Girard, D. Anti-inflammatory effect of Viscum album agglutinin-I (VAA-I): Induction of apoptosis in activated neutrophils and inhibition of lipopolysaccharide-induced neutrophilic inflammation in vivo. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 137, 272–278 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ćebović, T., Spasić, S. & Popović, M. Cytotoxic effects of the Viscum album L. extract on ehrlich tumour cells in vivo. Phyther. Res. 22, 1097–1103 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tröger, W. et al. Viscum album [L.] extract therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A randomised clinical trial on overall survival. Eur. J. Cancer 49, 3788–3797 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostermann, T. et al. A Systematic review and meta-analysis on the survival of cancer patients treated with a fermented Viscum album L. extract (Iscador): An update of findings. Complement. Med. Res. 27(260), 271 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Loef, M. & Walach, H. Quality of life in cancer patients treated with mistletoe: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 20, 227 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Szurpnicka, A., Kowalczuk, A. & Szterk, A. Biological activity of mistletoe: In vitro and in vivo studies and mechanisms of action. Arch. Pharm. Res. 43, 593–629 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, S., Kim, K.-C. & Lee, C. Mistletoe (Viscum album) extract targets Axl to suppress cell proliferation and overcome cisplatin- and erlotinib-resistance in non-small cell lung cancer cells. Phytomedicine 36, 183–193 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Urech, K. & Baumgartner, S. Chemical constituents of Viscum album L.: Implications for the pharmaceutical preparation of mistletoe. Transl. Res. Biomed. 4(11), 23 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Franz, H., Ziska, P. & Kindt, A. Isolation and properties of three lectins from mistletoe (Viscum album L.). Biochem. J. 195, 481–484 (1981).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ochocka, J. R. & Piotrowski, A. Biologically active compounds from European mistletoe (Viscum album L.). Can. J. Plant Pathol. 24, 21–28 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hajtó, T. et al. Oncopharmacological perspectives of a plant lectin (Viscum album agglutinin-I): Overview of recent results from in vitro experiments and in vivo animal models, and their possible relevance for clinical applications. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2, 59–67 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nazaruk, J. & Orlikowski, P. Phytochemical profile and therapeutic potential of Viscum album L. Nat. Prod. Res. 30, 373–385 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Samuelsson, G. Mistletoe toxins. Syst. Zool. 22, 566–569 (1973).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Debreczeni, J. É., Girmann, B., Zeeck, A., Krätzner, R. & Sheldrick, G. M. Structure of viscotoxin A3: Disulfide location from weak SAD data. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr. 59, 2125–2132 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parsakhoo, A. & Jalilvand, H. Effects of ironwood (Parrotia persica c A Meyer ) leaf litter on forest soil nutrients content. Am. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 5, 244–249 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hosseini, S. M. Inscription of the Hyrcanian forests on the UNESCO world heritage list nomination file, UNESCO, 492. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1584/documents/ (2019).Hosseini, S. M. et al. The effects of Viscum album L. on foliar weight and nutrients content of host trees in Caspian forests (Iran). Polish J. Ecol. 55, 579–583 (2007).MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sefidi, K., Marvie Mohadjer, M. R., Etemad, V. & Copenheaver, C. A. Stand characteristics and distribution of a relict population of persian ironwood (Parrotia persica CA Meyer) in northern Iran. Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 206, 418–422 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cărăbuş, M. C., Leinemann, L., Curtu, A. L. & Şofletea, N. Preliminary results on the genetic diversity of Carpinus betulus in Carpathian populations. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Brasov, Ser. II For Wood Ind. Agric. Food Eng. 8, 1–6 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Barbasz, A., Kreczmer, B., Rudolphi-Skorska, E. & Sieprawska, A. Biologically active substances in plant extracts from mistletoe Viscum album and trees: fir (Abies alba Mill.), pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and yew (Taxus baccata L.). Herba Pol. 58, 16–26 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Wójciak-Kosior, M. et al. Evaluation of seasonal changes of triterpenic acid contents in viscum album from different host trees. Pharm. Biol. 55, 1–4 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stefanucci, A. et al. Viscum album L. homogenizer-assisted and ultrasound-assisted extracts as potential sources of bioactive compounds. J. Food Biochem. 44, 1–12 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urech, K., Schaller, G. & Jäggy, C. Viscotoxins, mistletoe lectins and their isoforms in mistletoe (Viscum album L.) extracts Iscador: Analytical results on pharmaceutical processing of mistletoe. Drug Res. 56, 428–434 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soursouri, A., Hosseini, S. M. & Fattahi, F. Biochemical analysis of European mistletoe (Viscum album L.) foliage and fruit settled on Persian ironwood (Parrotia persica C. A. Mey) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 22, 101360 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Önay-Uçar, E., Karagöz, A. & Arda, N. Antioxidant activity of Viscum album ssp. album. Fitoterapia 77, 556–560 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simona, V., Rugina, D. & Socaciu, C. Antioxidant activities of Viscum album’s leaves from various host trees. Bull. Univ Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj Napoca Agric. 65, 327–332 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Schaller, G., Urech, K., Grazi, G. & Giannattasio, M. Viscotoxin composition of the three European subspecies of Viscum album. Planta Med. 64, 677–678 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holandino, C. et al. Phytochemical analysis and in vitro anti-proliferative activity of Viscum album ethanolic extracts. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 20, 215 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuber, D. & Widmer, A. Phylogeography and host race differentiation in the European mistletoe (Viscum album L.). Mol. Ecol. 18, 1946–1962 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaller, G., Urech, K. & Giannattasio, M. Cytotoxicity of different viscotoxins and extracts from the European subspecies of Viscum album L. Phyther. Res. 10, 473–477 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eggenschwiler, J. et al. Mistletoe lectin is not the only cytotoxic component in fermented preparations of Viscum album from white fir (Abies pectinata). BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 7, 14 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jaggy, C., Musielski, H., Urech, K. & Schaller, G. Quantitative determination of lectins in mistletoe preparations. Arzneimittel-Forschung/Drug Res. 45, 905–909 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Jolly, W. M. et al. Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–11 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A., Boschetti, L., Zubkova, M. & Kolden, C. A. Global patterns of interannual climate-fire relationships. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5164–5175 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giorgi, F. Climate change hot-spots. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L08707 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andela, N. et al. A human-driven decline in global burned area. Science 356, 1356–1362 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Dupuy, J. et al. Climate change impact on future wildfire danger and activity in southern Europe: A review. Ann. For. Sci. 77, 35 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turco, M. et al. Decreasing fires in mediterranean Europe. PLoS ONE 11, e0150663 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Turco, M. et al. Exacerbated fires in Mediterranean Europe due to anthropogenic warming projected with non-stationary climate-fire models. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–9 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ruffault, J. et al. Increased likelihood of heat-induced large wildfires in the Mediterranean Basin. Sci. Rep. 10, 13790 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreira, F. et al. Wildfire management in Mediterranean-type regions: Paradigm change needed. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 011001 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Giuseppe, F. et al. Fire Weather Index: The skill provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ensemble prediction system. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 2365–2378 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Wagner, C. E. Development and structure of the Canadian forest fireweather index system. Canadian Forestry Service, Forestry Technical Report 35 (1987).de Groot, W. J. et al. Development of the Indonesian and Malaysian fire danger rating systems. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Global Change. 12, 165–180 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venäläinen, A. et al. Temporal variations and change in forest fire danger in Europe for 1960–2012. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1477–1490 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bowman, D. M. et al. Human exposure and sensitivity to globally extreme wildfire events. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–6 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abatzoglou, J. T. et al. Global emergence of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 326–336 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jain, P. et al. Observed increases in extreme fire weather driven by atmospheric humidity and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 63–70 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Calheiros, T. et al. Recent evolution of spatial and temporal patterns of burnt areas and fire weather risk in the Iberian Peninsula. Agr. For. Meteorol. 287, 107923 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abatzoglou, J. T. et al. Increasing synchronous fire danger in forests of the western United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091377 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Kaiser, J. W. et al. Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power. Biogeosciences 9, 527–554 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peuch, V. H. et al. The use of satellite data in the Copernicus atmosphere monitoring service. In IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (ed Moreno, J.) 1594–1596 (IEEE, 2018).Carnicer, J. et al. Regime shifts of Mediterranean forest carbon uptake and reduced resilience driven by multidecadal ocean surface temperatures. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2825–2840 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, A. P. et al. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth’s Fut. 7, 892–910 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, B. M. et al. Focus on changing fire regimes: Interactions with climate, ecosystems, and society. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 030201 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duane, A. et al. Towards a comprehensive look at global drivers of novel extreme wildfire events. Clim. Change 165, 1–21 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, T. M. et al. Global increase in wildfire risk due to climate-driven declines in fuel moisture. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 1544–1559 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grassi, G. et al. On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives. Carbon Balance Manag. 14, 1–5 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pilli, R., Alkama, R., Cescatti, A., Kurz, W. A. & Grassi, G. The European forest Carbon budget under future climate conditions and current management practices. Biogeosci. Discuss. 1, 33 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Migliavacca, M. et al. Modeling biomass burning and related carbon emissions during the 21st century in Europe. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 1732–1747 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Resco de Dios, V. et al. Climate change induced declines in fuel moisture may turn currently fire-free Pyrenean mountain forests into fire-prone ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 797, 149104 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pausas, J. G. & Keeley, J. E. Wildfires and global change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 387–395 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J. et al. Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1438–1445 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carnicer, J. et al. Widespread crown condition decline, food web disruption, and amplified tree mortality with increased climate change-type drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1474–1478 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M. J., Rammer, W. & Verkerk, P. J. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 806–810 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forzieri, G. et al. Vulnerability of European forests to climate risks. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 21, 1 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Senf, C. & Seidl, R. Mapping the forest disturbance regimes of Europe. Nat. Sustain. 4, 63–70 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carnicer, J. et al. Forest resilience to global warming is strongly modulated by local-scale topographic, microclimatic and biotic conditions. J. Ecol. 109, 3322–3339 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanginés de Cárcer, P. et al. Vapor–pressure deficit and extreme climatic variables limit tree growth. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1108–1122 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, W. et al. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax1396 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carnicer, J., Barbeta, A., Sperlich, D., Coll, M. & Peñuelas, J. Contrasting trait syndromes in angiosperms and conifers are associated with different responses of tree growth to temperature on a large scale. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 409 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, H. et al. Implementing land-based mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement in Europe requires food system transformation. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104009 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bednar-Friedl, B. et al. Europe. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC-WMO.Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature 562, 259–262 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nabuurs, G. J. et al. By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests 8, 484 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vizzarri, M., Pilli, R., Korosuo, A., Frate, L. & Grassi, G. The role of forests in climate change mitigation: The EU context. In Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions (eds Tognetti, R. et al.) 507–520 (Springer, 2022).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Tognetti, R., Smith, M. & Panzacchi, P. Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions 574 (Springer, 2022).Book 

Google Scholar 
Ali, E. et al. Mediterranean Region. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC-WMO.IPCC, 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) (in press).Boer, M. M. et al. Changing weather extremes call for early warning of potential for catastrophic fire. Earth’s Fut. 5, 1196–1202 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Drobyshev, I. et al. Trends and patterns in annually burned forest areas and fire weather across the European boreal zone in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Agric. For. Meteorol. 306, 108467 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y., Morton, D. C., Andela, N., Giglio, L. & Randerson, J. T. How much global burned area can be forecast on seasonal time scales using sea surface temperatures?. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 045001 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCarty, J. L., Smith, T. E. & Turetsky, M. R. Arctic fires re-emerging. Nat. Geosci. 13, 658–660 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Witze, A. The Arctic is burning like never before—And that’s bad news for climate change. Nature 585, 336–338 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scholten, R. C., Jandt, R., Miller, E. A., Rogers, B. M. & Veraverbeke, S. Overwintering fires in boreal forests. Nature 593, 399–404 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T., McCarty, J., Turetsky, M. & Parrington, M. Geospatial analysis of Arctic fires in the MODIS era: 2003–2020. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (2021).Lehtonen, I., Venäläinen, A., Kämäräinen, M., Peltola, H. & Gregow, H. Risk of large-scale fires in boreal forests of Finland under changing climate. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 239–253 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandes, P. M., Pereira Pacheco, A., Almeida, R. & Claro, J. The role of fire-suppression force in limiting the spread of extremely large forest fires in Portugal. Eur. J. For. Res. 135, 253–262 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitolo, C. et al. ERA5-based global meteorological wildfire danger maps. Sci. Data 7, 216 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
San-Miguel-Ayanz, M. et al. In Comprehensive Monitoring of Wildfires in Europe: The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) (ed. Tiefenbacher, J.) 87–108 (InTech, Croatia, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Harvey, D. A., Alexander, M. E. & Janz, B. A comparison of fire-weather severity in northern Alberta during the 1980 and 1981 fire seasons. For. Chron. 62, 507–513 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Copernicus Climate Change Service. Fire Danger Indicators for Europe from 1970 to 2098 Derived from Climate Projections (2020). https://doi.org/10.24381/CDS.CA755DE7.Flannigan, M. D. et al. Fuel moisture sensitivity to temperature and precipitation: Climate change implications. Clim. Change 134, 59–71 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fargeon, H. et al. Projections of fire danger under climate change over France: Where do the greatest uncertainties lie?. Clim. Change 160, 479–493 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rovithakis, A. et al. Future climate change impact on wildfire danger over the Mediterranean: The case of Greece. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 045022 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iturbide, M. et al. An update of IPCC climate reference regions for subcontinental analysis of climate model data: Definition and aggregated datasets. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 2959–2970 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Experimental design and crop managementField experiments were conducted at Chengyang Agricultural Experimental Station, Qingdao, China (36°18′ 11″/N, 120°21′ 13″/E) in 2019 and 2020. The soil type in the field was brown loam that contained 22.76 g kg−1 organic matter, 82.39 mg kg−1 alkali-hydrolysable N, 25.10 mg kg−1 Olsen-P and 94.89 mg kg−1 exchangeable K. The test cultivars of maize were Jinhai5 with strong lodging resistance and Xundan20 with weak lodging resistance, which were repeated four times in plots laying out in randomized block designs. Plant density was 7.5 plants / m2 with the row spacing of 60 cm. the plot consisted of 8 rows length of 15 m. Two–three seeds per hole were manually sowed at 5 cm on 20 April 2019 and 24 April 2020, and the seedlings were thinned to the target planting density at V2, and harvested on 10 September and 14 September, respectively. Fertilization and irrigation management followed local production practices in maize.Sampling and measurementPlant samples were taken at V8, V12, R1, R2 and R6. Ten typical plants of each tested cultivars were selected to be subjected to mechanical and above-ground morphological measurements at each sampling. The other three maize plants were used to measure morphological traits of roots. Xundan20 was seriously damaged due to the storm in the late stage of maize growth in 2020, resulting in the missing data for physiological maturity.Determination of leaf area vertical distributionLeaf area of expanded leaves each was computed by the coefficient method: Single leaf area = length * width * 0.75. Leaf area for unexpanded leaves was estimated by the leaf weight method. Leaf area per plant was the sum of all individual green leaf areas. Leaf height is the height from the ground to the leaf collar position of maize.Determination of max root side-pulling resistanceSample plants were surrounded with water-proof steel devices inserted into underground, and watered to soil moisture over saturation at one day before mechanical testing. When measured, due to the limited space, all leaves of sample plants are removed in order to improve the measurement accuracy. The defoliated stalks were immobilized by a pair of lengthwise steel clamps to prevent stalks from bending (Fig. 7). After the digital pole dynamometer18 with a 1.5 m long slider and a main unit was linked to the stalks at a height of 80 cm away from the ground, the operator by hand pulled at a slow and uniform speed until the roots were pulled out. Records of load force, declination angle and sensor position were automatically stored in main unit during this operation. The peak value of forces, extracted from records, was taken as the max root side-pulling resistance.Figure 7Schematic diagram for measuring max root side-pulling resistance.Full size imageRoot anti-lodging indexBased on the method of Cui et al.6, the force value comparison is changed to the moment value comparison to calculate root anti-lodging index:$${text{AL}}_{root} = M_{root} / , M_{wind} = F_{root} / , F_{wind}$$
(1)
where M root is the root failure moment, M wind is the wind resultant moment. Root anti-lodging index indicates the ability of plants to resist root lodging. The larger its value is, the stronger the resistance is, and vice versa.$${text{M}}_{root} = F , *d$$
(2)
where F is the max root side-pulling resistance, d is moment arm, i.e., the length of force arm. As a component of root anti-lodging index, the root failure moment represents the ability of the root system to resist lateral pulling. The greater its value is, the better the resistance is, and vice versa.With the base of the stem as the fulcrum,$${text{M}}_{wind} = sum 0.{5}CA_{i} rho V^{2} h_{i}$$
(3)
where C is coefficient of air resistance, ρ is air mass density ,V is the wind speed , Ai is the area of a single leaf , hi is the height of leaf, ∑ represents to sum up over all leaves. C value is set to be 0.219. When encountering wind speed at grade 6 or higher, maize is more prone to lodging. Unless stated explicitly, the following analysis was limited to the upper wind speed for grade 6 wind20.Root morphological traitsThe number and length of all primary nodal roots were measured. Root-soil balls each of two or three tested plants were obtained after lateral root-pulling testing. The images of the three frontal sides, 120 degrees apart from each other, of the root-soil balls were taken using a digital camera. Ball volumes were then evaluated by considering them to be rotationally symmetric. Average volumes were used for further analysis.Single root tensile resistanceRoots after counting the number of nodal roots were used to measure the single root tensile resistance. First, clean the dust off roots. Then, diameters of roots were determined with a vernier caliper. Single root tensile resistance was measured by HF-500 digital push–pull apparatus. Fixed the upper and lower ends of the root, then one end moved slowly and uniformly, the other end was still until the root breaks. The peak tension force displayed by the instrument was taken as the single root tensile resistance.Statistical analysisBased on variance analysis, the Tukey method was used to compare the differences among means. The logarithmic transformation of variables was carried out to improve the homogeneity of error variance if appropriate.The substantive effect or influence of various factors on the response variable can be expressed by effect size of factors, which can be calculated under the framework of variance analysis. Effect size is the proportion of the effect of a certain factor in the total effect, which is a dimensionless number21,22,23.The formula for calculating effect size of factors is:$$omega^{2} = frac{{df_{effect} times left( {MS_{effect} – MS_{error} } right)}}{{SS_{total} + MS_{error} }}$$
(4)
where df is the degree of freedom, MS represents mean square.Two conceptual models were used when dealing with effect size. One model was of components, i.e., taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (1):$${text{LOG}}left( {{text{AL}}_{{{text{root}}}} } right) , = {text{ LOG}}left( {{text{M}}_{{{text{root}}}} } right) , + {text{ LOG}}left( {{text{M}}_{{{text{wind}}}} } right)$$
(5)
where LOG denotes logarithmic transformation.The other was the factorial model, i.e.,$${text{factors affecting AL}}_{{{text{root}}}} = {text{ wind grade }} + {text{ cultivar }} + {text{ growth stage}}$$
(6)
Experimental research and field studies on plants including the collection of plant materialThe authors declare that the cultivation of plants and carrying out study in Chengyang Agricultural Experimental Station complies with all relevant institutional, national and international guidelines and treaties.Statement of permissions and/or licenses for collection of plant or seed specimensThe authors declare that the seed specimens used in this study are publicly accessible seed materials and we were given explicit written permission to use them for this research. More

The conceptual flow chart of the process is provided in Fig. 1. We used seven reanalysis SM data (Table 2) masked with soil temperature (ST) and soil freeze/thaw status to calculate water table depth, i.e. the input of TOPMODEL, given the obvious disagreements between the input datasets. The diagnostic algorithms based on TOPMODEL were used following Stocker et al. (ref. 20) and Xi et al. (ref. 25), where the optimized parameters were calibrated with long-term maximum wetland areas from four observation-based wetland datasets (Table 1). Details about these datasets and computational processing are shown as follows.Fig. 1Diagram of workflow for parameter calibration and the simulation of global wetland dynamics.Full size imageTable 2 Key characteristics of seven global soil moisture reanalysis data used in this study.Full size tableReanalysis soil moisture datasetsSeven long-term reanalysis SM datasets used in this study include NCEP-DOE (National Centers for Environmental Prediction-the Department of Energy)26, MERRA-Land (the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications)27, MERRA-2 (ref. 28), GLDAS-Noah v2.0 (the Global Land Data Assimilation System)29, GLDAS-Noah v2.1 (ref. 29), ERA5 (European Environment Agency)30,31, and ERA5-Land30,31. Key characteristics of the seven SM data are listed in Table 2. The datasets differ by their spatial and temporal resolutions, the time-period they cover, as well as the definition of the soil layers. More details are provided for each dataset below.

NCEP-DOE
NCEP-DOE is an updated version of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis 1 project, which uses a state-of-the-art analysis/forecast system to perform data assimilation with past data from 1948 to the present32. NCEP-DOE features the newer physics and observed SM forcing and also eliminates several previous errors, such as oceanic albedo and snowmelt term during the entire period, and snow cover analysis error from 1974 to 1994 (ref. 26). With a spatial resolution of about 210 km, there are two vertical soil layers in NCEP-DOE for both SM and ST: 0–0.1 and 0.1–2 m.

MERRA-Land and MERRA-2
MERRA-Land soil moisture is generated by driving the Goddard Earth Observing System model version 5.7.2 (GEOS-5.7.2) with meteorological forcing from the MERRA reanalysis product27. The precipitation forcing in MERRA-Land merges MERRA precipitation with a gauge-based data product from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, and the Catchment land surface model used in MERRA-Land is updated to the “Fortuna-2.5” version27. MERRA-2 intends to replace the original MERRA reanalysis and ingests important new data types28. The Catchment model in MERRA-2 has been updated with rainfall interception and snow model parameters of MERRA-Land, and the precipitation correction is a refined version of MERRA-Land. For MERRA-Land and MERRA-2, there is only one layer for SM from the surface to the bedrock, with “depth-to-rock” depending on local conditions. ST is computed on six vertical soil layers: 0–0.10, 0.10–0.29, 0.29–0.68, 0.68–1.44, 1.44–2.95, and 2.95–12.95 m.

ERA5 and ERA5-Land
ERA5 is the fifth generation ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) reanalysis of global climate and weather, replacing ERA-Interim30,31. Based on a decade of developments in model dynamics and data assimilation, there is a significantly enhanced horizontal resolution (31 km), temporal resolution (hourly) and uncertainty estimation. ERA5 covers 1979–2020 and continues to be updated in near-real-time. ERA5-Land is produced with a finer horizontal resolution of 9 km by running the land component of the ERA5 climate reanalysis but without data assimilation. By March of 2021, the ERA5-Land outputs are only available since 1981. SM and ST are computed on four vertical soil layers (0–0.07, 0.07–0.28, 0.28–1, and 1–2.89 m) for both ERA5 and ERA5-Land.

GLDAS-Noah v2.0 and GLDAS-Noah v2.1

GLDAS is a global, moderate-resolution (0.25° × 0.25°) offline terrestrial modeling system developed by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction29, thus similar to ERA5. To produce optimal fields of land surface variables in near-real-time, it incorporates satellite- and ground-based observations. GLDAS-Noah drives the Noah land surface model and has two components: one forced with the Princeton meteorological forcing data (i.e. GLDAS-Noah v2.0) and the other forced with a combination of model and observation (i.e. GLDAS-Noah v2.1). GLDAS-Noah v2.0 covers the period 1948–2014, while GLDAS-Noah v2.1 is available from 2000 to the present. There are four vertical layers in the Noah land surface model for both ST and SM: 0–0.1, 0.1–0.4, 0.4–1, and 1–2 m.Observation-based wetland/flooded area dataIn terms of large uncertainties in current wetland datasets (Table 1) we selected four widely used and available satellite/satellite-based wetland/flooded area data including GIEMS-2 (ref. 14), RFW (the Regularly Flooded Wetland map)10, WAD2M (a global dataset of Wetland Area and Dynamics for Methane Modeling)33, and G2017 (the pantropical wetland extent from an expert system model)9 for parameter calibration. Among them, GIEMS-2 and WAD2M include monthly wetland dynamics, while RFW and G2017 are static. The comparison of the four wetland datasets is shown in Supplementary Fig. 1; details on each data are provided below.

GIEMS-2
The GIEMS-1 is the first global estimate of monthly inundated areas, derived from passive microwave land surface emissivity34. With a 0.25° × 0.25° resolution, GIEMS-1 documents a mean annual maximum inundated area of 9.5 Mkm2 for 1993–2007 (including open water, wetlands, and rice paddies, but excluding large lakes), which shows good agreement with existing independent, static inventories as well as regional high-resolution synthetic aperture radar observations34. Based on similar retrieval principles with GIEMS-1, GIEMS-2 is developed to less depend on ancillary data with an updated microwave emissivity, and correct a known overestimation over low vegetated areas from GIEMS-1 (ref. 14). The period is extended to 1992–2015 for GIEMS-2 and can be updated with the availability of observations. Globally, the mean annual maximum and long-term maximum inundated extent after removing the rice paddies using the Monthly Irrigated and Rainfed Crop Areas dataset (MIRCA2000)35 for the period 1992–2015 are 6.7 and 10.9 million km2 (hereafter Mkm2; sum of mean annual maximum or long-term maximum inundated extent for each grid cell) respectively. The rice paddies are removed here as they are not natural wetlands and cannot be simulated with TOPMODEL.

RFW
RFW is a static, high-resolution map (15 arc-sec) of regularly flooded wetlands, developed by overlapping flooded areas (permanent wetlands and flooded vegetation classes) for 2008–2012 from the ESA-CCI land cover map36, mean annual maximum inundated areas (including wetlands, rivers, small lakes, and irrigated rice) for 1993–2004 from GIEMS-D15 global inundation extent (downscaled using GIEMS-1)37, and long-term maximum surface water areas for 1984–2015 from JRC global surface water bodies product13. The large permanent lakes and reservoirs are distinguished using the HydroLAKES database38. Globally, RFW covers 9.7% of the land surface area (~13.0 Mkm2) including wetlands, river channels, deltas, and flooded lake margins, but excluding large lakes10. Due to the mean annual maximum or long-term maximum inundation/surface water extent for 1984–2016 from the three wetland data is used, we treated RFW as the long-term maximum wetland extent in this study. Besides, given that GIEMS-D15 includes artificial rice paddies, we removed them with MIRCA2000 from RFW (~11.9 Mkm2 after removing rice paddies).

WAD2M
WAD2M dataset used in this study is an improved version of the SWAMPS v3.2 from Jensen et al. (ref. 15), covering the years 2000 to 2018. With a spatial resolution of 25 km × 25 km, this data was used as input wetland area data of phase 2 of the Global Methane Budget33. Given that the initial SWAMPS failed to detect wetlands lacking surface inundation and to differentiate between lakes, wetlands, and other surface water bodies, Zhang et al. (ref. 33) modified it using a series of independent static wetland distribution data7,9,39,40,41 in an attempt to include missing wetlands under dense canopies. Besides, they removed inland waters (lakes, rivers, and ponds) and rice agriculture with JRC and MIRCA2000, respectively. Globally, the mean annual maximum and long-term maximum wetland extent for the period 2000–2018 estimated by WAD2M are 8.1 Mkm2 and 13.2 Mkm2 (sum of mean annual maximum or long-term maximum inundated extent for each grid cell) respectively.

G2017

G2017 (ref. 9) is a static, pantropical wetland and peatland extent map (covering 60°S–40°N) at 232 m × 232 m resolution, derived from a hybrid expert model system. With three biophysical indices related to wetland and peat formation (long-term water supply exceeding atmospheric water demand, annually or seasonally waterlogged soils, and geomorphological position where water is supplied and retained), G2017 identifies not only permanently and seasonally wetland areas, but also soil wetness and topographic conditions that favor waterlogging in the absence of flooding for the end of the 20th century. Given the broad coverage of different types of wetlands, we also treated this map as long-term maximum wetland areas. This ‘pantropical’ data (60°S to 40°N) offers the advantage to include non-flooded wetland areas that are missed in satellite-based wetland products. However, note that not all detected wetlands or peatlands in G2017 have been observed. Rice agriculture was also removed with MIRCA2000 from G2017. The resulting wetland and peatland area for 60°S–40°N is 4.0 Mkm2.The TOPMODEL-based diagnostic modelTOPMODEL as improved by Stocker et al. (ref. 20) and Xi et al. (ref. 25) was used to calculate the inundated fraction from WTD at grid-scale in this study. Based on the assumptions that the local hydraulic gradient is approximated by the local topographic slope and the water table variations can be assimilated to a succession of steady states with uniform recharge, the classical TOPMODEL establishes an analytical relationship between the soil moisture deficit and the distributions of local topographic index within a catchment. At grid-scale, the analytical relationship can be represented as:$$CT{I}_{i}-overline{CT{I}_{x}}=mathrm{-M}left({{Gamma }}_{i}-overline{{{Gamma }}_{x}}right)$$
(1)
where CTI indicates the topographic index, defined as the log of the ratio of contributing area to the local slope. We used the CTI data at 500 m × 500 m resolution from Marthews et al. (ref. 22), where lakes, reservoirs, mountain glaciers, and ice caps are removed using the Global Lakes and Wetlands Database7. The (overline{CT{I}_{x}}) indicates the average of CTIi of all sub-grids (index i) within the grid cell x. M indicates a tunable parameter that describes the exponential decrease of soil transmissivity with depth21. Γi is the water table of the pixel i and (overline{{{Gamma }}_{{x}}}) is the mean water table of the grid x. When Γi is at the soil surface (i.e. Γi = 0), the threshold (CT{I}_{x}^{* }) above which all pixels are flooded for the grid x is derived:$$CT{I}_{x}^{* }=overline{CT{I}_{x}}+{rm{M}}cdot overline{{{Gamma }}_{x}}$$
(2)
The wetlands area is defined as the flooded areas (i.e. Γ ≤ 0), the flooded fraction in the grid x (fx) being the percentage of pixels with CTIi larger than a threshold (CT{I}_{x}^{* }):$${f}_{x}=frac{1}{{A}_{x}}{sum }_{i}{A}_{i}^{* }$$with$${A}_{i}^{* }=left{begin{array}{c}{A}_{i},if,CT{I}_{i}ge CT{I}_{x}^{* }\ 0,if,CT{I}_{i} < CT{I}_{x}^{* }end{array}right.$$ (3) To reduce the computational costs from the high-resolution CTI data for predicting long time series of wetland area, we used the asymmetric sigmoid function from Stocker et al. (ref. 20) to fit the “empirical” relationship (widehat{{Psi }}) between (widehat{f}) and Γ:$${{rm{psi }}}_{x}left({{Gamma }}_{x}right)={left(1+{v}_{x}cdot {e}^{-{k}_{x}left({{Gamma }}_{x}-{q}_{x}right)}right)}^{-1/{v}_{x}}$$ (4) where vx, kx, qx are three parameters of the function. Given a value of parameter M, the three parameters can be derived with a sequence of Γx spanning a plausible range of values (−1 m to 2 m) and corresponding fx from the initial TOPMODEL approach (Eq. (3)). Thus, the wetlands in our study are defined as the flooded area simulated by TOPMODEL. As for the range of parameter M, Stocker et al. (ref. 20) used a global uniform value for M (M = 8) after testing simulated wetland fraction for a range of M (7, 8, 9). Nevertheless, given that distinct topography, soil types, and other intrinsic characteristics in different regions, we considered M as a tunable, spatially heterogeneous, and grid-specific parameter, with a range of 1–15 following Xi et al. (ref. 25). Thus, for each grid cell x there are 15 choices for M, and then 15 sets of (vx, kx, qx). The optimized parameter combination of (vx, kx, qx) is determined by selecting minimum root-mean-square-error (RMSE) between simulated inundated fractions and observations:$$RMSE=sqrt{frac{{sum }_{i=1}^{n}{left({O}_{i}-{P}_{i}right)}^{2}}{n}}$$ (5) where Oi and Pi are observed and simulated wetland fraction, respectively. n represents the time-series length for wetland extent. For simulations calibrated with RFW and G2017, the RMSE was computed with the long-term maximum (hereafter called MAX) monthly wetland area because the two data sets are static and only record the MAX wetland extent. While for simulations calibrated with GIEMS-2 and WAD2M which include temporal variations of wetland area, we calibrated the parameters with all months, mean seasonal cycle, yearly maximum, and MAX wetland area, but only showed the optimal simulations calibrated with MAX wetland area in this work to keep consistency with RFW and G2017. Besides, to provide more choices for users, we combined all of the four wetland datasets (i.e. the union of long-term maximum wetland extent) to generate a new wetland map (hereafter called MAX_all), and then used the MAX_all to calibrate the parameters to produce seven sets of global wetland extent products with seven soil moisture datasets. The simulations calibrated with yearly maximum wetland area from GIEMS-2 and WAD2M and long-term maximum wetland area from MAX_all are also provided in our resulting products.Finally, to avoid unrealistically high wetland fraction output from the function, the simulated maximum wetland fraction fx is constrained by the observed MAX wetland area with a parameter ({f}_{x}^{max}) (Eq. (6)), which is different from Stocker et al. (ref. 20). The determination of ({f}_{x}^{max}) is analyzed in the supplemental material in detail (Supplementary Text 1). Once the value of (vx, kx, qx) are determined, the wetland fraction fx can be directly derived from the monthly water table Γx according to Eqs. (4) and (6).$${f}_{x}=minleft({{Psi }}_{x}left({{Gamma }}_{x}right),{f}_{x}^{max}right)$$ (6) Calculation of water table depthWater table depth is not computed by land surface models, given their coarse soil vertical discretization. We thus used the saturation deficit of soil moisture (θSD) as a surrogate of water table depth, θSD being defined as an index consisting of saturated volumetric water content and the “actual” soil depth modified by soil freeze/thaw status:$${theta }_{SD}={z}_{{l}_{0}}-{sum }_{l=1}^{{l}_{0}}{theta }_{l}cdot frac{Delta {z}_{l}}{{theta }_{S}}$$ (7) Subscript l represents the lth soil layer, l0 is the number of layers above the first frozen soil layer counted from the top (l = 1 at the soil surface), θl is the monthly volumetric water content in the lth soil layer (m3 m−3), (Delta {z}_{l}) is the thickness of the lth soil layer (m), θS is the saturated volumetric water content (in m3 m−3 units, uniform over depth).As formulated in Eq. (7), ({z}_{{l}_{0}}) is the thickness of all soil layers (or depth to bedrock) when there is no frozen soil layer. If there exists at least one frozen layer, ({z}_{{l}_{0}}) is set to the depth of the uppermost frozen soil layer. We excluded the frozen soil layers here given that some important wetland processes such as methane production and transport are insignificant when the soils are frozen. In high latitudes, the presence of frozen soil layers may lead to an overestimation of the wetland fraction due to relatively large θSD values even if there is little liquid soil water above the uppermost frozen soil layer. Hence, we used monthly soil temperature (ST) at 70 cm, the Global Record of Daily Landscape Freeze/Thaw Status data42, and the Köppen climate classification system43 to refine the frozen mask. When the monthly mean ST at 70 cm is below 0 °C, or soil freezing days are more than 5 in a month, or the grid is classified as the Hot desert (BWh) in the Köppen climate classification system, the wetland fraction for the grid is set to zero. However, it should be noted that the algorithm using the ST at 70 cm could omit some unfrozen soil layers above 70 cm, which could lead to bias in estimation of methane emissions from these unfrozen layers. We provided the global wetland maps in our resulting products, but the potential uncertainties in wetland estimation due to the omitted unfrozen layers should be considered, particularly at high latitudes. We used seven reanalysis SM products to compute θSD to provide the uncertainty in SM input (Table 2). All data are re-interpolated to 0.25° × 0.25° resolution.Evaluation against wetland calibration data and independent satellite productsAlthough we calibrated parameters of the TOPMODEL-based diagnostic model with the observation-based wetland data, to what extent the simulations can reproduce the spatial patterns and temporal dynamics of the calibration wetland data must be evaluated. For spatial patterns, we calculated the RMSE of wetland area between our simulations and corresponding wetland calibration data following Eq. (5), and evaluated the spatial patterns of simulated wetland extent in two wetland hotspots including Amazon basin and Western Siberia lowlands with three independent global/regional water products. For Amazon basin, we used the global surface water dataset from JRC13 (optical satellite images) and the wetland map produced using mosaics of Japanese Earth Resources Satellite (JERS-1) L-band SAR imagery from Hess et al. (ref. 44, hereafter H2015). For West Siberian lowlands, we used JRC and the Boreal–Arctic Wetland and Lake Dataset (BAWLD, only covers the north of ~55°N) produced using an expert assessment and extrapolated using random forest modelling from climate, topography, soils, permafrost conditions, vegetation, wetlands, and surface water extents and dynamics45. For temporal dynamics, since we only used the static wetland area (long-term maximum) from all of the four observation-based wetland products to calibrate parameters, the simulated temporal dynamics can be evaluated with the two dynamic wetland products (GIEMS-2 and WAD2M). Besides, we also used the terrestrial water storage (TWS) from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), which retrieves relative change in TWS from the monthly anomalies of the Earth’s gravity field for 2003–2016 measured by the twin GRACE satellites46,47 to evaluate the simulated temporal dynamics. More

Liu, H. et al. Optimal nitrogen input for higher efficiency and lower environmental impacts of winter wheat production in China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 224, 1–11 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guang-hao, L., Gui-gen, C., Wei-ping, L. & Da-lei, L. Differences of yield and nitrogen use efficiency under different applications of slow-release fertilizer in spring maize. J. Integr. Agric. 20(2), 554–564 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, V. V. Role of Rhizospheric Microbes in Soil 377–398 (Springer, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
Ullah, A. et al. Factors affecting the adoption of organic farming in Peshawar-Pakistan. Agric. Sci. 6(06), 587–593 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Cui, Z. et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555(7696), 363–366 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528(7580), 51–59 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alzaidi, A. A., Baig, M. B. & Elhag, E. A. An investigation into the farmers ’ attitudes towards organic farming in Riyadh Region–Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 19(3), 426–431 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Zhihui, W. et al. Combined applications of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers with manure increase maize yield and nutrient uptake via stimulating root growth in a long-term experiment. Pedosphere 26(1), 62–73 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guang-hao, L., Gui-gen, C., Wei-ping, L. & Da-lei, L. Differences of yield and nitrogen use efficiency under different applications of slow release fertilizer in spring maize. J. Integr. Agric. 20(2), 554–564 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zant, W. Is organic fertilizer going to be helpful in bringing a green revolution to sub-Saharan Africa? Economic explorations for Malawi agriculture (Working Paper). International House Hold Survey Network (2010).Barman, M., Paul, S., Choudhury, A. G., Roy, P. & Sen, J. Biofertilizer as prospective input for sustainable agriculture in India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 6(11), 1177–1186 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalhapure, A. H., Shete, B. T. & Dhonde, M. B. Integrated nutrient management in maize (Zea Mays L.) for increasing production with sustainability. Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 4(3), 2249–3050 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Nazli, R. I., Kuşvuran, A., Inal, I., Demirbaş, A. & Tansi, V. Effects of different organic materials on forage yield and quality of silage maize (Zea mays L.). Turk. J. Agric. For. 38(1), 23–31 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Niu, Z. et al. Total factor productivity growth in china’s corn farming: an application of generalized productivity indicator. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 22(5), 1189–1208 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Wesenbeeck, C. F. A., Keyzer, M. A., van Veen, W. C. M. & Qiu, H. Can China’s overuse of fertilizer be reduced without threatening food security and farm incomes?. Agric. Syst. 190, 103093 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ji, Y., Liu, H. & Shi, Y. Will China’s fertilizer use continue to decline? Evidence from LMDI analysis based on crops, regions and fertilizer types. PLoS ONE 15, e0237234 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiao, X. et al. Grain production versus resource and environmental costs: towards increasing sustainability of nutrient use in China. J. Exp. Bot. 67(17), 4935–4949 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sher, A. et al. Response of maize grown under high plant density; performance, issues and management: a critical review. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 5(3), 1–8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
De-yang, S. H. I. et al. Increased plant density and reduced N rate lead to more grain yield and higher resource utilization in summer maize. J. Integr. Agric. 15(11), 2515–2528 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Du, X., Wang, Z., Lei, W. & Kong, L. Increased planting density combined with reduced nitrogen rate to achieve high yield in maize. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–12 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, T., Zhang, W., Yin, J., Chadwick, D., Norse, D., Lu, Y., Liu, X., Chen, X., Zhang, F., Powlson, D., & Dou, Z. Enhanced-efficiency fertilizers are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem (2017).Adu-gyamfi, R. et al. One-time fertilizer briquettes application for maize production in savanna agroecologies of Ghana. Soil Fertil. Crop Prod. 111(6), 3339–3350 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, C. et al. Optimal nitrogen application rates of one-time root zone fertilization and the effect of reducing nitrogen application on summer maize. Sustainability 11, 2979 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, C. et al. One-time root-zone N fertilization increases maize yield, NUE and reduces soil N losses in lime concretion black soil. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–10 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Li, G., Zhao, B., Dong, S., Liu, P. & Vyn, T. J. Impact of controlled release urea on maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency under different water conditions. PLoS ONE 12(7), 1–16 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Sikora, J. et al. Assessment of the efficiency of nitrogen slow-release fertilizers in integrated production of carrot depending on fertilization strategy. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(5), 1–10 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Tian, C. et al. Effects of a controlled-release fertilizer on yield, nutrient uptake, and fertilizer usage efficiency in early ripening rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). J. Zhejian Univ. Sci. B (Biomed. Biotechnol.) 17(14), 775–786 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tong, D. & Xu, R. Effects of urea and ( NH4)2SO4 on nitrification and acidification of Ultisols from Southern China. J. Environ. Sci. 24(4), 682–689 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
El-rokiek, K. G., Ahmed, S. A. & Abd-elsamad, E. E. H. Effect of adding urea or ammonium sulphate on some herbicides efficiency in controlling weeds in onion plants. J. Am. Sci. 6(11), 536–543 (2010).
Google Scholar 
FAO. Guidelines for soil description. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, (2006).Landon, J. Booker Tropical Soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agriculture Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics (2013).Zhao, R. F. et al. Fertilization and nitrogen balance in a wheat-maize rotation system in North China. Agron. J. 98(4), 938–945 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, S. et al. Estimation of nitrogen supply for summer maize production through a long-term field trial in china. Agronomy 11(7), 1358 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dong, Y. J. et al. Effects of new coated release fertilizer on the growth of maize. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 16(3), 637–649 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ngosong, C., Bongkisheri, V., Tanyi, C. B., Nanganoa, L. T. & Tening, A. S. Optimizing nitrogen fertilization regimes for sustainable maize (Zea mays L.) production on the volcanic soils of Buea Cameroon. Adv. Agric. 2019, 1–8 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Su, W., Ahmad, S., Ahmad, I. & Han, Q. Nitrogen fertilization affects maize grain yield through regulating nitrogen uptake, radiation and water use efficiency, photosynthesis and root distribution. PeerJ 8, 1–21 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sainju, U. M, Ghimire, R., & Pradhan, G.P. Nitrogen Fertilization I: Impact on Crop, Soil, and Environment. IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86028 (2020).Sha, Z. et al. Effect of N stabilizers on fertilizer-N fate in the soil-crop system: a meta- analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 290 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Chen, K. & Vyn, T. J. Post-silking factor consequences for N efficiency changes over 38 years of commercial maize hybrids. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01737 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jia, X. P. et al. Farmer’s adoption of improved nitrogen management strategies in maize production in China: an experimental knowledge training. J. Integr. Agric. 12(2), 364–373 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amanullah,. Rate and timing of nitrogen application influence partial factor productivity and agronomic NUE of maize (Zea mays L.) planted at low and high densities on calcareous soil in northwest Pakistan. J. Plant Nutr. 39(5), 683–690 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Draman, A., Almas, L. K. Partial factor productivity, agronomic efficiency, and economic analyses of maize in wheat-maize cropping system in Pakistan. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, 2009 (January 2009).Yan, P. et al. Interaction between plant density and nitrogen management strategy in improving maize grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency on the North China Plain. Agric. Sci. 154, 978–988 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oenema, O. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) an indicator for the utilization of nitrogen in food systems. EU Nitrogen Expert Panel, January 2017, 1–4 (2015).Venterea, R. T., Coulter, J. A. & Dolan, M. S. Evaluation of intensive “4R” strategies for decreasing nitrous oxide emissions and nitrogen surplus in rainfed corn. J. Environ. Qual. 45(4), 1186–1195 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C., Ju, X., Powlson, D., Oenema, O. & Smith, P. Nitrogen surplus benchmarks for controlling N pollution in the main cropping systems of China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53(12), 6678–6687 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Koop, G. & Steel, M. F. J. Multiple-output production with undesirable outputs multiple-output production with undesirable outputs : an application to nitrogen surplus in agriculture. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97(458), 432–442 (2013).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Børsting, C. F., Kristensen, T., Misciattelli, L., Hvelplund, T. & Weisbjerg, M. R. Reducing nitrogen surplus from dairy farms. Effects of feeding and management. Livest. Prod. Sci. 83(2–3), 165–178 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liang, K. et al. Reducing nitrogen surplus and environmental losses by optimized nitrogen and water management in double rice cropping system of South China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 286, 106680 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Klages, S. et al. Nitrogen surplus-a unified indicator for water pollution in Europe?. Water (Switzerland) 12(4), 1197 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muratoglu, A. Grey water footprint of agricultural production: an assessment based on nitrogen surplus and high-resolution leaching runoff fractions in Turkey. Sci. Total Environ. 742, 140553 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Niemiec, M. & Komorowska, M. The use of slow-release fertilizers as a part of optimization of celeriac production technology. Agric. Eng. 22(2), 59–68 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Ranum, P., Peña-Rosas, J. P. & Garcia-Casal, M. N. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1312(1), 105–112 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
HLPE. Biofules and food security. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome (2013).Karp, A., Beale, M. H., Beaudoin, F. & Eastmond, P. J. Growing innovations for the bioeconomy. Nat. Plants https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.193 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chavarria, H., Trigo, E., Villarreal, F., Elverdin, P., & Piñeiro, V. Policy brief bioeconomy: a sustainable development strategy task force 10 sustainable energy, water, and food systems. T20, Saudi Arabia (2020). More